Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrators

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External videos
video icon Wheel warring

"Involved" exception when dealing with threats

[edit]

Based on what I see at WP:AN#More admin misconduct, I suggest adding more explicit language to the vandalism and "purely administrative" areas concerning involvement to the effect that any administrator may take appropriate measures to deal with any editor who makes threats against them or anyone else. I'm sure somebody can argue how "threats" may be parsed, but we can certainly agree on violence, stalking, or doxxing as obvious candidates. Acroterion (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One simple addition would be to add "or threats" so it reads "In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism or threats)...". However, lists of examples tend to expand with time and end up being read as definitive statements. In the recent incident linked in the OP, I doubt that anyone would have reacted differently if "or threats" were present—the people concerned have no idea and would have made the same fuss regardless of what this page said. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The things Drmies was having to deal with were 100% covered by the "straightforward cases" exception, no questions asked. I agree with Johnuniq that a wording change wouldn't have made a difference in this situation (or in any others I can envision). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you, there was some sentiment for a leisurely consultative approach, or for a put-up-with-it-or-resign approach, citing the policy, an interpretation with which I profoundly disagree. But I'm sensitive to instruction creep too, which is equally subject to philosophical gaming. I find the parlor game of "is this admin involved because they 'disagree' " tiresome and time-wasting, and I view the language of the policy as a bit equivocal. I may be influenced by spending the past couple of days writing contracts, which causes anyone to second-guess every word they write. Acroterion (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two-year inactivity rule phrasing

[edit]

Admins removed for inactivity have to run a new RfA if they want to be resysopped after a two-year period of inactivity. For admins removed under the recent 5-year/100-edit inactivity requirement, does that mean two years after the removal of admin tools (as WP:ADMIN#Restoration of admin tools suggests), or does it mean two years from the last edit or log action (as WP:RESYSOP suggests)? It doesn't really matter which answer we choose, but it's important to resolve the ambiguity one way or another so there are no issues when it inevitably comes up at WP:BN. Probably the easiest solution would be to change the sentence here beginning In the case of an administrator desysopped due to a year of inactivity... to "In the case of an administrator desysopped due to inactivity, the two-year clock starts from the last edit or log action prior to the desysop" or something like that. (This came up previously here.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this RfC getting at what you wanted (which wasn't formally closed only because consensus was clear so it didn't feel like a formal close was necessary)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That involved a different inactivity rule (five-years-from-last-tool-use), but you're right that it's basically the same question. I think the best way to follow the logic of that RfC is to make the change I suggested above, which hopefully won't be too controversial. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wearing my full formal wikilawyer hat, A) WP:ADMIN is policy and WP:CRAT, of which WP:RESYSOP is part, is a summary of policy, so where they conflict it has to be RESYSOP that's incorrect; and B) the shorter 1-year period for no-edits only applies if "an administrator desysopped due to a year of inactivity" - that is, the one year total inactivity rule, not the 5-year/100-edit one.
Wearing my reasonable person hat, B is bonkers, and, for that matter, so is all the text after the boldface "Over two years with no edits". The specific inactivity rule shouldn't matter; and if you accept that, then I can't for the life of me think of a situation where you can get desysopped without it being either involuntary (and thus ineligible), for inactivity, or making an edit to request it. And I doubt I'd be the only person to look far askance at a resysop request saying the two-year-zero-edits rule should start from the desysop timestamp instead of the actual last edit solely because you asked to resign on Discord or IRC or whatever instead of even bothering to log on and ask at WP:BN like a normal person. Just look for a two-year period with zero edits - simple rule, easy to check, makes sense.
Not that any of that, or the rfc about the 5-year-no-logged-actions rule, deal cleanly with the 5-year/100-edit inactivity rule - you can be inside the limit of either or both of the "Lengthy inactivity" subitems while still qualifying to be desysopped for having under a hundred edits. But that's one of the things that the "bureaucrat is not reasonably convinced" rule is for. —Cryptic 01:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If people are fine with replacing the bullet point with "a new RfA is required if the admin was totally inactive during any two-year period ending after the desysop" (or some more elegant wording), I agree that'd be even better. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of administrators/Discord

