Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrators

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

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]
    • Policy is ultimately set by the community, not ArbCom. Truthfully, I'm a bit concerned about how important CTOPs have become policy-wise; there is a definite risk that they could turn into ArbCom writing policy-by-fiat, which they're not supposed to do and which I don't think anyone wants. So my opinion is that ArbCom's rules for CTOPs are applicable only to the extent that the community fails to handle things (because that's ArbCom's remit and the entire rationale for them in the first place.) And that in turn means that when the community makes coherent policy capable of reaching a consensus, ArbCom is supposed to defer to it; this would include stuff touching on CTOPs. We cannot allow ourselves to work "around" them; policy is supposed to flow from the community to (in cases of last resort) ArbCom, not the other way around. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 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]
Also note that the advisory may be seen to be INVOLVED language is for trivial actions; the implication is that for more serious things, even the appearance of involvement ought to be a red line. I think this is necessary because ultimately the community can only act on what it sees - outside of very unusual circumstances where there are extenuating circumstances that are not immediately obvious, the appearance of involvement is involvement. --Aquillion (talk) 17:55, 12 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]

@Ritchie333 this would be the happy path, however multiple respected editors have given contradictory opinions on what is supposed to be common sense, and the underlying problem is when an admin sincerely claims they are not involved. Either get into a wiki-lawyering discussion on whether they are policy compliant or not, and or resistance to optics of WP:ADMINACCT. I have not familiarized myself with desysop'ing procedures, but my hunch is it is quite appropriately a high hurdle and stressful avenue to pursue. It's true most policies cannot preemptively foresee new situations, but this current proposal here is explicitly inspired by a current unresolved ambiguity that is regularly recurring and possibly applicable to other scenarios as well. As a whole, this is meant as an incremental improvement, not a revamp of existing community practices or written text of INVOLVED. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By my reading, the dispute here is over whether dispute in WP:INVOLVED refers solely to disputes over wiki content, or whether it refers to any sort of underlying dispute, including real-world ones. My belief is that it is meant to be the latter, and that all that is needed is a few additional words in INVOLVED to that effect, eg. adding a sentence at the end of the first paragraph along the lines of This includes both on-wiki and real-world disputes; if an administrator's actions show involvement in a particular real-world dispute, they should avoid acting as an admin in any topics where that dispute is central. The point here is "if your actions show a clear opinion on PIA / AP2 / the Troubles / etc, you mostly shouldn't be acting as an admin in those areas." Including cautious wording like central allows people to still eg. admin PIA / AP2 stuff that doesn't cut at that underlying core dispute, while still making it clear enough where the general line is and that broad involvement with those sorts of topic areas is a thing. --Aquillion (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The real life advice is that it doesn‘t matter if one is technically not INVOLVED. When the pitchforks are out, not everyone is careful with interpreting timelines and AGFing, and any slight association can be misconstrued as involvement. In 99% of the cases, best intentions works out fine and the community is all the better for it; its the 1% when all hell breaks loose. So it's a matter of whether you are prepared for what you are opening yourself up to by the mere appearance of INVOLVED.—Bagumba (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the current language, disputes on topics, adequately communicates that WP:INVOLVED can apply to disputes on topics, not just disputes about particular edits, editors, pages, or discussions, but entire topics. No objection to changing the language in order to clarify or emphasize that a "dispute" can be about a "topic". Levivich (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I mean, the issue is that in the discussion that sparked this conversation, there is clear disagreement among veteran editors and even veteran administrators over whether it is even possible to be WP:INVOLVED in an entire topic area. This is not an obscure dispute over some odd corner-case, it's a fundamental disconnect over the core purpose of the policy. It seems like something that could be cleared up in a single sentence, so we should probably do that if consensus exists for it. (And if it doesn't, we should find out what consensus does exist for.) There will always be disagreement in specific cases, and some aspects of INVOLVED are complicated and situation; but the broad question of whether involvement even can apply to a topic area, ever, seems to me to be straightforwards and ought to be made as clear as possible if there are veteran editors expressing disagreement over it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it is possible to be INVOLVED in a whole topic area depends on the size of the topic area. Is it possible to be INVOLVED with the whole topic of, e.g. tree shaping? Almost certainly. Is it possible to be INVOLVED with the whole topic of e.g. Eastern Europe? Almost certainly not. Most topic areas will be somewhere in between - e.g. I can imagine good arguments both ways for something like The Troubles. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Special care must be taken by administrators in contentious topic areas that they do not show bias. There are many ways this can manifest itself, and I won't get into them here. But one surefire way of showing bias is by editing in the topic area. Therefore I would agree that the INVOLVED rule should be clarified for contentious topics only that editors who have edited in the topic area, broadly defined, should not take administrative actions therein. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So fixing a typo on the 1950 in Israel article would make an administrator INVOLVED with a dispute regarding Palestinian National Initiative? Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly believe that one typo correction is a trivial exception, but for sake of argument let's say it's considered a major edit (perhaps an admin has a history of editing hundreds of articles with "minor typos) and appears to be involved int eharea", the question being addressed in this thread is either the status quo, where solely the article 1950 in Israel (and immediately related articles -- a weakly defined relations) make the admin involved, or one of the proposed alternative, is that all other ARBPIA articles are also then covered under INVOLVE admin-recusal.
