→Re-focus to answer the question: no it would not. |
Matt Lewis (talk | contribs) →Re-focus to answer the question: The majority of editors actually respect tough/brave admin who make hard decisions |
||
Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
* No. I'm open to recall on the reasoning that the community needs more of a recourse than the lenghty RFC->ArbCom process, and I strive to ensure that my administrative actions stand up to scrutiny. As for the fears about gaming the system, I'm quite confident that even admins working on difficult blocks or [[WP:AE]] will have enough people to stand up for them if they ever were to be subject to any for of community deadminship. What a CDA would help with is to ensure that the bad apples can be removed in less than the month+ process it takes now. [[User:MLauba|MLauba]] ([[User talk:MLauba|talk]]) 14:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
* No. I'm open to recall on the reasoning that the community needs more of a recourse than the lenghty RFC->ArbCom process, and I strive to ensure that my administrative actions stand up to scrutiny. As for the fears about gaming the system, I'm quite confident that even admins working on difficult blocks or [[WP:AE]] will have enough people to stand up for them if they ever were to be subject to any for of community deadminship. What a CDA would help with is to ensure that the bad apples can be removed in less than the month+ process it takes now. [[User:MLauba|MLauba]] ([[User talk:MLauba|talk]]) 14:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
*: It's smug to say that something will be no problem for somebody else who does a tough job that ''you don't do yourself''. Getting put in the stocks so people can toss accusations for a week or two is stressful, even when one is completely vindicated at the end of the process. No thanks. The proposal is a naive idea put forward by people who aren't listening to concerns of those affected by the proposal. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Brrr]]</sup> 15:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
*: It's smug to say that something will be no problem for somebody else who does a tough job that ''you don't do yourself''. Getting put in the stocks so people can toss accusations for a week or two is stressful, even when one is completely vindicated at the end of the process. No thanks. The proposal is a naive idea put forward by people who aren't listening to concerns of those affected by the proposal. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Brrr]]</sup> 15:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::*And what of the many admin who back CDA? It simply has to be trialled. [[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
*::A fine comment, but can we please reserve debate about CDA itself for other places? I'd like to stay focused on the question. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 15:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
*::A fine comment, but can we please reserve debate about CDA itself for other places? I'd like to stay focused on the question. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 15:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
*:::Sorry, you have no right to limit the scope of discussions. Asking ''what color should we paint the bikeshed'' invites the question ''do we even need a bikeshed?'' [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Brrr]]</sup> 15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
*:::Sorry, you have no right to limit the scope of discussions. Asking ''what color should we paint the bikeshed'' invites the question ''do we even need a bikeshed?'' [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Brrr]]</sup> 15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
Line 180: | Line 181: | ||
*'''No''' I rather think the policy has its process conditions so limiting that it will accomplish nothing at all, good or bad. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 16:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
*'''No''' I rather think the policy has its process conditions so limiting that it will accomplish nothing at all, good or bad. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 16:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''No''' as I am already [[User:Lar/Accountability|recallable]]. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
*'''No''' as I am already [[User:Lar/Accountability|recallable]]. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
Hammersoft, repeatedly asking the same questions wherever you can (having had responses every time - despite your claims of being ignored) is really pusing AGF now. You are dictating what people can say, and forcing people to repeat responses by copying the answers that you were happy with into a new section. This is just not on, and I really feel you are wasting people's time now. I wasn't bothered with you posting here, it's just the way you go about it - it's not right. You are consistently trying to make it look like you have more support than you do, but bundling people's previous comments together isn't going to impress anyone but the laziest of busy people. |
|||
Nobody can stop CDA now just because you (or anyone else) theorises that X,Y,Z disasters will happen. You simply do not know what will happen, and your demand for proof that CDA will be a guaranteed success is unfair and unworkable. CDA doesn't have to proven to be better than other system either. It doesn't have to fix a gaping hole, or compete with anything. If any admin in here admit to you that a CDA process would make them even more afraid of making "difficult decisions", then should they really be those kind of admin in the first place? Perhaps they should focus on the other types of adminsterative jobs. |
|||
