Wikipedia talk:Administrators

LOL

"Administrators assume these responsibilities as volunteers; they are not employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. 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."

Is that really in the official rules? It's what they do all day long. Find an article they are passionate about, then prevent anyone from changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.136.29 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 4 December 2009

Help Croatian grammar

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

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

• Croatian language
• Croatian language code

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

Unlock pages

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

"Desysop" Definition

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

WP:MOD

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

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

Get rid of "involved administrator" rule.

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

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

This would solve a lot of problems.

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

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

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

• WP:UNINVOLVED is clear: "This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen to have a conflict of interest in conflicts they have been a party to or have strong feelings about". So an admin who simply researches the issue before acting is do a good job. An uninvolved admin can block the same user indefinite times. An involved admin is one that has shown strong feelings about the user, possibly before the admin got the bit, or strong feelings about the issue, e.g. an article. --Philcha (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Blocking many times is a silly thing to do. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I've had to block repeat copyright infringers many times. I usually start with a short warning block and proceed towards indefinite if they won't stop. It doesn't seem like a silly thing to do. :) Repeat infringers don't make me mad or anything; I don't become emotionally involved. But blocking them is important (federally mandated, even), and having to find a different administrator to do it each time seems like unnecessary busywork. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Warning blocks are silly. Get the person who was blocked to promise not to do it again. If they won't, they should be indeffed. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Temporary copyright blocks sometimes do work. People make a lot of promises they don't intend to keep, and a block brings home that policy will be enforced. Most of the indef blocks I've seen for copyvios, while often unavoidable, lead to socking. If people are vested in their identity, the threat of losing it can work to protect the project from disruption. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
          • • I'd argue that if ONE temporary copyright block works, it works. If you unblock and they start up again, get a second admin to indef. Simple. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
              • Or a waste of my time and another administrator's time that offers no possible benefit. (Note, though: you don't have to unblock a temporary block; it just expires.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
                • That's laziness, IMHO. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
                  • I would suggest that's a profound lack of familiarity with the workload in copyright cleanup. Creating hurdles that interfere with efficient work with no demonstrated need is not useful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So you're telling me that quick short blocks do the trick all the time? No problems at all. You're happy? I guess an exception for copyright work could be made then. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• No; I'm telling you that limiting the tools in the arsenal against copyright violators (the area I know) for no demonstrable good reason serves no benefit to the project. I don't see that you've yet demonstrated how it helps in combatting BLP issues or 3RR issues or any of the other standard blocks we encounter. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  I just have seen a lot of evidence pile up that WP:INVOLVED is a headache. I'm surprised that you think blocking the same account many, many times for various lengths is a reasonable thing to have single administrators do. I guess I'll put it another way: there are two kinds of blocks in Wikipedia: blocks that the vast majority of the community thinks are reasonable and blocks that are ridiculously contentious. Most of the argument over the contentious blocks happens because of WP:UNINVOLVED. I don't see how that particular piece of the administration policy helps you since you're essentially ALWAYS uninvolved when it comes to blocking fly-by-nighters. The issue is that WP:INVOLVED cannot be objectively decided. Maybe my proposal isn't good for the reasons you're trying to explain, but the issue is that this part of the administrator policy has only two functions: 1) Irrelevance and 2) to allow people to argue. What good is such a policy? ScienceApologist (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  There may be good cause to consider better approaches to WP:INVOLVED, but your suggested handling here, as I've indicated below, seems only to add unnecessary red tape in the blocks which are not contentious. There's not enough hours in the day to get the work done as it is. I'm not sure what a good solution to the problem you're trying to address here would be; my mop and I tend to be hyperfocused. Perhaps some community process to simplify where INVOLVED applies, ala the rather toothless WP:WQA? Admins are by and large able to grasp consensus (or should be), and if consensus is that they are involved, they ought to then have the sense to stay away. Yes, I'm suggesting that more process may be the solution, but I think it would be better than imposing additional process (find another admin) across the board. The admins who watch WP:CP, WP:SCV, WP:3RR, and WP:AIV generally are not "involved" to any degree, and if a name passes through multiple times shouldn't have to find somebody else to handle it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Moved from WP:VPP –xeno^talk 15:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support The "involved rule" is an intrinsically ABF rule. We ask everyone to assume good faith of all people at all times, yet presume that administrators are incapable of good faith. I've been attacked for not having a conflict of interest, but having something someone else can construe as a conflict of interest. Exacerbating the situation, saying "no, actually, I don't have any personal feelings in the matter" is seen as deceitful denial rather than exculpatory honesty. With all the talk on WP:RfA about increasing the number of administrators, getting rid of the rule would have serious, positive implications for administrator recruitment and retention. Jclemens (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I want to clarify: you support the proposal to place the following in this policy: "An administrator should block a user only once. Reblocks should be done by another administrator."? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The proposal is rather to replace the uninvolved administrators section with that text. While that text is not perfect, it does remedy several issues as I outlined. Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The proposal poses problems though too; the current rule doesn't only apply to blocks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It might be noted that I generally favor indef blocks for anything other than 3RR, to be lifted when the blocked editor acknowledges the cause of the block and agrees to change the subject behavior. Thus, I never have cause to "re-block" a user and find that the technique works well. Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh, I can't get behind that for copyright. :/ We may have no choice but to indef-block, but sockpuppeting copyright violators are a pain in the neck. We have several open WP:CCIs of contributors who have jumped from account to account, and digging through articles to figure out which account's edits need evaluation is a nightmare. I'd much rather rehabilitate when possible, and sometimes temporary blocks do work for that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Wait, what? Indefinite != infinite. Rehabilitation with indef blocks is only limited by the intransigence of the blocked editor (assuming, of course, that the block was proper in the first place). If they're socking because they're indefinitely blocked but would actually abide a short, defined-length block, that's a situation I've not personally run across before. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

          Oh, I know that, having lifted quite a few indefs myself, but quite often in practice it does = infinite. If the contributor feels that the account is not salvageable, they frequently seem to just jump to another account, where we have to identify them and mop up after them all over again. I don't want to name names, but I keep in mind one contributor who was indefinitely blocked for copyright violations, was caught socking and blocked there, came back to work through his indef block and has become a good contributor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

          • I think that in this situation the single indef-block worked properly, right? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

            No; did you miss the part where the sock was blocked? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

            Blocking socks is perfectly allowed under my hypothetical system. It's per account not per individual. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Users" are people not accounts. The language you propose says: "An administrator should block a user only once". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. So changed. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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

However, being blocked is a black mark on one's history. When I've blocked people wrongly, I've tried to make it very clear in the edit summary of the unblock, as well as on their talk page, that it was my mistake, so that it's not dredged up in future conflicts as evidence that they're a problematic editor. I suspect that allowing emotionally involved admins to block would end up damaging innocent users' reputations and cause them credibility problems later on. With the uninvolved rule, if other admins criticize the blocking admin for being involved, a previously blocked user can use that to defend their reputation.

