Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

User essay on administrator neutrality

There are several administrators who work in areas where they have passionate feelings.

While this won't change the outcome for things like blocking trolls or correctly closing snow-keep or snow-close AFDs or obvious CSDs, it can give the appearance of bias when closing questionable CSDs, admin-discretion-range AFDs, or blocking people when an editor technically violates a rule but common practice is to give a little leeway. It can also have a counter-effect if an admin is trying to hard to be non-biased.

I've written a user essay to address this: User:Davidwr/Administrator neutrality. Your thoughts are welcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Restricted site

Dear sir, For the last 48 hours i have been unable to enter "wikiislam" because whenever i try,it says "this site is restricted".Please tell me the reason for this and also how can i resolve this issue. thank you.--Maqsoodshah01 (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

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 (UTC)

Imagechange on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 5, 2007

Can an admin please change the used image on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 5, 2007 by File:Frank Klepacki on an insert photo of his Morphscape album.jpg so that the old image can be deleted.
regards --D-Kuru (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Getting de-administratored

I know that sysops can get de-administratored without getting blocked, and that crats are responsible for making them into sysops. I also know that crats cannot de-administrator people, so who does? Oversight? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk · Contribs) 06:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Stewards on Meta actually carry out most desysoppings. Those with the power to order them on the English Wikipedia are the Arbitration Committee, and somewhat controversially, Jimbo Wales. Hope this helps,  Skomorokh  06:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, rollbackers and autoreviewers both have little top-icons ({{Rollback}} and {{Autoreviewer}}, respectively). Can there be a little icon like that for sysops? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 22:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Search and ye shall find: {{administrator topicon}}. Cheers,  Skomorokh  22:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There's been extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC which began in November, as noted in Who watches the admins in the Signpost. – Athaenara ✉ 20:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Time to change the wheel-warring policy?

Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion.

— Policy as of 2009-12-22

I think it's time we had a discussion on looking at changing the wheel warring policy from the third action: Do, Undo, REDO to being harsher on the second mover, ie, the Undo part. There's plenty of times where undoing the actions of another administrator led to horrible drama and distraction. I don't have a problem with undoing another administrator's action after getting consensus and/or discussing it with the first administrator. It's "No, I don't agree with that. UNDOES Action" (in more then a few cases, there is at least a perception that the person undoing the action has personal feelings toward the action being undone (friendship, cliques, whatever you want to call it). I think it needs to be curbed.

This is what I would suggest. Administrators are to assume good faith in the competence and judgment of their fellow administrators, and as such are not to undo the administrative actions of another user without getting consensus for their actions from the greater community or discussing the action with the original administrator. Doing such actions unilaterally will be considered wheel-warring, and can be met with sanctions, up to and including the removal of their administrator status.

I understand that some people are concerned that this gives the "first mover" too much of an advantage in a dispute, but think of it this way... if you're unilaterally undoing another administrator's action without discussion or getting consensus, you're pitting your judgment directly against the other administrator's.. nothing good can come of it. If it's so obvious that it is a blatant error in judgment, then spending a few minutes/hours to discuss it with others shouldn't be an impedement.

Anyway, I invite comment, discussion, etcetera. SirFozzie (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Precipitous reversal of a arguably correct admin action should be prohibited. I'm not sure we want to be so strong as to say this is wheel warring, because there are a number of acceptions where swift reversal may be appropriate, such as error or clear, indisputable violations of policy. Jehochman ^{Make my day} 20:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Nod. We don't want either first mover advantage OR second mover advantage. For a long time we had first mover advantage but the pendulum has swung too far the other way I think. Some way to find the right balance is key. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How about this then? Administrators are to assume good faith in the competence and judgment of their fellow administrators, and as such are not to undo the administrative actions of another user without getting consensus for their actions from the greater community or discussing the action with the original administrator. Doing such actions unilaterally (except in cases of clear and obvious error) can be considered wheel-warring, and can be met with sanctions, up to and including the removal of their administrator status. SirFozzie (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, because there have been several recent cases of clearly improper administrative reversals without even the pretense of consensus or contacting the blocking admin, and the language in WP:WHEEL implicitly authorizes such improper actions.

I'm not crazy about the language, because it suffers from AGF-creep. You can assume good faith, and you can assume competence and good judgment - those are 2 different things. In fact, you usually need to invoke AGF when people have acted with an apparent absence of competence or good judgment. :) So I'd just say "... extend the benefit of the doubt to the judgment and competence of their fellow administrators..." MastCell ^Talk 03:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please do NOT take my action as that of an arb, etcetera etcetera. I'm DEFINITELY only wearing my standard editor's hat for this one. SirFozzie (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this change going to publicized somewhere? And are the opinions of 5 users sufficient to make this fairly significant change to a long-standing policy? –xeno^talk 14:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely not trying to hide it. A lot of policies get changed with less community discussion. I'll bring a section up at AN (this is certainly something of interest to AN). SirFozzie (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I also think that more than 1 user should agree to your proposed wording before it goes live. It's fairly strict. As Lar said above, we don't want the pendulum to swing too far to the 'first mover' advantage. –xeno^talk 14:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There's several people who agree in this thread (and quite frankly, even with the holidays, I certainly can't be accused of jamming it through without giving others a chance to comment!) . Here's my thoughts. If you can't take the time to get consensus or even discuss another administrator's action with them before undoing it, you're basically saying "I have no confidence in your judgment and ability to use the tools". I have no problem when the action is unarguably incorrect. (deleting the main page, Block Jimbo, etcetera). But when the actions in a grey area, unilaterally undoing another administrator's action is not going to solve the issue, or reduce drama. It's going to raise it, exponentially. Requiring discussion and/or consensus is a check on that. SirFozzie (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily against some movement of the pendulum back towards centre, but I still think the new wording is far too strict. What if I'm reviewing WP:INDEFSEMI? Do I really need to contact the protecting admin every time I want to undo a protection from 2007 or 2008 if I've reviewed the situation and come to a conclusion in good faith that it's time to try unprotection? Soften it up a bit, and also seek additional opinions via WP:AN and WP:VPP. –xeno^talk 14:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition to being too strict, I think it is too vague as to what admins should actually must do. Is "I disagree with this block for X reason." "Nope, the block should stick because Y" a "discussion" as the term is used in your proposal?