The majority of editors actually respect tough/brave admin who make hard decisions (it's hypocracy or breaking the rules that tends to bug most editors), and they would support them before 10 committed angry editors can realistically start up a de-adminship process. There are plenty of safeguards surrounding CDA, so the vast majority of our 'braver' admin will have nothing to fear - unless they consistently go OTT on a very dodgy matter without heeding at all what a number of editors think. Angry editors have to go through the various forms of dispute resolution first - they can't just run to CDA frothing at the mouths. After all of that, an admin may (just ''may'') have people soberly looking at a CDA. But the chances are that any reasonable admin would have started ''listening'' first. A resolution before CDA even happens (what CDA is really about imo). Most cases of admin gone completely 'mad' will be dealt with by other admin via the other channels. We will all be voting on whether to give CDA a try (it surely can't be stopped now), so I suggest we focus on the process itself, or wait for the RFC vote. [[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] ([[User talk:Matt Lewis|talk]]) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Arbitration motion regarding [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley|Abd-William M. Connolley]] == |
== Arbitration motion regarding [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley|Abd-William M. Connolley]] == |
Revision as of 16:52, 3 February 2010
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
Incivility blocks
Creation according to Genesis about to be unprotected
The article Creation according to Genesis was recently subject to an edit war regarding the lede, specifically over how and if to include the term "creation myth". The page was protected and a lengthy debate ensued on Talk:Creation according to Genesis. In a few hours the page is bound to be unprotected, and some extra uninvolved administrators would be appreciated to issue warnings (and possibly enforce blocks) for editwarring, should the need arise (which I assume it will). Gabbe (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- "On the seventh day, they wrestled." It's an endless loop that was given a 7-day break. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- And TreasuryTag spake: seriously, if there's going to be another spate of crap POV-pushing, then just re-protect it. Easy... ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 10:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Unless it's extended indefinitely, the edit war will likely continue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like a very good reason to keep it protected indefinitely (either that or station a Cherub over the "edit" button!). ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 11:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- The adminly host. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Jesus wept. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's sometimes alleged to be a mis-translation. Jesus worked in His stepfather's carpenter shop, making bookshelves and the like. At the end of each workday, Jesus swept. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah - silly me. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Bookshelves? What's wrong with this picture? LeadSongDog come howl 19:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- About as much as the guy who wondered what Jesus would've done if he cut his hand on the circular saw. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Speaking as someone who lost the tip of their index finger to a table saw...He probably would have run around shouting his own name a lot. It would have been quite the spectacle, I'm sure. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- About as much as the guy who wondered what Jesus would've done if he cut his hand on the circular saw. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Bookshelves? What's wrong with this picture? LeadSongDog come howl 19:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ah - silly me. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's sometimes alleged to be a mis-translation. Jesus worked in His stepfather's carpenter shop, making bookshelves and the like. At the end of each workday, Jesus swept. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Jesus wept. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Edit warring by people who should know better is no reason to keep an article full-protected indefinitely. If the edit warring starts again, what about article probation? -- Vary | (Talk) 20:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- The adminly host. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like a very good reason to keep it protected indefinitely (either that or station a Cherub over the "edit" button!). ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 11:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Unless it's extended indefinitely, the edit war will likely continue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- And TreasuryTag spake: seriously, if there's going to be another spate of crap POV-pushing, then just re-protect it. Easy... ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 10:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
BLP RfC Closer Needed
The Requests for comment/Biographies of living people is due to pause later today (at 23:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)), and is need of an admin willing to take on the hefty task of summarizing and sorting the proposals enumerated there. Since this is now weighing in at 109 threads, I imagine this might take a bit of time, so I wanted to thank in advance the admin wiling to take on the task of bringing some order to this discussion. -- Bfigura (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- An uninvolved admin, at that. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- We have those? Be aware that whoever steps up, and whatever they do, someone somewhere is going to not like it. :) ++Lar: t/c 04:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lar is right that some people won't be happy, but probably a lot more will be (and thankful—that the "summarizing admin" actually read through it all). Furthermore it's not really that hard to sort and summarize the various proposals and points of view in a manner that most reasonable people will find objective. There are a few viewpoints (from both "sides" of the debate) which have floated to the top of discussion in terms of support level. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Has anyone actually been found to do this? Is User:Sam still active - if so, he'd do a good job. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- No one seems to be stepping forward (probably for a couple of reasons: 1) It would take while; 2) Half the people on earth have commented in the RfC, including a lot of active admins). I don't know User:Sam but he did make some edits a few days ago, and does not seem to have participated in the recent BLP discussions. If no one else is able to work on this, it might be worthwhile for Fritzpoll or someone else to drop a note on Sam's page and see if he'd oblige the community (big time) by taking care of a summary. Another option would be to get a couple of "involved" admins (but on different sides of the debate) to summarize it jointly. As I said above the summarizing should not really be too hard so maybe some editors who already commented could take care of it. Regardless we don't want it just sitting there on pause for days, and indeed it's pretty important to narrow and then continue the discussion so we can come to some sort of consensus in the near future. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Has anyone actually been found to do this? Is User:Sam still active - if so, he'd do a good job. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Lar is right that some people won't be happy, but probably a lot more will be (and thankful—that the "summarizing admin" actually read through it all). Furthermore it's not really that hard to sort and summarize the various proposals and points of view in a manner that most reasonable people will find objective. There are a few viewpoints (from both "sides" of the debate) which have floated to the top of discussion in terms of support level. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- We have those? Be aware that whoever steps up, and whatever they do, someone somewhere is going to not like it. :) ++Lar: t/c 04:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
170kb AfD
Anyone want to give closing this a shot? NW (Talk) 19:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please, put it out of its misery. – ukexpat (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Technically it's been a week anyway., Isn't that the max amount of time AFDs are meant to go? HalfShadow 19:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Depending on who you ask, it's the minim or it's the maxim. (aka, AfDs shouldn't run for less of 7 days unless there is a good clear reson to close soon, and the AfDs can be relisted. Some AfDs are relisted a couple of times.) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Technically it's been a week anyway., Isn't that the max amount of time AFDs are meant to go? HalfShadow 19:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Doing.... Skomorokh 20:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Very good close. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Except that Wikipedia is an "Encyclopedia", not an "Encyclopædia".
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 21:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Backlog at CfD
Another reminder that Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is still heavily backlogged (around 20 days) with very few old discussions closed since the last notice. —Farix (t | c) 15:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
An unusual situation worth recording
No attack pages, no spam pages, no copy vio pages for deletion - ALL CSD pages are empty! (Although by the time I finish typing this, I suspect that will have changed. Still, I thought I would mention it...) Stephen! Coming... 17:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
:Empty? Uh... unless I'm reading your post wrong, C:SD is far from empty... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oh wait, this post was 3 hours ago... nevermind... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 21:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I cleared it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
NFCC Bot
Hey guys,
I just wanted to let you know that I have proposed a bot to remove nonfree images from namespaces other then the article namespace. See the discussion here: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DASHBot 5 Thanks, Tim1357 (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
BlackJack evading block (part two)
BlackJack (talk · contribs), who was recently blocked for abusing sockpuppets, is again evading his block and again issuing legal threats.[1] Could somebody take a look at this? Thanks in advance. --212.139.80.79 (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I see no legal threats. Block evasion is another matter. SGGH ping! 13:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I interpret "If you will delete this material, it will remove all threat of litigation against Wikipedia" as a legal threat. --212.139.80.79 (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- He warns about possible legal action because of talk page posts which he considers defamatory and/or libelous. He is not saying he will take any legal action himself, but merely states that in accordance to policy, we should remove these posts. Using legal terms does not equal issuing legal threats.--Atlan (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Post reverted and ip blocked, the comment quoted by 212.139 being sufficient under the "chilling effect" aspect to make the post a threat. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- He warns about possible legal action because of talk page posts which he considers defamatory and/or libelous. He is not saying he will take any legal action himself, but merely states that in accordance to policy, we should remove these posts. Using legal terms does not equal issuing legal threats.