That said, at what point would repeatedly blocking a user be considered getting involved? — kwami (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Specific interpretation of uninvolved re involvement in policy

The uninvolved administrator section contains the following language: Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. In particular the phrase disputes on topics, is unclear on this point: Does topics mean articles or does topics mean articles, policies, guidelines, and other non-article space stuff. In other words if an admin participates in policy discussions on NPOV, Notability, Verifiability, OR et.al. are they now involved in these topics and therefore cannot perform admin tasks (specifically deletion activities—closing Afd, Prods and CSD) that involve these policies?--Mike Cline (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As the primary author of that clause, I added it after my personal excoriation on the basis of intervening in the AfD participation of a user with whom I had disagreed in a separate and unrelated AfD. I essentially added it in an attempt to strengthen the wording to prevent other administrators from construing involvement narrowly, as I had, and finding themselves on the wrong side of an ANI lynch mob. Thus, it was never meant to apply to policy discussions, and it's really up to the community to decide how it should be applied in such cases. In my own mind, the former (articles only) seems the more accurate of the two interpretations. Jclemens (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mike, I think you are missing the point somewhere. While editors have WP:COI guidelines as a benchmark, administrators additionally have the 'involved' guidelines. The concept of having WP:INVOLVED is to provide administrators a reference point to ask themselves, is there a "conflict of interest" in their administrative action? As the author of this small addition, I can tell you that the link of CoI does not extend to all the metaphoric six degrees of separation. In other words, if you've discussed AfD policy and even disputed on that, it doesn't disallow you from closing AfDs. However, if you've commented within an AfD, you obviously already know that you cannot therefore close the AfD. And as far as your question on what constitutes topics, basically everything! But like JClemens says, the community should reach a consensus on that. However, I believe the scope of WP:INVOLVED extends to all areas where you can undertake any administrative action. Thanks and warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wifione - Thanks in my mind Uninvolved is pretty clear when it comes to participation in articles, related AfD or content/behavoir issues with editors. However, it is not so clear in the policy space. On more than one occasion, editors have suggested that because I have participated in List related policy discussions, that I am Involved and should not close a List related AfD (obviously lists in which I have never contributed or otherwise participated in). If that logic extended to administrators participating in any of our major policy areas discussions, we would all be very Involved. Thoughts?--Mike Cline (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mike, One could perhaps request for comment on the general issue; not your specific issue. It'll create a precedent for changing/updating WP:INVOLVED. My thoughts remain the same. If any administrator is involved in list related policy discussions, it in no way makes him/her involved in list related AfDs. Regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Croatian language and Serbian language is two different languages

Nothing to do with this page

Example; ____________________________________________________________________________________________ English If the gases in the exhaust air and Jerusalem, would be necessary measures to ensure safety! ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Croatian Glede ispušnih plinova i zagađivanja zraka u Jeruzalemu, bilo bi potrebito poduzeti mjere sigurnosti! ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Serbian (official script); У погледу издувних гасова и загађења ваздуха у Јерусалиму, било би потребно да се предузму мере безбедности! (latin script); (U pogledu izduvnih gasova i zagađenja vazduha u Jerusalimu, bilo bi potrebno da se preduzmu mere bezbednosti!) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Documents: http://www.ihjj.hr/index_en.html Institute of Croatian language http://www.cla-croatian.com/?gclid=CNvpsNiSoqMCFQI03wod4T_i5A Croatian language Academy http://www.nsk.hr/UserFiles/File/Slu%C5%BEeno%20prihva%C4%87anje%20izmjena%20ISO%20639-2%20Registration%20Authority.pdf Different languages http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_changes.php Language code list http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=292-16 Ethnologue report http://www.muturzikin.com/carteseurope/5.htm Dialects map http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Slavic_languages.png Slavic languages map http://i403.photobucket.com/albums/pp114/borna28/LANGUAGE/LangualeofEurope.png Language map of Europe http://learn-croatian.com/imenice.php Croatian grammar http://languagesofeurope.co.uk/Languagesmap.thumb.jpg Language map Eurpe-English http://languagesofeurope.co.uk/frame.page.html Croatian http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5632950-croatian-grammar New Croatian grammar http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/European_language Language and script in Europe modern and history ________________________________________________________________________________________________ PROBLEM: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croatian_grammar&oldid=359782270 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croatian_grammar&redirect=no http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_grammar http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Slavic_languages&action=historysubmit&diff=381420306&oldid=372728193 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Slavic_languages http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavic_languages&action=historysubmit&diff=381852792&oldid=381594596 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_languages Ivan Štambuk is Serbian chauvinist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ivan_%C5%A0tambuk He's a Croat. I find it revealing that you think that anyone who disagrees with you must not be. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC - INVOLVED and Policy Development

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

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

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

If a sysop involves themselves in specific policy/guideline development does that now make them INVOLVED when those policies/guidelines are invoked/interpreted in an AfD. A few Examples:

• If a sysop participates in WP:N, WP:V, or WP:RS policy discussions, are they INVOLVED and thus should not close AfDs where these policies are being invoked or interpreted?
• If a sysop participates in WP:BLP policy discussions, are they INVOLVED and thus should not close AfDs involving BLPs.
• If a sysop participates in WP:NOTFILM guideline discussions, are they INVOLVED and thus should not close AfDs involving Films
• If a sysop participates in WP:List or WP:SAL guideline discussions, are they INVOLVED and thus should not close AfDs involving Lists