When the course of events happens as follows: (1) admin A blocks a user indefinitely, (2) admin B, familiar with the situation, disagrees and wishes to unblock, what should admin B do? I think it's reasonable to expect him to contact admin B and wait a brief time for a response. If admin A appears not to be active onwiki, it might be better for admin B to take it to a community noticeboard for wider review. But I don't think he usually needs to wait until the discussion (admin-to-admin or community) is complete to undo the action. I definitely don't think he needs to find a community consensus in favor of reverting the action. Except in certain cases where extra caution is required (e.g. deleting or protecting for a BLP sensitive issue - which should be made clear when the initial admin action is taken), the preference should be for users to remain unblocked and for pages to remain undeleted and unprotected. Consensus is required to block, delete, or protect, not the other way around.

Admins shouldn't take a reversal of their actions as an insult and it's unreasonable for them to do so. It's simply a reflection of the fact that unblocked, unprotected, undeleted is the default in most situations. Where there's disagreement the default is favored.

I do think the language could be tightened up a bit. For instance, admins reversing an action should be confident they are fully familiar with the situation. obviously it is helpful for blocking, deleting, or protecting admins to make clear on a related page (e.g. the talk page for the user or article) if there is non-obvious context. If its obvious that a reversing admin didn't make themselves familiar with the facts, I agree that sanctions for such negligence could be appropriate. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(de-indenting): Brought it up on WP:AN at [1] . I am willing to change the policy to exclude routine, "housekeeping" type administrative actions, like possibly long term protections, etcetera (have a good wording for this?). What I would like to see the policy cover is those administrative activities which explicitly affect other users (for example, sanctions like blocks, etcetera, or locking a current dispute down). SirFozzie (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made a slight softening thusly. I'm not sure that explicitly delineating which actions require discussion vs. those that don't is the best way to go about it - better to massage the wording so that it reflects the "character" of reversals the community feels are improper. Hopefully more eyes on this will help us find that equilibrium. –xeno^talk 14:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer bright-line, Thou Shalt Not, type wording over wording that possibly may leave loophole in "I know how I SHOULD do this, but I hate this decision so much, I'm going to IAR..." type manner, but I'm willing to go along with it :) SirFozzie (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is 'Thou Shalt Not'-type wording incorrectly presupposes that policies are prescriptive. –xeno^talk 14:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I support what this change is aiming for, but I don't support filling the room admins have to overturn fairly obvious mistakes without creating all the noise and work this change would necessitate. If an edit-war has diffused and the parties are all bffs, the page shouldn't remain locked because the protecting admin's away and no-one's commenting on the pointless thread—one of dozens current— you've opened. And even for blocking, an editor in good repute who is mistakenly blocked (say, for 3rr, and you can discover for yourself immediately he's only reverted once) shouldn't be kept blocked. Normal editors have the right to be treated respectfully too, not just admins. And to top that off, I can't see it achieving its intent. The term "consensus" is so loose and meaningless on wikipedia that promoting its importance will quite likely just cancel out the effects of banning admin reverting. And even if you defined "consensus", and pinned it down as meaning what it does in the rest of the English speaking world, it will be impossible to overturn any block made by anyone with a few friends, and you'll leave the victim group more slighted than it would have been otherwise, and with no choice but to retaliate with their own blocking. Blocking will be an [even more?] attractive feuding weapon. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The 1 Revert being blocked for 3RR is already covered under (except in cases of clear and obvious error). Blocks, and unblocks are already being used as weapons in feuds. How many times have you seen someone who quite frankly, if you've followed the discussions you KNOW what side they're on (but present themselves as neutral), undoing the administrative action of another user, because they didn't agree with it? That is EXACTLY what I'm trying to stamp out here. SirFozzie (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are already being used as weapons, but at the moment it is easy to overturn bad decisions. This proposal would make this harder, by making it harder to overturn all decisions. Yes, I get that it would make it harder to overturn good decisions too, but I doubt that's worth the cost or will achieve your aim (as stated above). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You could just say "It's easy to overturn any decision". And THAT is what I'm trying to avoid. Undoing any other administrator's actions is INHERENTLY controversial. If you're right, get consensus and discussion to show that you're right. If you have a history of having your judgement reversed in an area, well, wouldn't that be a sign that the community doesn't trust your judgment in that area? It's too easy to reverse things to the status quo (and add drama), which means that nothing is solved in contentious areas. It just means that it builds up, festers, and inevitably, explodes messily. SirFozzie (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is when there's a lot of face at stake, i.e. blocking a significant user, closing a major afd or protecting a prominent article. I don't think it is that controversial otherwise. And I'm not sure these "discussions" really work as well as we'd need them too. They are often, as you know, forums for feuding, and consensus—indefinable as we've made it— is often little more than a tool, just like blocking. Three friends post in quick succession, with another member of the pack citing "consensus" soon after. Same process, more stages, but now only the feuding power groups can do it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not going to first discuss any incorrect or debatable speedy deletions or prod deletions that I want to undo. While these deletions are administrative actions, they are reversable in principle by any editor (except the creator in case of a speedy), without the consent or even the knowledge of the admin who performed the deletion. E.g. speedies should be easy come, easy go, and a swift undeletion may be very helpful in retaining editors and not biteing people by removing good faith additions. A different rule may be needed for blocks, XfD closures, ..., but to make this a blanket prohibition on undiscussed reversal of any admin-only action is going way too far. Fram (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly have no problem with that. That I think would file under housekeeping incidents (I'd add a caveat that restoring an article with BLP issues is problematic, but I think you covered it well up there. Got any proposed wordings? SirFozzie (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The original language allows for uncontentious alterations of admin actions where there is no error. The proposed language does not. For instance, if an article is G12ed and OTRS clearance arrives, there's really no reason to discuss first with the deleting admin or get consensus on ANI. It wasn't a mistake, but it's not a copyvio, either, once clearance arrives. Likewise, current policy on PRODs is that their deletion is overturned on request by any user. Not an error, but an evolution of circumstance: the uncontentious deletion is no longer uncontentious. I don't know if you could call these housekeeping, strictly. I wonder if it can be addressed by once more restoring reference to the former "(if likely to be objected)" clause. Maybe: "Doing such actions unilaterally (except in cases of clear and obvious error or where the action is unlikely to be objected to) can be considered wheel-warring (see below), and can be met with sanctions, up to and including the removal of their administrator status." Of course, that language is way open to individual interpretation (and I don't doubt somebody could come up with better), but it seems like some ambiguity is unavoidable in a world that relies on human judgment. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Pardon a non-admin butting in here, but don't admins routinely change each other's decisions following unblock requests. User:BritneysPanties is blocked by User:AdminNastyCop for one week, for replacing the word 'apple' with the word 'penis' in 25 articles. User appeals the block, stating that he is a reformed character and will lay off the prune juice in future. User:AdminNiceCop reduces the block to time served. Normally, this doesn't encourage any drama, even though there isn't always a discussion about it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