    Now, why do I believe in this case it is trivial/not involvement (for anyone) is because in current WP:INVOLVED wording, important exception highlights: 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. which continues to remain the discretionary grey-zone.
    I highly absolutely doubt anyone in the community would raise and successfully mount a WP:Pointy challenge if indeed someone once fixed a typo. The enforcement of WP:INVOLVE even today is theoretically broad, but the amount of energy into enforcing it is still a sufficient hurdle. I personally do not enjoy participating in a 140+ comment thread clarifying a question about WP:INVOLVE which which merely clarifies in one instance with one particular admin whether they are involved or not. It is premature to say what the result of that discussion will be, but it clear that many respected editors have contradictory understandings of what a dispute area is in current wording, which we should hope to resolve here. No one has raised any confusion or contradictory proposals regarding what is considered trivial/minor edits in themselves so I hope this addresses your concern of avoiding misapplication of WP:INVOLVE. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not correcting a typo but a substantive edit, yes. There are no uncontroversial substantive edits in this subject area. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just absurd. Adding a person to the Births section of 1950 in Israel should not be an excuse to never have to help with admin tools in the Palestine-Israel topic area ever again. Bright line rules like that would only benefit wikilawyers and people gaming the rules. And concentrate power in the hands of those few admins who do little or no content editing. Who would want that? —Kusma (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But your point is well taken. There needs to be commonsense rules and also perhaps editors who have abided by the INVOLVED rule as it is now should be grandfathered in. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tentatively starting work on an essay that summarises what we're saying here. Anyone is welcome to help me clarify it, including by editing it directly (it's in my userspace but that doesn't mean "hands off"), or by commenting here.—S Marshall T/C 11:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my experience we have considered admins INVOLVED in an area when they have made substantive content edits in it, and the broader the set of pages they have edited, the broader the scope of their involvement. As such the use of "dispute" and "show bias" in the policy as written are somewhat misleading. I am unquestionably involved with respect to the writing of Ursula K. Le Guin, for instance, even though there is no RL dispute that covers it, my edits - in my view - do not show bias, and there haven't really been on-wiki disputes about my writing either. I would support adjusting the wording of the policy to that effect. However, I think it would be a serious mistake to set the scope of an admin's involvement a priori; that is, without regard to where their edits have actually been. I also think it would be a mistake to make a special case for ARBPIA. We have many CTOPs, some narrow, some broad. I see no reason why admin involvement here should be treated any differently from, say, gun control, or Falun Gong, or the article titles situation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely agreed. Measuring perceived and actual bias is quite thorny, albeit necessary especially in personal conflicts between editors. There are easier metrics we can rely on though regardless of editor interactions like involvement in discussions, non-trivial edits, participation in content related discussions etc...
    Regarding dispute area, we won't be able to carve out a well defined topic area for every single topic imaginable on Wikipedia. I do think that CTOPs are helpful in that they are well defined scope, but more custom/local areas of dispute areas are commonly defined, e.g scopes of topic-bans (a completely different context). I do not believe anyone would raise a concern about your (hypothetical) edits of Ursula K. Le Guin related articles, even if you edited them currently which is patently WP:INVOLVED in the policy sense, but if there's a reason to be concerned, someone should raise it to your attention first. Similarly, no one would likely raise concerns about your (hypothetical) edits to an adjacent Octavia Butler article, unless they had reasons. Whether those reasons are legitimate concerns or nonsensical wiki-lawyering is something the community can clarify. For a large set of CTOPs, I imagine we can identify if they are about one primary dispute or not. But, before going down that route, we should establish consensus here that this is what we want to do. Armenia/Azerbaijan, Falun Gong, ARBPIA are all in my mind, single disputes. Whereas, I do not see it that way with GenSex or American politics, even though they do fall down to several common, but distinct disputes, however the community can hash those details in subsequent RfCs.