--Atlan (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I interpret "If you will delete this material, it will remove all threat of litigation against Wikipedia" as a legal threat. --212.139.80.79 (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I see no legal threats. Block evasion is another matter. SGGH ping! 13:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I perceived no threat in that post. And I do indeed believe that the blocked user has a) been harshly dealt with by Wikipedia and b) has indeed been harassed and defamed on Wikipedia by another user, who is persistently evading block to do so. Our policies are being gamed and Blackjack's requests should be looked at carefully. I just wish I had the time. --Dweller (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Has BlackJack been directed to the office, where such matters can be dealt with? I shall take a look, and drop them an email if not - but they are only disrupting at best, and chilling the desire of other editors to contribute at worst, if they think posting comment that speaks of the (supposed effect of) legal consequences of wishes being complied with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I see email is not available - perhaps the suggestion could be made to the next sock that appears? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Could someone block the other two self-admitted socks The bowling of a ghost and Bart Maverick? He also appears to have used an IP to vandalize the userpages of his various socks and Puppetmaster acount to remove the templates. That is also block evasion. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)- Nevermind, I've filed an SPI since it looks like there's another BlackJack sockpuppet active [2]. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I see email is not available - perhaps the suggestion could be made to the next sock that appears? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
New sock has been blocked and tagged. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Adminbot BRFA: 7SeriesBOT to put the "speedy" into CSD-G7
It is proposed that Bwilkins (talk · contribs) operate an Admin-bot that deletes strictly-complying pages tagged with [[WP:CSD-G7]|]. All other CSD-G7 tagged pages are ignored.
Any entry in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user is checked for simple compliance with CSD-G7: a single contributor page containing {{db-g7}}, {{db-self}}, {{db-author}} or {{db-blanked}}. Complying pages are deleted. Checks against the category are run every 30 seconds.
CSD-G7 allows for pages other than those with a single contributor to be deleted (no substantial contributions from others), but that requires judgment and so the bot will only delete those with a single contributor.
For the related discussion, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/7SeriesBOT. Josh Parris 12:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
If Community De-Adminship existed, would this affect your administrator behavior?
I'm not looking to start a debate on the validity of Community De-Adminship (CDA) in general. Please, if you would, restrict your comments to answering the following specific question;
Before answering this question, please read and understand the CDA process being proposed.
Q: If the CDA process were implemented as proposed, would its existence have an effect on how you went about your administrative duties? If yes, why and what effect(s) would it have? If no, why not? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't the appropriate place for discussions like this, you should post it on the village pump--Jac16888Talk 20:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- The edit notice on this page says "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally - announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest." Seems it is the right place? I'm trying to ask a question of administrators in general. There is no specific portion of Village Pump dedicated just to administrators. You could say it's more appropriate at proposals or policy, but I'm not here to garner input on the proposal or the policy. I'm here to gain input on how it would affect administrator behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should wait until CDA is prepared & presented to the community, before getting administrators opinons on it. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you'd like to discuss the merits of how this process should be developed, feel free to contribute at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship. I don't think this is the appropriate place for that :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should wait until CDA is prepared & presented to the community, before getting administrators opinons on it. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- The edit notice on this page says "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally - announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest." Seems it is the right place? I'm trying to ask a question of administrators in general. There is no specific portion of Village Pump dedicated just to administrators. You could say it's more appropriate at proposals or policy, but I'm not here to garner input on the proposal or the policy. I'm here to gain input on how it would affect administrator behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- An additional relevant question would be "would its existence have an effect on your content editing?" Because whilst we trust admins to separate mop duties from content interests, it would be rather optimistic to expect all other editors to do so in a potential CDA. So getting involved in any heated content disputes, particularly on political battleground topics - whether the admin acts entirely beyond reproach or exhibits human flaws - will risk opponents declaring the editor unfit to wield the mop, regardless of the way they've actually used it. (Of course, much the same effect applies for the question asked - perfectly good mop-wielding will produce malcontents at CDA.) Canvassing, whether