[edit]

How do people feel about creating a list of administrators who can be contacted on Discord, similar to Wikipedia:List of administrators/IRC? I anticipate there will be some concerns because the Discord server's public logs are oversightable here, and some support because IRC is so thirty years ago. Folly Mox (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to update WP: INVOLVE language

[edit]
Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Update wording of WP:INVOLVED
 – Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Update wording of WP:INVOLVED

Currently WP:INVOLVED policy regulates permissible conduct of Admins and editors performing non-admin closures.

This policy was created before the existence of WP:Contentious topics. Inside the first sentence In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. (bold emphasis mine) the term dispute is not well defined, despite the fact that some WP:Contentious topics are exceptionally well defined, e.g WP:ARBPIA while others like WP:BLP are not narrow in scope. Inspired by the larger discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Possible_involvement_of_Admin_in_ARBPIA_area I would propose we workshop an updated text. In my opinion, updated text should contain the following:

  1. Minimal maintenance changes once implemented
  2. Defined definition of disputes with regards to CTOP
  3. Avoid over-restricting admins from making common sense edits or effectively banning them from entire contentious area unless explicitly stated
  4. Provide clarity who/when dispute scopes can be redefined e.g by ARBCOM?

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that prior to posting this here, there were a half-dozen replies at VPP, see Special:PermaLink/1244500139#Update_wording_of_WP:INVOLVED for the last version of that discussion before it was moved here. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah: Why was an ongoing discussion moved, and then deleting prior comments? —Bagumba (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see what happened. This turned into a new workshop here, not "moved" per se. I restored the deleted comments at VPP per WP:TPO, as other people's comments should remain and will eventually get archived.—Bagumba (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba exactly, sorry for the confusion. My initial proposal was clearly on workable, so I started new discussion here of what I see the problem as and let others propose some wording for the solution. Already as you can see in responses here. Not everyone agrees whether “topic areas” can or should be broadly defined. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what the goal is here.
Administrators should not act as administrators when they are involved with a dispute, regardless of whether that dispute has any relevance to CTOP areas. Just because a dispute is within a CTOP topic area doesn't impact how broad that dispute is - for example administrators involved in a dispute about wording on the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal article should not be enjoined from acting as an administrator regarding a dispute over the JD Vance article, despite both being with in the post-1992 US politics CTOP area. An administrator who is engaged in a wide-ranging dispute about the legacy of the French colonial empire probably should not act as an administrator regarding French overseas territories, the articles about former French colonies/territories, and La Francophonie, even though this is not a CTOP area.
Involved should always be interpreted broadly but reasonably. If there is doubt about whether you or someone is involved with respect to a given topic, then either assume that you are or ask for the opinion of admins who are definitely uninvolved with that area.
I don't think we can usefully define "dispute" or "topic area" more precisely at this level. So all in all I don't understand what you think we would gain by making things more complicated than they currently are? Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some time ago, I drafted an RfC about this in User:S Marshall/sandbox, and I wonder if that might be a useful framework for discussion?—S Marshall T/C 19:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting scale for INVOLVED, but I don't love that even the most minimalist version says "you can't close a discussion...about an article you've made non-trivial edits to". That doesn't appear to be in the current policy, and I think it's more complicated than that. Imagine, e.g., that while doing some RecentChanges patrol work years ago, you summarized a bloated paragraph down to two sentences. That's a "non-trivial edit". You haven't seen the article since, and you don't even remember doing it. Are you "WP:INVOLVED" for that article until you die? That summary says you are.
    As one metric, if a proposed rule would declare most admins to be "WP:INVOLVED" on hundreds of articles, it's probably not a good rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. So it should say something like "an article you've made non-trivial edits to in the last two years"? Something as specific as that would be preferred.—S Marshall T/C 08:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the idea that an admin editing anywhere in a CTOP area makes them INVOLVED and therefore their tools are off the table in the entire topic area to be a very dangerous re-interpretation of the policy. If anything I'd like to see it formalized that this is not the way the policy has been generally understood, both by ArbCom and the broader community. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. One thing I think could help with that is rewording "topic area" when it's mentioned in INVOLVED:

    "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area."