    The written policy here needs to be updated, but the enforcement also shape its worth. Currently, we have a super vague policy. Even with good intentions, enforcement of INVOLVE remains a challenge, because no one is able to explain in policy terms what a dispute area is. Some have intentionally argued this is a good thing in the above discussion. We need better options. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Enforcement of anything is a challenge—have you seen WP:ANI any time in the last decade? Why isn't more effort made to define policies so a box-ticking exercise could rule on whether someone should be blocked? The answer is that it is not possible. More words thrown at a policy creates more confusion and wriggle room. Completely uninvolved admins often have no clue what conflicts are about and cannot reasonably take an admin action without first mastering the topic to some extent. That is why some involvement has to be tolerated and we have to debate the corner cases. Anything an admin can do can be reversed. Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I do think Contentious topics are going to play out differently than other areas, which is reflected in the LEAD of that page When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced. So editing that might not raise an eyebrow in a non-CT around INVOLVED might be very much considered troubling with-in a CT. I don't think, however, that needs to be incorporated into the admin policy itself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It also doesn't mean that any edit to a CT will be construed as making an admin (or anyone else) involved in the whole of that CT area, especially not in the broader ones. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just picking up on where I left off a while back: I think that common-sense rules can be worked out for admins in contentious topic areas, so that no, adding something routine to 1950 in Israel wouldn't set off a three-alarm fire but that contributing substantively in the topic area puts it off limits to you as an admin. Otherwise it underlines the view of admins as being "super-users" and not editors with arms-length relationships to content who come in to articles in an administrative fashion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with that is that some CT areas are extremely broad. An admin could very reasonably be firmly involved regards the contemporary Russia-Ukraine war but completely uninvolved regarding the 1990s Balkans or the WWII-era history of Poland, despite all three being firmly within the Eastern Europe CT area. Israel-Palestine is narrower than Eastern Europe but it is still broad enough that an admin can be INVOVLED in one part of the topic area but UNINVOLVED in another. It can only be judged based on the actions of the administrator concerned. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the gist of INVOLVED is that ....administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Therefore, the dividing line for whether an admin is INVOLVED in a topic area comes down to "do their edits give a reasonable sense that they have strong feelings about a dispute underlying this topic?" This inference of strong feelings is defined very broadly - we shouldn't have to read an editor's mind to call them involved, so anything that even might hint at strong feelings is enough - but utterly trivial edits don't imply involvement as long as there's no plausible way they could possibly carry any sense of strong feelings. And likewise, the implication is that the boundaries of a topic area are defined by "how reasonable is it that an editor could have strong opinions on X, but not Y?" For example, if someone's edits show a strong opinion about Donald Trump, or about left-right politics, or something of that nature, then it becomes hard to accept that there is any part of the AP2 topic area that they could be considered uninvolved in. Other topic areas vary in scope (eg. GENSEX is really at least three or four interlocking areas - feminism / antifeminism, LGBT stuff, and other human sexuality stuff; or Eastern Europe, which covers a bunch of disputes); this is easily understood in that it's possible for someone to have strong feelings about one of those without having strong feelings about another. --Aquillion (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, one thing I would add regarding the "strong feelings" thing - many INVOLVED editors don't realize how strong their feelings on a subject are. To them, it doesn't seem that their edits betray strong feelings because they're just saying "common sense" stuff (in response to a bunch of people who are utterly unreasonable, no doubt.) So administrators should particularly understand that "well I don't feel I have strong feelings" is not a defense; the mere appearance of impropriety is sufficient. Even a bunch of individually minor edits can add up to the appearance of strong feelings when taken collectively (eg. if someone makes a bunch of individually minor corrections which, when examined, only ever seem to fix problems that made one side in a real-world dispute look good or bad.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree about "strong feelings," but that is an element that involves a bit of mind-reading. Rather than that, perhaps the operative word should be "substantive." While there is wiggle room there, I think it provides better guidance. With respect to Thryduff's point concerning some contentious topic areas being extremely broad: I'll grant you that. So OK. So admins who post substantively in those broad areas should not be admins in those broad areas. I am sure (concerning the example given) that there must be hundreds of administrators who are not interested in Eastern Europe. And no, fixing vandalism in Poland two years ago via Huggle doesn't count. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone agrees that an admin should not admin in a topic area in which they are involved, we just disagree that a contentious topic designation automatically equals a topic area in all cases. We don't have an overabundance of administrators and preventing them from admining in areas where they are uninvolved does not benefit the project. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Eastern Europe isn't even that sprawling a topic area. Try BLP or WP:ARBIPA on for size. ARBIPA covers all of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and pre-independence Bangladesh, broadly construed. How many Bollywood movies do I have to edit, or wildlife in Pakistan before I can't admin in disputes about Modi. I'm a regular contributor on BLPN, should I avoid acting as an administrator in any situation that involves a person born less than 115 years ago? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure a rule could be drafted to take your concerns into account, so that editing an article on a Bollywood movie doesn't create issues for acting as an admin on Modi. Surely the human mind can figure out such a rule. Maybe not my mind, but there must be a mind out there capable of doing so. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once you stop assuming that a contentious topic designation covers a single topic then it becomes clear that we don't need such a rule. Is there actually a problem of admins acting where they are involved that exists beyond (at most) a few isolated examples involving individual administrators? If there isn't then this whole this is a solution in search of a problem. Thryduulf (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Resysoppings after five years with no administrative actions