At least some of the time, the unblocking administrator will ping the original blocking admin on their talk page saying "Hey, I'm thinking of unblocking this user, would you mind chiming in with your thoughts?". I'd like to see more of that. SirFozzie (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So to be clear, you would prefer it to be compulsory in all cases to wait for a response from the blocking admin, or to take it to a noticeboard. Isn't this using a sledgehammer, when you only have a nut of a small number of contentious reversal? Would Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause and careful thought. The admin taking the initial action should be contacted unless they have indicated that they are happy for their decision to be reviewed without further input. If the action was controversial, or reversal is likely to be controversial, consensus must be sought by the second admin via AN, ANI or other suitable venue. not be better? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm open to persuasion, but my inclination after thinking about this is that I'm against this whole proposal, and in favor leaving things more or less as they were, no matter how imperfect. For all the drama that can unfold when Admin B reverses Admin A without discussion, I think it's the lesser of two evils. I know this isn't the intention, this inherently allows Admin A to "lock in" their judgement when they suspect that there will end up being no clear consensus for, or against, a decision. "No clear consensus" is often what ends up happening when Admin B is willing to overrule Admin A. I believe that if no consensus is going to develop, then the default should be the status quo, not whatever first-to-draw Admin A wants.

  In cases where a consensus for, or against, a decision is eventually going to emerge, either way is going to end up correct, possibly with drama, but nonetheless eventually correct. In cases where clear consensus is not going to emerge, this proposal will make things much worse, and I predict a significant increase in rash admin actions. If we are to trust the goodwill and judgement of Admin A, then we should trust the goodwill and judgement of Admin B too. While Admin B reversing Admin A without discussion or consensus should be frowned upon and discouraged (as it is now), I don't think it should be defined as wheel warring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• I generally would tend to oppose this proposal; the presumption in favor of blocking or deletion is too strong (especially blocking, where I believe that leaving an inappropriate block in place tends to cause much more damage than waiting an extra day to apply an appropriate block). The current structure is analogous to the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle which I think is an effective consensus building structure. This supports the general notion that "unblocked", "undeleted", and "unprotected" are the default states for users and articles, and that where disputed consensus should be required to execute such admin actions. Admins undoing other admins should raise the matter for discussion in conjunction with their reversion (as with editing disputes). I've reverted pending more discussion as this was a significant change and was not widely publicized. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Taking into account the feedback, hows about being specific. The below ties the process into other processes - as Fram says, speedied images can just be put back when proper attribution turns up - PRODs can be restored and articles can be userfied by any admin but articles deleted via AfD should only be restored via DR (unless the admin deleted the wrong article by mistake, or closed keep and deleted by accident), we now have processes for reviewing bans etc etc

Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without following due process. Blocks should not be reversed or amended without good cause and careful thought. The admin making the initial block should be contacted unless they have indicated that they are happy for their decision to be reviewed without further input. If the block was controversial, or an unblock is likely to be controversial, consensus must be sought by the reviewing admin via AN, ANI or other suitable venue.