POLL Statement: A sysop should be considered INVOLVED if they have participated in policy/guideline discussions and thus not close AfDs in which those policies/guidelines are being invoked, interpreted or otherwise applied. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

• Disagree as RFC initiator --Mike Cline (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree strongly. Such a stance would narrow the pool of admins who can act at AfDs, thereby making AfD all the more complicated. An active admin will eventually interact in some way with all the core policies, be that taking part in a discussion such as this one (a policy discussion) or actively editing the policies themselves. From a personal perspective, I am myself heavily involved in all areas of copyright cleanup on Wikipedia: WP:C and WP:NFC both show my hand. Would this mean that I should no longer work at WP:CP or WP:CCI? If I am still to be trusted on those boards, why would I not be trusted to close an AfD where copyright violations exist? Understanding policy, even to the point of helping encode it, does not make one incapable of neutral interactions involving it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree strongly. This might knock out most of our best and most active administrators, leaving AfD closures to those with less knowledge of policy and guidelines as they haven't been involved in discussing them. And the idea that someone like Moonriddengirl shouldn't close AfDs which involve copyright problems boggles the mind. She should be involved in closing such AfDs, not excluded from them. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree the mere fact that someone has been involved in developing a policy does not mean they should be barred from helping enforce it. On the contrary, they will be the people best equipped to do so. Hut 8.5 13:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree It's quite clear that the community has to reach a consensus on whether an administrator, who has gotten involved in policy discussions, should be allowed to close AfDs, for example. My viewpoint is similar to Mike's. Administrators who get involved in policy updation discussions cannot be restricted from involving themselves at the AfD level as that is considering the scope of 'involvement' too far and wide to be reasonable. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 17:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree. This is such an idiotic idea that I'm convinced that it's a strawman argument. (I'm not going to look. If there's an editor who supports this, I really don't want to know.) Who knows the policies and guidelines better than the editors who wrote them? Why should our most informed editors be prohibited from using their knowledge for our benefit? If you care so little about the relevant guideline that you've never asked a question, answered a question, or even fixed a spelling error, why should you be considered "better" than the person who has done these things? Ignorance is not one of the WP:Principles that this community supports. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree - Unlike some content, policies and guidelines tend to have very considerable input and are not highly emotive areas. A user (any user) who edits a policy will either see that edit reversed or gaining consensus very quickly. Reference to that policy in a debate is much more likely to be communally endorsed if it has stayed in the policy. The only real exceptions are 1/ people who forum shop or edit war fanatically on specific policy issues and they will probably be quite few in number and quite well known, and 2/ cases of "edit policy then cite the change in the present case", which is a bit transparent if the change is not consensus.

  Also consider that many admins edit, discuss, and update policies and guidelines insightfully over time - since policies should reflect communal norms, maintaining them and fine tuning them over time is something admins can and should do. An admin who has improved a policy or thoughtfully participated in a policy discussion has often shown a good understanding of community views on the policy rather than any kind of adverse behavior. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

Need help publishing my page

I have been trying to publish my page for sometime now but unfortunatly I keep getting deleted can someone help me? My page is Purdy's Method. This is my website and my concept so how do I valadate my own information if it is comming from me? Please help me with this matter. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purdysmethod (talk • contribs) 18:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A big issue here is that you are starting a page for which you may have a conflict of interest WP:COI. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a resource for advertisement. There are policies dealing with articles and you have to be very careful that your article is notable WP:NOTE and does not fall under WP:ADS. Rmosler | ● 18:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding Tweet/Share button on Wiki Pages

Dear Admin(s),

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

Defining "involved" more explicitly

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

Any thoughts?  Roger Davies^talk 06:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

A recipe for wikilawyering by wikilawyers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And how is the current section not a recipe for wiki-lawyering? :)  Roger Davies ^talk 17:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that the curetn situation is open to mis-understanding. The above might hlep but why not jusy say...

• An administrator will generally be considered involved if they have recently or significantly expressed opinions about persons or situations involved in the dispute.

Much like the siuation with local councelors, if they express an view before something is revied they are considerd to have already made up thier mind and thus cannot be considerd neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Perhaps it should be made clear that ths would not apply to communications as an Admin action, but only with non admin communications.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually like Slater's suggestion above ("An administrator will generally be considered involved if they have recently or significantly expressed opinions about persons or situations involved in the dispute."). I appreciate Roger's intent, but his suggestion is indeed too imprecise. What is "the broader topic"? Science? Physics? Geophysics? Climate science? Science of the Carbon cycle? Weathering of rocks? Actions of weak acids on calcium compounds? And what are "related articles"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points here, I think.

1. A common scenario is thus: Admin A fraternises with Users B & C. Users B & C get into a dispute with User X. Admin A blocks User X as an uninvolved admin. For this scenario, Steven's definition is much too narrow and ignores too much of what else is in the section. What happens, for instance, where an admin heavily edits an article without expressing an opinion?
2. The "broader topic" depends on the context and the size/specificality of the topic. If the topic/category is small, then any article within it would qualify. If the topic is vast, baseball players or rock musicians, for example, then a closer affinity is needed. This ambiguity is already present in the current section incidentally.

Overall, the objective here is to summarise what the section says, not to reinvent the wheel.  Roger Davies ^talk10:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would add that it is unprofessional and counterproductive for an admin to express an opinion on content issues, especially while acting in an admin capacity. Yesterday, I came across this wonderful post on an enforcement page: "As an uninvolved administrator who agrees with username on actual content issues, I ..." It's like a judge presiding over an ongoing case speaking to the press and saying, "As a man who personally agrees with the defendant, ...", and then appointing himself judge in case after case involving the same defendant. Our system of jurisdiction is in need of an upgrade. --JN466 11:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Just realsied I need to put in the admin action caveat.