it takes place openly or not, will make any admin willing to tread in ANI territory in the longer term a target. That will have a dramatic chilling effect, if not immediately then after the first CDA or CDA-desysopping. Rd232 talk 20:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- At first I was going to say that I hope it would affect adminstrators' behavior, but then after further consideration, I would hope, rather, that they were already behaving as if such a thing were in place. So I guess that means I hope it would NOT affect their behavior. And really, if you weren't behaving like that in the first place, well, I hope you get CDA'd. Kevin Baastalk 21:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously not an administrator but I'll say my piece: If it would change the way you acted as a sysop you shouldn't be an sysop. :) James (T|C) 21:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- But you think "we trust admins to separate mop duties from content interests"!! Don't you realise that people who want to see more admin accountability are not actually criminals? You are tarring a huge amount honest people, scare mongering over the amount of who are likely to be criminalistic, and failing to see that admin who avoid making difficult decisions when CDA is a possibility (even with all CDA's many safeguards) do not deserve to be admin. Adminship is a commitment to Wikipedia above yourself as an editor. If you don't have that you should NOT be an admin. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since you're the second person to abuse my metaphor, I'll point out that it was... just a metaphor. I'm not "tarring" anyone, the point is that there's a reason cops aren't elected, and the same logic applies to admins in respect of the cop-like duties of adminship; I'm sorry you don't see that rather obvious point (cf selection bias). In addition, and the reason I actually bothered engaging with this thread in the first place, was to make the point that whilst WP:RFA is predicated on editors promoted to admin being able to separate content editing from adminship, those admins which do not cease content editing and which engage in contentious content areas risk retaliation at CDA by editors who harbour content-related grudges. This is another reason why recall should not be based on a public vote (at least without a clear screening process by a trusted party, like Arbcom); it is generally subject to gaming. Finally, I seem to be the sole representative here of a widely-held view; visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall (see also discuss at CDA) and please cease your personal attacks. Rd232 talk 11:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- But you think "we trust admins to separate mop duties from content interests"!! Don't you realise that people who want to see more admin accountability are not actually criminals? You are tarring a huge amount honest people, scare mongering over the amount of who are likely to be criminalistic, and failing to see that admin who avoid making difficult decisions when CDA is a possibility (even with all CDA's many safeguards) do not deserve to be admin. Adminship is a commitment to Wikipedia above yourself as an editor. If you don't have that you should NOT be an admin. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is of course a risk, and the most legitimate reason against the idea in my opinion but I still stand by my statement. If being the cop is so important to you that you would change how you act because you are worried about retaliation then you never deserved the position anyway. I would say that in general (especially with the amazingly high percentages required to desysop in the current proposal) it is highly unlikely you would get enough people to vote against you for removal unless you probably could have gone to arbcom and lost it there anyway. If you do regardless? It is a risk, but if you are going to go against what you think is best for the community because you want to keep the position? Sorry you wouldn't have my sympathy. James (T|C) 23:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that just doesn't wash. Adminship is a volunteer position with many duties; very many of the active admins already shy away from the really hard drama-heavy "cop" duties (as opposed to more mop-type). CDA will make that worse. You can impugn the motivation of the volunteers doing it (cops at least get paid...), but what matters is the end result, which is not hard to predict Rd232 talk 23:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is of course a risk, and the most legitimate reason against the idea in my opinion but I still stand by my statement. If being the cop is so important to you that you would change how you act because you are worried about retaliation then you never deserved the position anyway. I would say that in general (especially with the amazingly high percentages required to desysop in the current proposal) it is highly unlikely you would get enough people to vote against you for removal unless you probably could have gone to arbcom and lost it there anyway. If you do regardless? It is a risk, but if you are going to go against what you think is best for the community because you want to keep the position? Sorry you wouldn't have my sympathy. James (T|C) 23:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Most admin do not seem that shy to me, but there are all different types of admin. Some do not want to get into unpleasant fights, and why should they when there are plenty of others who are happy to step in. Yes - Wikipedia does need more admin (or workers of different types in my opinion - the "administrator" position involves far too much for one individual, both in work load and providing abusable powers), and I think that CDA will make the administrator post something that more people can justify being involved in. Some people simply need to see more accountability, Wikipedia being a "democracy" or not (it's as democratic as anything else in the world - ie semi-democratic). It's an ethical matter to some of us.