Opinions? Better than what's there now, or better to leave it alone. I would not put in any reference to wheel warring - or perhaps to say repeatedly reversing controversial administrative actions without consensus is likely to result in an early bath.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to say that the reviewing admin should seek consensus - the person who disagrees with an action, and thus initiates a dispute, is best served to initiate discussion to resolve it as soon as possible. The problem is that this could easily be read as implying that consensus is required to unblock; unblocking should be a given in the absence of consensus to maintain the block. I agree that deletion should probably be singled out for special treatment as in your example text, as there is a much more developed process apparatus surrounding the use of this tool. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm - I see your point. Sir Fozzie I believe is aiming at instances where there appears to have been a consensus to block at the time of the block, but the unblocking admin claims that there was not enough consensus and so overturns. In such instances the discussion has often gone on after the block, and there are often a number of persons saying that the original block was bad. It's what to do in those circumstances that is difficult - the original block support is still visible, but a new group have appeared to weigh in, and while there may not be an actual consensus that the block should be overturned, it is clear that there is no longer a consensus to block. How about making it clear that the issue is the consensus to maintain the block, not a consensus to unblock.

If the block was controversial, or an unblock is likely to be controversial, further input as to whether there is/is still a consensus to maintain the block, must be sought by the reviewing admin via AN, ANI or other suitable venue.

• Note: There have been problems in the past because the definition of "reversal" is not clear. If an article is deleted, a redirect placed, and then the underlying history undeleted while leaving the redirect, has the deletion been reversed? If a block length is shortened, has the block been reversed? If new information emerges in the midst of a long conversation, is it necessary to let all participants process that information before taking action? Etc. "Clear and obvious mistakes" is way too narrow to cover the areas of uncontroversial reversal. Incidentally, I would urge everyone to think hard about unintended consequences here. The overwhelming majority of undeletions, unblocks, and unprotections are completely uncontroversial. Do we really want to change the way we do all of them to address the very few that cause controversy? Also, one general category needs exemption here: full protection is always a last resort. When the circumstances that necessitated it are addressed, it should be removed immediately, not after tracking down the protecting admin or having a lengthy discussion somewhere. Chick Bowen 05:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Actually, the prior/current consensus wheel-warring policy wording is spot on: The third action is the one that leads to the de-sysop, and thus should it remain. An admin reversing another admin in a controversial matter is a speedy ticket to ANI (where the second admin often gets beat up, speaking from personal experience) or a trip to de-sysoping if the first admin has poor impulse control. I fail to see any valid reason for the proposed change. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • BEANS be damned, although if someone really wants to oversight this they can. If the first mover gets an advantage per this proposal, then the admin who would normally have reverted (second admin) the administrative action can simply block the first administrator. Since we're assuming good faith and so forth, that ostensibly independent action would have to be brought to ANI or somewhere else for consensus for reversal. I would expect that that would be fairly quick in unreasonable cases, but this is just one example of why the proposed wording change would not serve to short cut any intra-administrator disputes any more than the currently accepted wording would. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't shortcut the dramah, but this proposal isn't about that - it's to balance the "advantage" between the blocking and the unblocking admin. At the moment, the way the policy is being used, the second admin has the advantage, and even if they have acted unreasonably it is very difficult to get their action overturned as no-one is willing to risk being accused of wheel warring even if the second action was out of order. I have watched this happen, not often but I have, so I can see where Sir Fozzie is coming from. If there was a requirement that the second admin must show that there is not a clear consensus for retaining the block, then it might help to show which of the admins was wrong. However, it most contentious cases, as I said above, the second action usually comes when the discussion has continued and (I would say) it is fairly clear that although there was a clear consensus to block at the time of the block, more voices have arrived and the consensus is no longer clear. In which case, both admins are right (or were right at the time that they acted) and neither should be open to censure, and a third admin reblocking really is chancing their arm.

A simple line somewhere may well suffice admins should not overturn or modify controversial blocks unless it is clear that the consensus to block is not now strong enough to warrant continued blocking as this really is the heart of the matter. It only applies in a handful of situations - it's not even all blocks where the community arrived at a consensus, as in most of these cases the community loses interest at the block, and if the editor subsequently recants, apologises, explains, promises to reform or whatever, nobody takes much notice if a later admin accepts an appeal on some terms or other. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I find that proposal a lot less onerous. The two incidents where I've reversed another admin (been the second admin, in other words) in the course of a year's worth of admin work have been restoring a speedy deletion and un-closing an XfD closure by an admin I believed to be involved enough to have a COI. I'm going to echo the next section's title--if this is all or primarily about blocking, then let's modify the blocking policy, NOT the whole wheel warring policy with its mess of unintended and unforeseen consequences. Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin actions should be, and are, reversible, just like an edit. Changing WP:WHEEL so that discussion is always required is fixing the wrong problem. WP:WHEEL has allowed an administrator to restore the "status quo" if they feel like the original action wasn't appropriate, or isn't an ideal solution. There are times when discussion should occur before reversal is appropriate, and times when it isn't appropriate. The policies about each admin action should explore this. The baseline WP:WHEEL policy should not change; admins are not going to suddenly start discussing every reversal that occurs around here. If you want to change how administrators work, you need to propose change at the village pump, not here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• No. Per Jclemens and John Vandenburg, the revert of an admin action is exactly the same as WP:BRD in all other cases - the revert restores the status quo, and discussion then begins to justify the original bold/bad/bewildering action if so desired. The disruption that a poor revert does - the status quo was not the best option - is nothing to the disruption that a poor original action might cause, if only because the imposed action needs consensus to get it changed (whereas the status quo had consensus prior to the first admin action). Lastly, making any initial admin action non reversible places such actions in the same league as ArbCom decisions; at least with ArbCom there is a recognition of a discussion (process) taking place before the action - this may not be the situation with an admin action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I know what I will say will never be supported but I think we should separate between the blocking and the un-blocking rights. Sole Soul (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is about blocks, why is it here?