• An administrator will generally be considered involved if they have recently or significantly expressed opinions about persons or situations involved in the dispute. Previous interaction in a purely administrative capacity does not constitute administrator involvement.

Stealing one of Rogers ideas.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for conciseness but how would this apply in a situation where the admin's actions make it abundantly clear that they are partisan, but they don't actually express an opinion?  Roger Davies ^talk 10:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

How would that work, in a world where all we have are utterances? If the admin actions as admin actions are problematic, we have the usual review mechanisms. So I still like Slaters suggestion more than yours - it's at least as operational, and shorter. I also agree with DF (above and below) - bias is indeed what we want to avoid. But I see no good way of measuring this unless it's visible in their contributions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me revisit a point I made previously in other forums. The issue is not "involvement", and never was. The issue is "bias", or in some cases "appearance of bias" (whether or not actual bias exist). Except is very blatant cases where someone expresses their biases directly, we can't really know what is going on in someone's heart and mind. Hence we craft rules about "involvement" and other things that we can hopefully observe in the hopes of getting at the hidden biases that we can't really know. However, if one wants to talk about the core principle and aspiration, then our goal is to avoid bias. This is why I don't really like Roger's proposed nutshell. It advances specific rules (that may be open to gaming) but never actually strikes at the core of the matter. It would be better, in my opinion, to say: "Administrators should be reluctant to act in situations where they may be perceived as having a preexisting bias for or against one party or outcome. Indicators of apparent bias may include (but are not necessarily limited to) prior involvements with the issues or parties such as: X, Y, Z." Dragons flight (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Problom with that is that if tehy are going to act in a bias way then alowing them the 'reluctant' get out won't stop it. It just seems a recipy for wikilawerying of the kind that the proposal is desinged to addresss. By the yes yes I do think that any kind of interaction may indicate 'involvment'. If a admin blocks a user who has been in conflict with some of his mates, then yes ther is the clear posibility of bias.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

I have another concern. Assume we have a field where, e.g. 98% of all experts agree, and where naturally a large number of other people, looking at the evidence, will also come to a similar conclusion. Any admin who looks into the content conflict will, more likely than not, tend to come to an opinion that agrees with the expert side. That is, an informed admin will alway always be "biased". Do we want to leave enforcement issued to people who are uninformed? Or do we need to use one-shot admins ("sorry, now that you understand the issue, you are out...")? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There are pro's and con's both ways and this seems to moving into broader meta discussion areas. My proposal seeks only to distill existing longstanding policy. It doesn't change or amend it.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem with admins having a view on content, but they should keep that view private if they want to act as uninvolved admins. Content shouldn't come into it, just like it doesn't in arbcom cases. Admin decisions should be based on policies, guidelines and arbcom remedies, not content. --JN466 12:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Support addition of the preamble. Propose adding that administrators will be considered involved if they publicly express a view on the merits of the relevant content dispute. --JN466 12:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

As above, I don't really like Roger's nutshell. However, I am going to offer this specific counter-proposal for discussion:[1]. I made a temporary edit to the article to show my suggestion, which adds a more general nutshell (which I prefer for reasons outlined above) and adds a list of example problematic behavior to the text of the section rather than to the nutshell. The list is largely based on Roger's though tweaked some. Obviously the specific text can be subject to further discussion. Dragons flight (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

PS. Should probably add something about "recent" or "significant" to the wording of my list, as per the original Roger suggestion. Dragons flight (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• I like the basic idea of clarifying this, and I like the "generally" in the lead, but I too worry about wikilawyering and worry that the points as originally written would hamper our elder and more prolific admins in particular. "recently" and "significantly" goes a long way to alleviating that in the first two points. Definitions of recent and significant will vary, but I think there's some commensense in saying that a rancorous dispute that wound up at RFC/U is probably "significant"; a three exchange disagreement on a talk page yesterday may be "involvment" whereas a three exchange disagreement four years ago is probably not. With point three, the whole Six degrees of separation worries me. I like Dragons flight's proposed text on that.--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The six degrees of separation thing concerns me too (and funnily enough I used exactly that expression chatting this through with a friend last night). Roger Davies^talk 13:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Great minds, as they say. ;D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I like Dragon Flight's proposal, prefer it in fact to Roger's original one. One quibble though: in point 2, "similar topics" may be too broad (anything involving science? BLP violations?). I preferred Roger's "related articles within the broader topic". --JN466 14:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, I've just thought of a problem with point 3 that could impact my work directly. I have interacted personally with every admin on Wikipedia that I know of who has ever done copyright work and with most of the regular non-admin editors. (Can't help it; I'm friendly. Our work is tedious, and an occasional "howdy" helps.) If one of the WP:SCV editors tags an article as a copyvio and the article's creator disputes it, would I be too involved to act? Occasionally I like another admin to offer a second opinion on a copyright matter, but we're a pretty small group. How would that factor in? (Yes, we can always go to ANI, but I worry about process for process sake...not to mention the heat/light ratio at ANI. :/) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You note the deafening silence in response to your question. Always the mark of a good question. ;) --JN466 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

This thread, along with pages and pages and pages of wrangling and the ceaseless bickering and sniping, underscore the fact that the current m.o. is broken and we need a police force. Scroll down to Dr. Frankenstein, I presume? —Precedingunsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk •contribs) Good grief! Give Yopienso a traffic ticket for failing to sign! :-) --Yopienso (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

With 1700+ designated administrators, why should it take an act of Wikipedia congress to motivate an appropriate level of "uninvolved" administrator oversight to known "contentious" articles and their talk pages? Is there anything more Wiki-basic than recognizing and correcting obvious WP:NPA infractions...where much of the "civility" problems have their genesis? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There are less than 800 active admins, and that for a fairly weak criterion of activity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

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

• I don't think the answer to solving this is a yet another hard and fast rule. Part of being an admin is an expectation that the person has a modicum of common sense. If they don't and they routinely block people they have engaged in editorial disputes with they should not be an admin. If an admin sees someone edit warring, making repeated nasty personal attacks, or committing another "bright line" offense they shouldn't have to go ask another admin, which could take hours in some cases, to handle it unless they are directly involved in a dispute with that editor that is germane to the reason they could be blocked and the dispute is active at that very moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• I'm uncomfortable specifying this rule so much. There are downsides for either side (admins trying to get out of the spirit of the rule and non-admins trying to expand the letter). Involvement is nebulous, perhaps unavoidably so. Our current situation generates problems, but those are dwarfed by the larger incentive problems surrounding deep content disputes. Protonk (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• How about this: An administrator is involved if he or she cares about the content in dispute, but uninvolved if motivated solely by personal favoritism or animosity.98.203.142.210 (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That's no change from current practice ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This policy section is analogous to the Arbitration policy's section on recusal. However that section is worded very differently.