    The language predates the contentious topics/discretionary sanctions regimes, and editors back then would have been likely to interpret "topic area" as they would in common language. These days, many take it to refer to the contentious topic areas. I think substituting something like "related cluster of articles" would go a long way toward clarifying the original intention. Editors would still be free to hold the interpretation that INVOLVED applies to the contentious topic areas—it's not an unreasonable position—they'll just be less likely to assert their position using language that was never meant to mean what they think it means. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I don't agree with the premise that many interpret the use of "topic area" to be limited to designated contentious topics. The page doesn't mention the contentious topic system, and editors haven't been shy in raising concerns about administrators being involved for any area. isaacl (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Imagine that the admin (or a NAC) is participating in a dispute/dispute resolution. I think we want the INVOLVED restrictions to encompass non-CTOP areas. So, e.g., if you have been involved in discussions about Bing Crosby, then INVOLVED should stretch far enough to encompass actions at:
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is claiming WP:INVOLVE would only include contentious areas. With the above example about Crosby, seems reasonable, and even if it was too broad/narrow, I would not know how to constrain that in a policy, beyond soliciting feedback other editors of what the "topic area" might be. Again, this would only come up, if people felt an admin or NAC was overreaching in their closures/admin actions on Crosby related content. And in 99.999% of cases, this is not an issue, even when people do have differing opinions.
    In the case of contentious topics, namely ARBPIA, contentious disputes and editing are in abundance with different definitions of topic area. Who should be able to determine what a topic area is, in one of the most well defined domains? Is it the community, is it Arbitration Committee? Is it vibes (what we have now)... ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The community can do it. Arbcom will go along, unless our decision is unreasonable. What should come from this discussion is some clear and specific ideas about how we could interpret WP:INVOLVED, which we can then put to the community as a whole at a well-publicised RfC for a decision. It strikes me that, although Wikipedia policy isn't law, there are nevertheless useful principles about fairness and transparency in decision-making to be found in R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy.—S Marshall T/C 09:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You may have misinterpreted me. I wouldn't assert that "many interpret the use of 'topic area' to be limited to designated contentious topics". I'm concerned that many interpret the term to expand to and include some of the large contentious topics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies; editors back then would have been likely to interpret "topic area" as they would in common language. These days, many take it to refer to the contentious topic areas. sounded like many are no longer interpreting "topic area" as they would in common language, for all situations. I still don't agree with the premise that this language is causing an interpretation that in situations with a contentious topic, the minimum scope of a topic area is the entire contentious topic. isaacl (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure that the community at large would prefer the Involved rule to be strict rather than lax. I also wonder why we would want it to be otherwise. Are there so few topics that administrators won't have anything to do if we adopt a strict standard? Anyway, it was me who suggested that a Contentious Topic be considered a single topic for this rule, but then it was correctly pointed out that some CTs, such as Eastern Europe, are too broad for this to be reasonable. Some, however, such as Israel-Palestine and Abortion are not too broad. The thing that makes Israel-Palestine (my domain ARBPIA, poor me) a single topic is that almost all articles in that domain are related, even if the relationship may not be clear to someone unfamiliar with it. I also think we should be strict about what "minor" involvement means. In dispute-ridden areas, any edit that is not merely clerical (fixing a citation, implementing an RM, etc) is likely to be challenged and should be considered involvement. Stuff like !voting in RMs is involvement beyond question. Zerotalk 04:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Restating from the earlier VPP thread) I believe it is already covered by the "construed broadly" and "may be seen to be involved" portions of INVOLVED:

    Involvement is construed 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 ... it is still the best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.