All of the discussion above is about blocks. If this is just about blocks, it belongs at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. If not, then people need to think much harder about how the definition of admin "actions" here will affect deletion, protection, changes to userrights, and other admin actions, which get reversed all the time in non-controversial ways. Chick Bowen 17:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

true--there are so many admin actions that are routine, but subject to error, & any other admin who can fix it would be justified in going ahead. Personally, I prefer not to do so except in the most obvious case, but with about 800 active admins, there are going to be lots of mistakes, and we should be biased towards getting them fixed. Most will be non-controversial; it's the few controversial ones that get to AN/I. Though there are undoubtedly some foolish admins, I have not seen any admin here so extraordinarily foolish as to wantonly reverse other admins' actions without some at least partially reasonable basis. The effect of this change will be the opposite of what it intends: it will make the chances of an admin acting arbitrarily very much higher. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a perennial, but...

Hi. Please do forgive me if this is the wrong forum, or a perennial suggestion, or etc. But I have a concern, and it is a hypothetical one: Let's say an admin bears a POV position, and blocks accordingly. Let's say he/she does so very, very carefully, however, tiptoeing inside the sidelines on every rule. The end result is still the same: people from one side of an issue get blocked; people from the other do not. And there's a biased block on someone's block log. The problem is that any admin at any given moment can block any one he or she darn well pleases, if he or she does so very carefully. So:

1. Can we have two block processes: a "blatant" and "discussed", with the latter similar to the discussion format of WP:AFD? It would be for handling non-blatant behavior, but would in fact serve also as a check and balance against the powers of the lone admin... Admins have far, far too much individual discretion.
2. If some admin blocks me unfairly, is the record deletable? I seem to recall that it is.

• • Ling.Nut 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Most controversial areas (where a POV problem could occur) are going to have a lot of editors involved there, and, since administrators are editors, a lot of admins involved there. It is highly likely that discussion will occur either before, or after an action being taken. If there are objections to an admin's actions that can't be resolved by discussion with the admin, WP:ANI exists to bring the issue to wider attention. For the person who is blocked in your scenario, they can request their block be reviewed on their talk page by using {{unblock}}, send an email to the unblock mailing list, or join the IRC channel for requesting unblocks. Blocks that aren't justified are unlikely to stand given the many avenues for appeal.
2. The block log is not supposed to be changed, entries can't be removed without going to rather extraordinary lengths. Prodego ^talk 02:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict, repeating a lot of what Prodego said) Without agreeing entirely with your premise, here are my views on your proposals: #1. We already have these processes somewhat on an ad hoc basis; admins do the "blatant" version of course already, and voluntarily do the "discussed" version in the form of WP:AN, WP:ANI, and WP:RFCC discussions (though much less often than ideal). Blocking discussions take place in any number of places... it just is not as rigidly structured as you propose. #2. I believe RevisionDelete can do this but it looks to be highly discouraged. -kotra (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is gonna read like an off-topic rant, but it isn't... I dislike the option of going to ANI. It's ineffective, unstructured and unhelpful. I've been at ANI once or twice, albeit very briefly in every instance. It is both a free-for-all and a fever swamp, and the level of admin helpfulness would not make the needle jiggle off the "Zero" setting. If you admins wanna truly help Wikipedia, then start acting like customer service representative instead of hall monitors. There is no helpfulness at all; just a couple accusing voices in the larger sounds of silence, punctuated by a lone RTFM... There does need to be a far more professional approach, including especially safeguards against admins sticking up for each other. Executive summary: ANI sucks, but you can help. • Ling.Nut 03:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As can you, of course... anyone can help at ANI, not just admins. I agree, it is good to remind admins that they are servants of the community, mere button-pushers subject to community consensus. But I don't see a formal blocking discussion process as beneficial; it would merely prolong and increase drama. -kotra (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Analagously to the way in which a legal trial "prolongs and increases drama" do you mean? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really. We already have "trials" (by analogy) in the form of RFCC, ANI, AN, ARBCOM, etc. My concern is that yet another formalized process where it is not needed would create more convoluted bureaucracy and wikilawyering. More process is not the answer in this case; fewer arrogant admins is. -kotra (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No argument from me there. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested changes to WP:UNINVOLVED

As a consequence of the discussions at the Village Pump here on a suggested policy change, I suggest that WP:UNINVOLVED be changed to incorporate a small, but extremely critical change. The opening line of WP:UNINVOLVED currently reads:

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

This may be changed to:

• "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice or opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role."