• All Arbitrators will hear all cases, barring any personal leaves or recusals. If an Arbitrator believes they have a conflict of interest in a case, they shall recuse themselves immediately from participation in the case. Users who believe an Arbitrator has a conflict of interest should post an appropriate statement during the Arbitration process. The Arbitrator in question will seriously consider it and make a response. Arbitrators will not be required to recuse themselves for trivial reasons – merely reverting an edit of a user involved in a case undergoing Arbitration, for example, will likely not be seen as a serious enough conflict of interest to require recusal.

The Arb policy simply says that they should recuse if they believe there's a conflict of interest. It specifically says that merely reverting a user, which could involve a content dispute, is not enough for a recusal. Whether we make the Arbitration policy closer to the Administrator policy, or vice versa, I suggest that they should be more similar than different.   Will Beback  talk  22:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

We have 7000 active administrators. There is no reason for an admin continuing on a case if there is any possible good faith. there are a much more limited number of arbitrators. My experience that once I have even reverted, I have a COI in having my view of the matter prevail. We should probably simply find a simpler way of asking for confirmation than the full-scale AN/I request, to avoid unnecessary drama. Something that Speedy--I place the tag, and some other admin confirms I was right to do so--and then if anyone questions it, nobody can say it is my own prejudice or idiosyncrasy. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there are more like 1000-1500 "active" admins. And I will suggest that you hold a somewhat heterodox view of admin involvement. The whole reason we have problems with admin involvement but haven't solved them by defining involvement as you have and enforcing it is that things go undone every day for want of an admin to do them (or a serious editor). Decisions get left on the table, requests go unmet, etc. And many of the areas that have the most need also (or "because") tend to repel uninvolved editors generally. Protonk (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As of October 11th, there are 796 active administrators, at least per Wikipedia:List of administrators. 7000 would be fabulous! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't one of those perpetual WT:RFA, but the number of truly active admins is much less than 796, I'd guess. The threshold for that list is just "30 edits in the last 2 months", which is barely active at all. Compared to the number of administrative actions to be performed daily, I don't think anyone can really argue that there is such a huge surplus that admins should be recusing themselves for the slightest reasons.   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Flight's proposal

Should we implement Dragon Flight's proposal? It's descriptive, rather than prescriptive, and a number of people above said they liked it. --JN466 15:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks good too but can you give it twenty-four hours or so more please to get more input? I, for one, would like to mull it over a bit longer and perhaps suggest a few tweaks. A far-reaching change of this nature can only benefit from greater scrutiny and comment.  Roger Davies^talk 15:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the addition of "recently or significantly" to points 1 and 2, as I noted above and as some others seem also to support. I also like your note preferring "related articles within the broader topic". Point 3 leaves me uncomfortable for the reason I pointed out above; I have a history of personal interactions with almost every contributor (maybe not even "almost") on Wikipedia who does copyright. :) We still need to be able to collaborate. :/ I imagine there are admins who work 3RR or PP who may be similarly hampered. If an individual requesting an article protection at PP or a username block has personally interacted with the admin reviewing, must he not act? Is there no way to clarify that prior personal interactions may not factor if the admin actions are clear? (I'm a bit frazzled this morning--been working on an off-wiki project and waiting for a phone call to get back to it. Sorry if I'm not very coherent!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just thinking out loud here: What Dragon Flight's proposal says is, "Administrators should avoid taking admin actions in cases where they are likely to be seen as having preexisting biases for or against one party or outcome" (my emphasis), and "Examples of behaviors that often lead to the appearance of bias include ... The admin has a history of personal interactions with one or more of the editors involved."

If the only outcome that you could likely be considered "biased" towards is keeping WP free of copyright violations, then that is not a bias that can reasonably be impugned. :) If the admin action is just a maintenance job, and no one gains an upper hand over a perceived opponent, accusations of personal favouritism seem unlikely. Personal favouritism becomes an issue in things like blocking, sanctions against one party in a dispute, etc. --JN466 15:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this reading is better served by Dragon's Flight's version (nutshell section). Because here it explicitly (for the first time) offers an unequivocal broad statement of involvement: Administrators should avoid taking admin actions in cases where they are likely to be seen as having preexisting biases for or against one party or outcome. That makes it much clearer that MRG's personal interactions, providing they don't speak to bias, are fine. After all, someone would hard pressed to show that someone who uniformly sociable is demonstrating bias in a particular instance by being sociable.  Roger Davies ^talk07:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to change the wording around Involved, I would certainly like to see some clarification of the Policy involvement vs User/Content involvement as discussed in this RFC[2] included. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Uninvolved admins - 2nd draft for comment

In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be perceived as having, a conflict of interest in disputes which they have been a party to or may have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'. Examples of conduct that often lead to the appearance of bias include (but are not limited to): The admin has participated in an editorial dispute with one of the editors involved; The admin has participated in an editorial capacity in a content dispute affecting the same or similar topics; The admin has a history of personal interactions with one or more of the editors involved. One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement has been minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is generally not involved and is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute in either an administrative or editorial role. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'. In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved that they pass the matter to another administrator via the relevantnoticeboards.