[edit]

In Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship, should the policy regarding Over five years since administrative tools were last used for restoration of adminship apply to:

  • Option 1: Only those former administrators desysopped for inactivity
  • Option 2: All former administrators

Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

At Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Resysop request (Fathoms Below), Tamzin pointed out that the rule allowing automatic resysopping at BN only within five years of the most recent administative action only applies to admins who were desysopped for inactivity, not those who resigned the bit or who lost it for other reasons. The 2022 RFC clarifying when we start counting the 5 years from resulted in a reversion of a 2018 change that applied the 5 year rule to all desysopped editors, despite not discussing that. Indeed my reading of the 2022 comments suggests most commenters anticipated it continuing to apply to all editors. Accordingly, I think we should get explicit consensus for one or the other. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (five year rule)

[edit]
  • Option 2. I believe that all former admins should be required to pass RFA (or an admin election or any other equivalent process) if it has been more than 5 years since their last admin action, and per my comments above. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the person who started it, it was not my intent to change that part of the policy with that RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedurally, I don't think that there has ever been a consensus to apply this to all ex-admins, but I don't have any objection to making that policy now. This should probably be better-advertised, though, as it would affect quite a few former admins like me who remain active and might respect a right of resysop at any point in the future. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 23:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please feel free to advertise this wherever you think is relevant. The goal is to establish what the consensus is now, not what the consensus was at some point previously. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the motivation for requiring an administrative action within the past five years isn't affected by whether or not the admin in question requested removal of their privileges in the interim. Thus I agree with modifying the policy so the five-year requirement applies equally, regardless of why administrative privileges were removed. isaacl (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's clear that prior consensus was option 1, but I think changing to option 2 would be logical. OTOH, we could always use more admins and someone requesting resysop after five years may still be a net positive. Perhaps it's better to stick with option 1 and leave the rest to 'crat discretion? Toadspike [Talk] 06:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2: not convinced there's a strong enough reason to treat these two groups differently. (It's always seemed kind of crazy to me that someone who resigned twenty years ago is still technically eligible for resysop.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes little sense to treat the two groups of ex-admins differently, especially with the 100/5 rule. An admin who goes to WP:BN and resigns the day before they would be desysopped is doing the honourable thing, but that isn't really a reason to treat them better (indefinitely) than the ex-admin who was on vacation the day before the desysop. Agree with Tamzin that this should probably be advertised better before we lock out some good people, though. —Kusma (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thought would be that we should treat someone who resigned the bit the same as we'd treat someone with the same profile who hadn't resigned the bit. So if they would have been desysopped at some point anyway, then apply the rules for a resysop. But on the other hand, if that editor actually wouldn't ever have been desysopped anyway but for their decision to resign, I'm hesitant to treat them more harshly than someone who simply kept the bit and didn't use it. It's good for the security of the project if editors who don't need adminship for a period of time give it up on a technical level and I don't think we should change the rules to deincentivise that.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel mixed on this. On the one hand, should an admin who's active within the community and gives up their tools be allowed to pick them back up at any time? I somewhat feel like, yes, but I also recognize that going 5 years without the tools and then picking them back up can be something that people would not be a fan of. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (five year rule)

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators&oldid=1255776157"