This will clarify an important part of an administrator's non-CoI involvement in improving the editorial contents of an article, post his/her having taken an administrative action on a user/article/related dispute. Thanks. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed I fundamentally disagree with this proposed change. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and some people without conflicts of interest can administer. As it stands the policy reflects this. I would be opposed to a blanket limit on editorial involvement as counter to the principle of open editing. Further, it appears this proposal is the result of several disputes you have had with administrators and it is rather bad form to propose changing a policy to conform to your behavior as opposed to adhering to the community's expected norms. MBisanz ^talk 04:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I think a better way to avoid CoI would be to allow admins to edit whatever they like, but restrict their administrative activities on articles where they are significant editors. At the moment, an admin can exercise admin powers on an article they significantly edit, as long as it is not "to advantage" (see Misuse of administrative tools). It would be preferable for admins to not exercise any admin power over articles they are heavily involved, and instead, request the assistance of an uninvolved admin, like everyone else would have to. Then they are not restricted in where they can edit content.--Lester 05:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment MBisanz, I think you got the lines completely wrong [do rest assured; I've not had any disputes with any administrators]. Actually the line that already exists in WP:UNINVOLVED is "is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute". I am suggesting an improvement to "is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute in either an administrative role or editorial role" As I suggested on your talk page, an alternative line could be " is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute in any role whatsoever". But I suspected that was way too broad. I'm sure you'll appreciate how the addition of the extra words clarifies the roles in which an administrator can take action. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• No, it still muddies the water with the term "usually" qualifying editing and also blurs the CoI line of when an admin should not take admin actions on an article (when they are an editor of it). As it reads now, there is a clear line down the middle that this proposal smudges. MBisanz ^talk 05:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion MBisanz, the term "usually" already exists in WP:UNINVOLVED. I didn't suggest it. Therefore, your objection to how WP:UNINVOLVED currently is, is exactly where I come from. The grey area. Another suggestion ergo, that the line be changed to "is not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role". How's that? And to support your viewpoint completely, the line could be "is not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute." We could simply do away with the word "usually". Does that work? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there any specific examples of where the current wording has failed us? I am also not sure what practical change the alteration in wording is meant to accomplish(I did just wake up). Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a serious concern. WP:UNINVOLVED starts with a negative definition, by stating what being involved is not. But no where that I can find on WP:ADMIN is there a definition of what being involved is. This can be seen in how the section starts, it begins "One important caveat is ..." without anything previous clearly stating what it is a caveat to. I suggest a short paragraph defining what it means to be involved in a dispute (either on a page, about a topic, or with a another editor). LK (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

LK, I would suggest you starting a separate discussion on that. Unless you can give at least an alternative that can be discussed, I suspect an open/vague discussion that you start would not find consensus for discussion.

Chillum (btw, I loved the "can you see the diff" on your user page). If you look at the Village Pump discussions here , you'll realise that till now the focus in past policies has been on restricting admin action by admins on articles where they might have a CoI due to previous involved editing. My village pump discussion was wrt focusing places where the current policies fail us, that is, on analysing editing action by admins on articles where they might have a CoI due to previous involved admin action. Looking at the village pump discussions, it's clear that admins would not want any restriction on editing, on articles where they've taken admin action. WP:UNINVOLVED right now focuses only on "not" restricting "admin action" if the admin has been involved in a "minor" role with the article/user/dispute previously (" whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute."). As admins are of consensus that they do not want editing restriction on an article where they've taken admin action, I proposed expanding the previous line ("whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute is not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role"). This will clear the ground for the future, as administrators would be able to use WP:UNINVOLVED to justify editing action on articles where they've undertaken admin action, in case another user raises objections. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 07:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Great! Given the number of reverts and blocks admins seem to be placing on each other with the BLP issue, this discussion seems to be accepted beyond one oppose and all other comments given. I'm making the historic (lol) change to Admin editing powers on articles. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 06:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for an Icon

I have been reading pages for a while, but I am having difficulty knowing who is an administrator and who is not. My suggestion is that some kind of icon be automatically added to the signature tags of all administrators. This would need to be saved with the edits in some manner so that if a person is no longer an administrator the fact that they were an administrator at the time of the edit would be preserved. Template:User admin is a step in the right direction, but I think this information should be included in the signature. Q Science (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Doing this would seem to imply that comments by administrators should be given some sort of special status in discussions, which they shouldn't. Hut 8.5 21:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a script out there that highlights all admin signatures with a special color, but I forget its name at the moment. MBisanz ^talk 21:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why? The opinions of admins prima facie carry no more weight than any other user. There is a script that will highlight admin signatures, however: Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts#Discussions –xeno^talk 21:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you have Popups installed, you can hover over the signature and see everyone's flags. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I have seen many heated discussions where people are "threatened" with being banned. In these discussions, as well as numerous edit wars, it seems that administrators do have special powers. In particular, a "threat" from a regular user may be actually a "warning" from an administrator.