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

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

Comments on draft 2 (bulleted section)

How about changing the bulleted section, which currently reads:

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

1. The admin has participated in an editorial dispute with one of the editors involved;
2. The admin has participated in an editorial capacity in a content dispute affecting the same or similar topics;
3. The admin has a history of personal interactions with one or more of the editors involved.

to:

Examples of conduct that often lead to the appearance of administrator bias include (but are not limited to) significant or recent:

1. participation in an editorial dispute with one of the editors;
2. participation in an editorial capacity in a content dispute affecting the same topic or similar topics or the broader topic;
3. personal interaction with one or more of the editors.

Is this an improvement?  Roger Davies ^talk 15:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm still fundamentally unconvinced that there is a problem with the current wording of the policy manifesting itself in admin action which will be solved through a rewording of the policy. I don't think marginal cases cause trouble because the wording is vague but because marginal cases represent a set of situations and admins which lend themselves to multiple allegences, power struggles and vested interests. Political economy is causing the trouble. Protonk (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I echo what Protonk said. I re-echo it, and I'd re-re-echo it (if possible). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Me too. There were two fundamental problems with "uninvolved" in the Cl Ch case (this is where all this is coming from, yes?). (1) The formal defn of uninvolved that the probation that preceeded the case was set up with was ludicrous. I think everyone agrees with that; it caused trouble during the probation because people, not unnaturally, tried to use it. But it won't be an ongoing problem, because it won't be used again. (2) The main problem was that Certain Admins were (or were perceived to be by a number of participants) strongly involved, yet refused to accept that. Re-writing the defn, per any of the version above, would not have helped that at all. One possible solution would be to say that if you continue to insist you can act in an unbiased fashion, and that you refuse to back away from an area after multiple conflicted actions, then you must indeed be "involved", in the sense that you've got too emotionally tangled up in the area to back away. Naturally, this has the disadvantage that merely shouting at admins loud enough is enough to make them back away.

Dancing the words around will not cure this fundamental problem William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's partly coming from here but I'm also thinking of the lower profile instances where: Admin A fraternises with Users B & C. Users B & C get into a dispute with User X. Admin A blocks User X as an uninvolved admin. In other words, users turn to their friendly neighbourhood admin for action.

The second scenario you raise is already an issue. A bunch of people gang up on an admin and insist he/she is involved. I've no idea at the moment how to deal with it; other than try to deal with each instance on its merits (or de-merits).  Roger Davies ^talk 20:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see the fraternization problem, but if this language is meant to 'solve' that problem, how is it not hilariously overbroad? I have had what could be qualified as "personal" interactions with dozens of editors. For more active or gregarious admins that number could be closer to 100. How am I to know ex ante that I am in a situation where the policy would describe me as involved and how can we justify a prohibition on admin action across that many interactions? And how much of this conflicts with the idea that we make editors admins when we see they have the sort of judgment that would allow them to navigate difficult cases? Even more worrisome, language like this exacerbates the general problem we have with frivolous accusations. For an admin with years of experience and tens of thousands of contributions, I could make the case that they have a 'personal relationship' with an indefinite number of editors. Protonk (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The very broad language is already there and already a bone of contention: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor ... purely in an administrative role ... is not involved". Therefore, an administrator who has interacted with an editor in other than administrative roles is involved. This comes up time and time again, examples given being handing out barnstars or supporting an RfA two years ago.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The caveat specifies one thing that an editor should not claim abuse over; it doesn't necessary mean that everything else the editor claims abuse over is going to be OK. Similarly, the caveat specifies that an administrator can interact in this way without fear of repercussions; it doesn't necessary mean that interacting in any other way will be considered as NOT OK. The broad language exists so that things can be assessed on a case by case basis based on the specific circumstances of a particular case.Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Hard cases make bad law". Are we seeking to change this policy solely because of the Climate Change case?   Will Beback  talk  20:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no change to policy in the drafts above. Simply a restatement in clearer terms of existing policy.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that adding "significant or recent" is an improvement. I've started a thread about perhaps using this same language to cover the ArbCom. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Policy/Draft#Recusal   Will Beback  talk  21:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The "significant or recent" bit is already present in policy, as it's often stated as the common sense basis for determining involvement.  Roger Davies^talk 22:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see "recent" in the policy. Just the opposite. This line seems to say that involvement lasts forever, "regardless of the age of the dispute":

• Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

I think adding "recent" in its place would be a good change.   Will Beback  talk  22:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, as it is the bit of the written policy that is least enforced in the practical application of it. Written policy is, as you know, descriptive not prescriptive, and is meant to reflect current community norms. Nobody that I know of has been declared involved because of ancient or trivial interactions.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

An aside on discussing policies: it'd be helpful to discriminate between the de facto policy and the written policy in comments. I understood your comment The "significant or recent" bit is already present in policy to mean that the quoted words were in the written policy. Apparently you meant they are in the unwritten policy, which makes it a bit odd to put them in quotation marks.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, Will. Not intentional,  Roger Davies ^talk 23:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Any assertions about what the unwritten policy says probably need at least several diffs for examples.

Is it your proposal to delete the sentence I quoted above, since it contradicts the proposal?   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

We may be talking at cross purposes here :) "Significant" is already explicitly in policy as an administrator ... whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved. So that leaves "recent": which you and others seem to think is a good change.

Whether it is helpful to tweak the existing Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute is really down to consensus here though the regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute is probably too insufficiently qualified to be helpful and in direct contradiction to other existing bits of the same policy.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

When the opposition to your proposal is due to the adverse effects if will have on the day to day operation of Wikipedia for the Community, it's hardly a restatement; it's very much a change. If what happens in practice was what was being reflected in the draft, there would not be a reason to oppose (unless the practice itself needs to change which is what seems to be the cause of this proposal...if it actually isn't the single 'exceptional' climate change case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think the proposal is an improvement too, but we'd need to remove the conflicting language from the policy.   Will Beback  talk  04:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We do. Indeed, we do. The main contradictions are in the sentence you highlighted above, which was added out of new cloth, without prior discussion or consensus here, in June. 12:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think draft 2 is good, except Bullet 1 should match the plurality of Bullet 2: "The admin has participated in an editorial dispute with one or more of the editors involved". Just to clear an obvious wikilawyering loophole. Tony (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll tweak the text.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