- If CDA makes WP:RfA slightly less of an embarrassingly deep-fried experience, that would be a good thing too. I worry sometimes exactly why some people would put themselves through all that. Is it always just for the mop? RfA should be more streamlined as a process anyway - it's too heavily reliant on a balanced group of people contributing. Even with CDA, many admin will get away with all kinds of pov enforcing, power tripping and bullying etc. CDA is more about what it represents, than it's actual use - which with all the safeguards in place will be fairly minimal I think anyway. It could be used a little bit perhaps, and then fall off. It might highlight a few issues, which when solved are then gone. It's message of accountability could actually sink in. We'll have to (hopefully) see. I think just having a decent CDA process will automatically make admin behave a little more thoughtfully, and editors a little less cynically. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wait, are you honestly saying that admins shouldn't be accountable simply because 'criminals' may be able to vote on their fate? Or since we're volunteers, our activities are somehow not open to community scrutiny and sanction? If you read the process as drafted, you'd realise that dispute resolution must have been attempted with the admin and failed, and further that 10 editors with 500 edits and at least 3 months activity are needed to even get the nomination to the point of polling. Even then, the poll is open to the entire community (admins included), and the closure is under the discretion of the 'crat. If we lose a few admins because they don't want their behaviour scrutinised should they act foolish, then good riddance. NJA (t/c) 09:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- No NJA, I'm not saying that (thanks for the facetiousness - helpful). There are already processes that hold admins accountable, and lead to desysopping if required. And any addition to such processes deemed necessary by the community need not involve such unnecessary additional bureaucracy, or such potential for gaming. These were points abundantly made clear, by many people, in the Admin Recall RFC which preceded the current CDA RFC (somehow all the options and discussion disappeared down the drain; the Admin Recall RFC clearly needed a Part II after sorting through and merging proposals). Rd232 talk 09:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Many people have who made it abundantly clear that the current system is not enough. The status quo does not have an element of superiority for being so. That is not in the spirit of Wikipedia at all. People against this CDA proposal can argue their case, but they have to listen to others too. I've personally had had my ears bashed by critics of CDA continually claiming that they are not being listened to, while I and others are patiently doing just that. The reality is that they are being listened to; they are just not being agreed with. Their arguments are always subjective and theoretical. So are the CDA arguments? Then let's vote at the RFC on whether try it out, and see what happens if people have said they would like it.
To propose an Admin Recall proposal at RFC (which turned out to be CDA) is the result of a snowball that could not have been stopped. It probably could have done with taking more time in stages - but too few people stood in it's way with good enough arguments for doing so. It needed that to slow down - but the fact is that most people simply let it roll. It may not have been a totally smooth journey, but how can things every really be that smooth on Wikipedia? The encyclopedia that everyone can edit? Some people did try to stop it, but it had too much momentum. Se la vie. The CDA proposal is still being worked on, and people can edit it directly there, or contribure here at the meta-detail Talk page, and here at the general Talk page, or they can simply vote for or against it in the upcoming RFC. In fact, people can do what they want - within the rules. Just don't expect to 'blow up' a snowball that is clearly of everyone's making. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Would you please propose something already? These endless and pointless discussions need to stop. Any administrator who is opposed by 70 - 80 percent of the community will already have been taken to WP:RFC and then desysopped by our elected representative on the Arbitration Committee. To me, it seems like a useless and pointless bureaucracy to create a redundant pathway that will never do anything other than foment drama and waste editors' time. Any time a little cabal of ten editors with a common interest gets together, they will go after an admin they don't like, creating much grief and drama, but nothing whatsoever of value. I think that gaming the rules should not be encouraged, and am confident that my view is typical of many editors here. It is very likely that any such proposal will be strongly rejected. Jehochman Brrr 12:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- But really, who is this "you"? CDA is been worked on by a number of people (who are not a 'close gang'), and it can only be proposed when there is a general consensus (from as many people as possible) that it is ready. CDA clearly has to be a professional looking proposal, that cannot be easily picked apart for its holes; a proposal that is actually attractive to the voter. You keep saying we should just get the idea out, and not bother with the technical details - but you know that there are a number of people waiting to castigate anything that is presented that way. It is not beneficial to the proposal to give people silly reasons to 'oppose'. If CDA opponents have theoretical concerns that it will work badly, and they are not even willing to trial it, they should be forced to admit that. Why give the more cynical people places to hide?