I have just tried Popups, wow. I have been an active editor for 3 years and had no idea. This is good for me (now that I know) but I still think that the general community would benefit (fewer edit wars) if something was added to the signature. Also, for many signature tags, the display is useless because the useful information is actually off the bottom on the screen. This feature also lags a lot (on my system). I may have to disable it for that. Q Science (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

NO BIG DEAL - pure fantasy

In light of the motion now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#BLP_deletions, I question the legitimacy of the WP:NOBIGDEAL section included in this policy. I tried to remove it [2], but apparently that was being 'pointy' [3]. I submit to anyone reading that the wording of NO BIG DEAL, if it was ever really accepted, is now just a pure fantasy, an in-joke of Wikipedia, and that treating adminship as a license to effect policy change by activism, is now a real and arbcom endorsed feature of possessing the bit. MickMacNee (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: there is nothing wrong with admins having activist views. However, this motion regards the use of the actual admin tools, namely the power of deletion and blocking/unblocking, to further those wiki-political aims and objectives. MickMacNee (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was actually going to undo that removal when theDJ beat me to it. This is one of the best-known and most often quoted notions about being a sysop. Actually reading the section, it's pretty clear that not only is most of it simply a quote and explanation of that quote, but it is wholly unrelated and unaffected by the ongoing request and discussion(s). This section talks about how to view adminship, and no matter what people delete or undelete, being a sysop should still be considered "no big deal" and should not be viewed as a goal or a means to an end. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same request? The one that details an admin's attempt to use his delete button as a means to an end to the 'BLP problem' by ignoring the community? The one with the motion that says that this unilateral action to further a goal falls within his powers? It might be the most quoted part of the policy, but now it is obviously wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because you now view adminship as a big deal doesn't mean that everyone now does, or should. Admins can clearly do things that are a big deal, but that doesn't mean that being one actually matters. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not just my view that it has changed. It is that of arbcom and a significant minority of the admins themselves. You can deny this all you want, but it's happened. MickMacNee (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"No Big Deal" was a nice day-dream someone had a long time ago, like "Imagine no possessions", "The workers control the means of production" or levitating the Pentagon. It's never been reality in all the time I've been editing Wikipedia, and I doubt it ever will. DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been an admin for years now and I can tell you all first hand that it is no big deal. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I support removing "No big deal"; it is very far from reality when a select group of admins can change policy by fiat, and have ArbCom line up to support them. Being an admin is obviously a big deal when you can decide the fate of 50,000 articles by going on a deletion spree. Fences&Windows 19:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Making major policy changes to long standing ideals in response to a single event is always a bad idea. Also, "no big deal" does not mean "no discretion". Arbcom is not saying that admins can create policy by fiat, I don't think anyone is saying that, they are saying that the actions were within the realm of admin discretion. You can agree with that or disagree with that but it does not make being an admin "a big deal". Besides, arbcom decisions do not dictate the content of our policies. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]. You are quite right, (about policy changes and single events) but it would be an interesting subject for an RfC. I have no doubt that the existing wording represents both an historical reality and an ideal, but I am not convinced it is an entirely truthful description of current reality. Ben MacDui 20:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom results often take their own imaginative twists from community based policy, that does not invalidate the community based policy. An RFC would be interesting, but I am pretty sure people don't want adminship to be a big deal. I suppose if the community came to the consensus that it was a big deal and there there was extra special authority involved then I would respect that consensus while opposing it the whole way. In fact if the community decided that admins could impose policy by fiat then I would use that new ability to change it so that we cannot impose policy by fiat. I did not sign up to be in management, I signed up as a janitor. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Is admiship suppose to be no big deal? Yes. Is it now no big deal? Hell no. Sole Soul (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I went back to Nostalgia Wikipedia to look up for some context and modified it. It should look more accurate now. - Mailer Diablo 07:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

iran

if you ask an expert in iran history you will find that at least one of your administrators is trying to change history !!!! for example iran =persian and look at persian empire its directed to achemenid empire they are funny mistakes and reduce your reliability. please take care of them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.198.23.110 (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNINVOLVED revised

I came here looking for guidance on what constitutes involvement as an administrator and found the section very poorly written. Aside from the ambiguous examples and repetition, the section never explained what constituted involvement or why it was discouraged. I've had a stab at rewriting it (previous version, my version, current version); editors more familiar with the issue might want to refine it. Cheers,  Skomorokh  19:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a problem with NowCommons

Hi,

Why is there is 10,952 files in Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons. Most of them seems obvious case without problem or ambiguity. If this is just a problem of manpower, I could maybe ask for temporary adminship. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 13:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone ran a script that filled it up and we're slowly getting thru it. (And by we, I mean, other admins than me =) See Wikipedia:ANI#NowCommons - epic backlog. –xeno^talk 13:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move God's Property from Kirk Franklin's Nu Nation

It was my mistake for moving it in the first place, on billboard.com the artist name comes up as God's Property from Kirk Franklin's Nu Nation which I thought was the correct title, but it's actually by Kirk Franklin and the choir, God's Property. The title of the album is just called God's Property. I also need some help on following the instructions of how to request a move, because I've done it twice before, but the bot keeps removing my request for no reason. Tell me what I'm doing wrong. Hometown Kid (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2010 (GMT)

Survey regarding WP:NOBIGDEAL

I've created a survey regarding WP:NOBIGDEAL, and I invite anyone and everyone to participate. It is found at User:B Fizz/Admin for X years/Survey 1. Thanks. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 17:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding 'calmly and reasonably warn' to Uninvolved