All of it is vulnerable to wikilawyering. It will either be ignored or cause problems. Rd232 ^talk 09:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't said why the proposal is more vulnerable to wikilawyering that the current policy text.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

More detail gives more room for wikilawyering. General statements of principle can be interpreted as appropriate in context.Rd232 ^talk 12:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps, but unclear and/or contradictory text gives plenty of scope for wikilawyering too. I thought we'd got round your specific objection by making it descriptive though, rather than prescriptive, and by talking in generalities.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"Uninvolved" Draft 3

Uninvolved admins - 3nd draft (showing removals in strike through and additions in underscore

In general, editors administrators should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved participated as editors. This is because involved administrators they may have, or may be perceived as having, a conflict of interest or as holding strong feelings on a matter. in disputes which they have been a party to or may have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior actions are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'. [Duplicated in error] Examples of conduct that often lead to the appearance of bias include (but are not limited to) significant orrecent': i. The admin has participated Participation in an editorial dispute with one or more of the editors involvedparties ii. The admin has participated Participation in an editorial capacity in a content dispute affecting the sametopic or similar topics; iii.The admin has a history of personal interactions personal interaction with one or more of the editors involvedparties One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior editorial actions involvement are have been minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias,is not involved and is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute either in an administrative role.or in an editorial role. This is because one of the roles One of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'. In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion done the same. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved that they pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.

Uninvolved admins - 3nd draft (clean text)

In general, administrators should not act in cases in which they have participated as editors because they may have, or may be perceived as having, a conflict of interest or as holding strong feelings on a matter. Examples of conduct that often lead to the appearance of bias include (but are not limited to) significant or recent: Participation in an editorial dispute with one or more of the parties; Participation in an editorial capacity in a content dispute affecting the same topic or similar topics; Personal interaction with one or more of the parties. One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior editorial actions have been minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute in an administrative role. One of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'. In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved that they pass the matter to another administrator via the relevantnoticeboards.

Comments on Draft 3

What's changed? There was a whole paragraph was duplicated in Draft 2 so that's gone. The following text: Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. has also gone pending further discussion as it introduced a sweeping new definition of involved (back in June), without discussion or consensus. Where "involved" has been used twice in the same sentence with different meanings, these sentences have been tweaked as have sentences where the definition is circular. Finally, there's been a copy edit to reduce longwindednesses. Is this getting close to go?  Roger Davies ^talk13:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No it's not ready or close to go. For one thing, the last two paragraphs have been modified without much thought. It is only one of the roles of administrators to deal with such matters - it is not the role; there was a deliberate reason why the previous wording was used. On the other point, it's not the narrow "they would have done the same, period", it was they "probably would have come to the same conclusion"; again, big difference where such a proposed change to policy is inappropriate. Also I'm not happy with the whole "significant". It's one thing when we clearly stipulate that minor or obvious do not speak to bias; all that means is that minor or obvious will not = involved, and anything else will need to be determined in the circumstances (not that everything else automatically can be counted as a factor of involved). Significant according to whom based on what? It was not that long ago someone was trying to propose that significant is based on the number of edits made (which is rubbish when the edits are not actually looked into individually). It's the first feature I noted in the original proposal and my first thoughts apply: a recipe for wikilawyering.Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• In this context, I can't honestly see any substantive difference between "one of the roles of administrators" and "the role of administrators". However, I'll be guided by consensus.
  Elsewhere, I changed the "done the same bit" partly because of the logical assymetry between action and conclusion: the first is an act; the second a thought. The essential point here is the vandalism (or whatever) was so blatant that any administrator would have acted in the same way. So, again, not really a substantive difference.
  Your objections to significant can be and are equally applied to minor or obvious.
  I know you believe it's a recipe for wikilawyering and this may prove irreconcilable. What hasn't been explained, is how the existing policy text with its oblique statements, various contradictions, and general lack of enforceability, is any better.  Roger Davies ^talk21:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Logical? I don't see it. Administrators don't come to the exact same conclusion about a lot of things (and with good reason) so it would be preferrable to keep the existing part of policy which states something to the effect of 'what you can expect to happen' rather than something which misleadingly suggests that 'this won't happen unless it's the exact same'. I think the original had a bit more thought put into it so as to avoid certain situations. That's why I think (1) change 'the role' back to the original 'one of the roles'; (2) change 'done the same' back to the original 'probably would have come to the same conclusion'. The Community has already come across many allegations of involved under the existing policy and handles it pretty well (including the attempts to wikilawyer); this year, the only issues with administrators that had to go as far as the last resort are those disputes which Protonk described in his first response to your proposal; that problem isn't going to go away by your proposed change to the policy - it's going to become worse, and it makes it more difficult for less complex (or vested) issues. Your response also doesn't answer the question about 'significant interaction' or 'significant participation' which I asked above, and it doesn't respond to the concern about how some users have tried to unfairly measure significant (albeit, much to the Community's dissatisfaction). Ncmvocalist(talk) 05:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

My take is that the community does have difficulty with the policy and this sometimes leads to deadlock. I know that the involvement issue often comes up in arbitrations and I'm not just talking about the CC case. Just changing the wording isn't going to stop folks trying it on but it is going to help stop admins wrong-footing themselves and it is going to help resolve stuff more quickly. Significant is easy to recognise but more tricky to define succinctly. If MRG is friendly to everyone then being routinely friendly to one editor isn't significant because it doesn't speak to bias. If an editor routines hands out barnstars for a wikiproject, then handing one to someone he later sanctions isn't significant because it doesn't speak to bias. If an admin makes minor copy-edits to hundreds of articles, then a comparable minor copy-edit to one particular article isn't significant because it doesn't speak to bias. Does that help?  Roger Davies ^talk 15:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Easiest probably is to break this down to its components. For the point about "done the same thing". I see entirely what you're saying. Here's the original current text again for ease of reference:

In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion.

This is problematic because it's not very clear that it's talking about editorial actions made by an admin. Something along the following lines would help:

Certain straightforward editorial actions - which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, like page blanking and adding offensive language - do not make an administrator involved.