    —Bagumba (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that we are fairly strict about personal conflicts with individuals, but I think we also define those fairly narrowly. I think we also define those only for conflicts (not positive relationships), and in practice, for situations that someone remembers. For example, I don't ever remember seeing an ArbCom member say "I'm recusing because I voted in their RFA more than a decade ago". WP:RECUSAL requires that it be "significant personal involvement" and not "routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions".
    I think the community has similar standards for INVOLVED. We don't want someone to say, "Oh, you can't block that user, because when they were a brand-new editor many years ago, you reverted a test edit they made" or "Oh, you can't close that RFC discussion with 50 editors in it, because you once disagreed with one of the editors in a discussion on a completely unrelated subject". There must be a sense of proportionality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "may be seen to be involved" inherently means "may (reasonably) be seen to be involved". I don't know if it's possible to forsee, or even worth it, to brainstorm every scenario. —Bagumba (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that here we want to be as general as possible, then do we want to have discussions like the cited AN discussion every time there is a potential conflict? Selfstudier (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be wary of WP:CREEP in P&Gs. As an alternative, make an essay, and if it gets cited often enough, it'll be a formality to promote because people will have already been treating it like a guideline anyways, e.g. WP:ATA. —Bagumba (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the discussions at AN on a caase by case scenario as helpful, because they help to look at the individual case in (hopefully) all of its merits. On the other hand: every time we try to regulate things as precisely as possible, we get problmes with interpretation anyway. Same thing when we stay too general. It will end up at AN anyway. Lectonar (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If several people say you are involved, you probably are could be a decent proxy without entering WP:SCOPECREEP and would shift the burden of proof onto the person being considered "involved" to seek input from wider community, if they strongly believe they're not involved; at a Close Review, or Administration Noticeboard or wherever else applicable. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's too easy to game. INVOLVED mustn't enable POV-pushing editors to pick and choose their discussion closer.—S Marshall T/C 13:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with S Marshall. I have seen WP:INVOLVED used to mean "you disagree with me and I don't like it" many times before in close reviews. Loki (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it would have to be If several unambiguously uninvolved people say you are involved, you probably are . Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At least three unambiguously uninvolved people with 30/500 accounts. Do you want Wikipedia:List of editors who're INVOLVED in the Israel-Palestine contentious topic? Because this is how you get Wikipedia:List of editors who're INVOLVED in the Israel-Palestine contentious topic. It would be better if there were clear community-defined boundaries that you can tell for yourself if you've crossed.—S Marshall T/C 16:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I can see why such would be desirable, I don't think they are possible because whether someone is INVOLVED or not always involves a degree of subjectivity. It's a combination of the extent, nature, number, duration, time since and similarity of the present dispute of your previous contributions to the topic area. In some cases the number of disputes in the topic area since your involvement will also be relevant (if your last contribution was being involved in a similar dispute 5 years ago, it makes a difference whether that was the last similar dispute you could have been involved with or whether there was half a dozen in between). Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but that doesn't mean we can't illuminate this a bit. We can at least write an essay that gives people some guidance on the extent, nature, number, duration, time since, and similarity of the interventions that combine to disqualify you as INVOLVED.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately the only reliable advice is that "it depends". Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wrong question is being asked here.

The extent of where INVOLVED implies is clearly open to interpretation. In the past I've requested admin action of Genesis (band) instead of doing it myself because I'm a major contributor to the article, even though in pretty much every situation I didn't really care about the content that was being edit-warred over to make the protection or blocking necessary. However, for an article like the Bee Gees, which I don't think I've touched much at all, I think I'd be on reasonable ground blocking anyone edit-warring over them being British / Manx / Australian (delete as applicable).

What I think is far more important is how an admin reacts to being accused of being INVOLVED. If the reaction is, "okay, fair point, I'll undo my actions", then I don't think there's a problem. It's only when somebody acts INVOLVED and then doubles down to the point of deafness that we get real problems and trips to Arbcom to get a desysop on the table. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators&oldid=1244872537"