I've added the modifiers 'calmly and reasonably' to the description of how warnings do not make an administrator involved.[4] Unreasonable, biased, or rude warnings are prima facie evidence of being emotionally involved. LK (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion Lawrence. When a vandal is being extremely in the face, the reply of an administrator has to be in the face. Therefore, I would suggest you revert your changes and go for consensus here. ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 09:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope you're not suggesting that admins are infallible or have special dispensation to be rude. If an admin goes postal on someone, or if he/she obviously sides with one party in a dispute, or if he/she gives warnings to an editor without reason, that is evidence that he/she should not be using admin tools in that situation. LK (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, before that edit I was under the impression that I should act unreasonably and in a fury. Fences&Windows 21:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not all admins are as calm and reasonable as you, Fences and Windows. DuncanHill (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly constitutes "calm"? I have been told to calm down after given a level 1 warning template for page blanking. It is very hard to tell tone from text. I suppose if an admin said "OMFG!?!! Will you just stop right now, you are making me so mad!!!! I will block the hell out of you if you continue", then I would ask them to step aside not because they are involved but because they are acting like a fool. Whereas "If you continue edit warring as you have been at foobar then you will be blocked. This type of behavior is completely inappropriate", then it is more subjective. You can imagine someone red faced yelling that, or you can imagine them explaining it calmly. Someone mid-edit war may be in the mood to assume the former. I think we should be careful with such subjective language. I don't really see what calmness and involvement have to do with each other. Involvement is about content disputes, not emotional involvement(where did that come from?). Calmness is about civility. This seems to muddy the waters. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember that all policies and guidelines have to be interpreted by the community, so let's just take a page from common law and ask, "what would a reasonable person think of this?". A reasonable person would be able to judge when warnings are calm and reasonable. When has there been an ANI case where an admin has been admonished for giving reasonable warnings just because the person being warned claimed that they were unreasonable? Rejecting such wording is essentially telling the community that an admin is to be considered 'uninvolved' even after giving warnings for no reason, displaying clear bias, being rude, blowing up, and going postal on someone; as long as such interactions are framed as 'administrative warnings'. LK (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In response to the question of what civility has to do with involvement, IMO, being uncivil to someone is evidence that one is emotionally involved about the content of the page in question. However, I am not adverse to removing the word 'calmly' and only including the word 'reasonably'. Are there are any objections to including 'reasonably warn', since unreasonable warnings are evidence of bias and involvement? LK (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Not that I want you to feel I'm generally opposed to being calm and reasonable (lol), I believe there is no need for an additional word like 'reasonably' as the current usage satisfies the 'involvement' factor of administrators. ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 06:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Per 'not vote' can you elucidate your reason for opposing this one word, something more than 'unnecessary'? LK (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sure. The current set of lines in question go like this: "Administrators are not considered to be 'involved' with a given editor if the only interaction has been to warn that editor against further actions which are against policy or community norms. Calm discussion and explanation of the warning likewise do not cause an administrator to become 'involved' or have a conflict of interest with regards to future blocks of the warned editor." I believe that takes care of the 'reasonable' factor quite comprehensively. I would recommend that if you wish to add the word 'unreasonable', a better choice would be to add it in the second line (and change it to "Calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of the warning likewise do not cause an administrator to become 'involved' or have a conflict of interest with regards to future blocks of the warned editor.") There's a reason behind my viewpoint. While warning a vandal/editor (I'm referring to the initial warning), strong words become necessary (as the editor in dispute might not stop his tendentious editing otherwise). Now, such words might seem reasonable to some and unreasonable to others. It's a matter of personal opinion. Therefore... ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Before I make my main point, can we put to rest this argument that 'we must not state X, otherwise some unreasonable person will unreasonably interpret it to mean some unreasonable thing'. Unreasonable people can misinterpret anything we write. The question should always be, 'what is a reasonable interpretation of a proposed policy or guideline?' That said, a reasonable interpretation of the current policy as it stands is that any admin warning given, no matter how rude, biased or unreasonable, cannot demonstrate that an admin is involved.

Your suggestion of incorporating 'reasonable' into the following sentence is fine with me, as long as that sentence refers to both warnings and discussions of the warnings. So I suggest, "Calm and reasonable warnings and discussion of the warnings, do not cause an administrator to become 'involved' or have a conflict of interest ...." Otherwise, we are implicitly saying that only discussions of warnings need to be calm and reasonable. LK (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence, I see out here that you're trying to act in good faith. I reiterate my point that when a warning is being given, many times, administrators use strong words which in my opinion are pretty calmly put and quite reasonable too given the situation - but that's my opinion. Therefore, keep the calm and reasonable to the discussions part, rather than to the warning. Give leeway to administrators to use appropriate words while warning. The moment the warning is given, they reach the discussions stage, where your change would be appropriate. Thanks ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 16:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm tired of arguing what for me is an obvious point, so I will incorporate 'reasonable' as you suggested and leave it at that. However, I reiterate my position that clearly unreasonable warnings demonstrate involvement. This is not just my opinion, as Arbcom rulings have demonstrated as such. Message me on my talk page if you are interested in which, as I don't want to identify specific people here. LK (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

FT2 has edited the section, I have edited it a bit more in the spirit of what was discussed here. LK (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Your changes are perfectly calm and reasonable :) Tc and best, ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)