It that any better?  Roger Davies ^talk 11:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Superseded, see next section.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, no problems with "one of the roles", and I've tweaked the drafts accordingly. Roger Davies ^talk11:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"Uninvolved" Draft 4

• I don't want to dissuade any of you, but if we're anyway attempting to go ahead with this, then I've made a few changes below. Also, it'll be good if you involve the Policy Pump (that is, if you've not already done). Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 12:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins - 4th draft (clean text) + "vandalism" tweak

In general, administrators should not act in cases in which they have in the recent past(definition of recent past as a footnote) participated as editors because they may have, or may be perceived as having, a conflict of interest or as holding strong feelings on a matter. Examples of conduct that often lead to the appearance of bias include (but are not limited to) significant and recent: Participation in an editorial dispute with one or more of the involved parties; Participation in an editorial capacity in a content dispute affecting the same topic or similar topics; Personal interaction with one or more of the parties. One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior editorial actions have been minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute in an administrative role. One of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'. In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved that they pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards. Certain uncontroversial editorial actions, like reverting page blanking and removing offensive language, do not subsequently make the administrator involved with the articles affected. Similarly, blocks of editors blatantly vandalising pages which the blocking administrator has previously edited have historically been endorsed by the community.

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

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

The rewrite kind of makes me chuckle:

Certain straightforward editorial actions - which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, like page blanking and adding offensive language - do not make an administrator involved.

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

In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion.

I'm not sure why we conclude that this is meant to be restricted to editorial actions. Why should it not be presumed to refer to an admin blocking a clear and obvious vandal even in an article in which he is involved? I don't think I need to list the person who keeps inserting "F*K WIKIPEDIA!!!!" into Jimmy Norman at AIV just because I wrote the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL! There's a reverting missing there somewhere.

Now I think of it, there are two different types of common situation. The first is where an editorial action to an article which normally disqualify one as an admin doesn't count; the second is where an admin who would normally be disqualified because they are already an established editor of an article is enable to act to deal with vandalism. Are you sure the convoluted wording covers these?  Roger Davies ^talk 15:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a crack at new text clarifying the boundaries: Certain uncontroversial editorial actions, like reverting page blanking and removing offensive language, do not subsequently make the administrator involved with the articles affected. Similarly, blocks of editors blatantly vandalising pages which the blocking administrator has previously edited have historically been endorsed by the community. Thoughts?  Roger Davies ^talk 18:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Near as I can figure - WP has only about 300 "really active" admins, and if "involved" means "having had any contact with either party in a dispute in the past" one will end up with zero admins actually being "uninvolved." Any rule which makes this the result is likely not wisely chosen. Collect (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You're misreading it: that's what current policy says. Any dispute of whatever nature at any time.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Alas -- I am interpreting it exactly as written. The likelihood of an active admin being "uninvolved" rapidly approaches zero as the definition of "involved" expands beyond the older arbcom statements. I would suggest that instead of expanding the use of a term to the point it becomes meaningless, one ought instead look at restricting the term to the point where it retains some meaning in disputes. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You can achieve that by reading the recent and significant qualifiers. These fix the "hilariously broad" "involvement is forever" tripwire. I'd like to see more admins active too, especially in various types of enforcement. This can only realistically be achieved by making the policy for this difficult area as simple and clear as possible.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder whether the problem is that the focus is on involvement and not on what seems to be the real issue, which is bias and the appearance thereof. Shouldn't that be the determining factor? There can conceivably be a situation when an admin does a few neutral edits to an article, bothering nobody, and he suddenly becomes "involved." Yet an administrator can do no edits, but express strong opinions such as to indicate a strong bias, or by making comments showing partisanship and bias concerning either the subject matter or the editors involved. Such a situation is not covered by either the current or proposed criteria. I'd like to harken back to the comment somebody made earlier, which is "Administrators should avoid taking admin actions in cases where they are likely to be seen as having preexisting biases for or against one party or outcome." ScottyBerg (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger. Your change handily addresses my concerns. :) I, too, wonder if there's any way that we can further define point 3. What we've got proposed right now reads "Examples of conduct that often lead to the appearance of bias include (but are not limited to) significant and recent...Personal interaction with one or more of the parties." I must say, I like the language Scotty brings up. What about something more like "Examples of conduct that often lead to the appearance of bias include (but are not limited to) significant and recent...Personal interaction with one or more of the parties such that an administrator is likely to be seen as having preexisting biases for or against one party or outcome." I completely understand the need to make sure that admins don't form "buddy packs" (and we'd be kidding ourselves if we didn't think it could happen), but we are a relatively small community, and many of us do interact in a way that at least seems personal. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Tricky one this, isn't it? Some inspired word-smithing is needed here from something, I think.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well you see, my concern is with the phrase "personal interactions." One can express bias without personally interacting. If I say from time to time, "I personally love tulips but I think tulip-loving editors are pushing Wikipedia to the brink," I've displayed a bias and should avoid that topic area as an administrator. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You've kind of got a hobby horse here, I think. I don't think expressing a love of tulips or a hatred of them ought to disqualify one from acting in the tulip topic. Nor do I think expressing a view that there are factions present, or that a particular faction seems to be engaging in factional behavior ought to disqualify one. ++Lar: t/c 05:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. That seems to be expanding the issues here a bit. What about "Examples of conduct that often lead to the appearance of bias include (but are not limited to) significant and recent...Personal interaction with one or more involved parties or previously expressed opinions about a subject such that an administrator is likely to be seen as having preexisting biases for or against one party or outcome." I'm not entirely comfortable with "previously expressed opinions" since (a) that encourages us to keep mum about our opinions, and (b) it seems ripe for wikilawyering. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What about "previously expressed opinions such as to indicate bias concerning the subject matter or editors involved in the enforcement action." It's a mouthful, but would concern a very tiny subset of incidents. On second thought, your language is better. Sure, one can wikilawyer anything, but this really applies to only egregious circumstances, in which comments are made by an administrator outside of an enforcement context. I.e., nonadministrative interaction or comments.ScottyBerg (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)