- There are only benefits in bringing a finished article (as much as these things ever are) to the final community vote. Even if CDA fails, it will only be a useful experience to us if it was proposed as professionally as possible. It can either have been a clear experience we all can learn things from, or a muddied mess that some people will happily archive as a "waste of time". Matt Lewis (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Re-focus to answer the question
I really, really, really didn't want to get into a debate on the merits of CDA. That was the exact antithesis of my point in raising the question I originally posted. So, I'm going to start again. PLEASE do not debate the merits of CDA here. Focus your answers on the question at hand, and please if administrators only would answer this question:
Q: If the CDA process were implemented as proposed, would its existence have an effect on how you went about your administrative duties? If yes, why and what effect(s) would it have? If no, why not? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
note: (admins who previously answered have had their answers copied down here)
- An additional relevant question would be "would its existence have an effect on your content editing?" Because whilst we trust admins to separate mop duties from content interests, it would be rather optimistic to expect all other editors to do so in a potential CDA. So getting involved in any heated content disputes, particularly on political battleground topics - whether the admin acts entirely beyond reproach or exhibits human flaws - will risk opponents declaring the editor unfit to wield the mop, regardless of the way they've actually used it. (Of course, much the same effect applies for the question asked - perfectly good mop-wielding will produce malcontents at CDA.) Canvassing, whether it takes place openly or not, will make any admin willing to tread in ANI territory in the longer term a target. That will have a dramatic chilling effect, if not immediately then after the first CDA or CDA-desysopping. Rd232 talk 20:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Answer: Not currently, because the way I use my admin tools is generally pretty clear cut. (I work copyright problems, 24/7. Not literally. But close enough to literally to be a bit pathetic. :)) I am confident in my understanding of related policy and in my methods of enforcing it. I can imagine it might keep me from deciding to wade in to help clean up controversial areas involving many contributors, however — say, addressing a secret cabal composed of a number of long-standing contributors. Even if trusting the overall good sense of the community, I can do without the excitement. But that's one reason why I'd probably not decide to wade in to those areas in the first place. I prefer soul-crushing tedium. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- RFA is an utter mess. CDA is a way to make the messy drama of RFA a semi-permanent condition for all admins who attempt to solve difficult problems. No thanks. ArbCom, with all it's flaws, is a lot less gameable. The proposal stinks and is getting stinkier. Jehochman Brrr 14:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- No. I'm open to recall on the reasoning that the community needs more of a recourse than the lenghty RFC->ArbCom process, and I strive to ensure that my administrative actions stand up to scrutiny. As for the fears about gaming the system, I'm quite confident that even admins working on difficult blocks or WP:AE will have enough people to stand up for them if they ever were to be subject to any for of community deadminship. What a CDA would help with is to ensure that the bad apples can be removed in less than the month+ process it takes now. MLauba (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's smug to say that something will be no problem for somebody else who does a tough job that you don't do yourself. Getting put in the stocks so people can toss accusations for a week or two is stressful, even when one is completely vindicated at the end of the process. No thanks. The proposal is a naive idea put forward by people who aren't listening to concerns of those affected by the proposal. Jehochman Brrr 15:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- And what of the many admin who back CDA? It simply has to be trialled. Matt Lewis (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- A fine comment, but can we please reserve debate about CDA itself for other places? I'd like to stay focused on the question. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, you have no right to limit the scope of discussions. Asking what color should we paint the bikeshed invites the question do we even need a bikeshed? Jehochman Brrr 15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Falsely claiming that the proposers aren't listening does not help your cause; the question at the top specifically invites input from those affected by this proposal to articulate how, why, and to what extent they are affected by this proposal. Perhaps this proposal means that some will need to improve their act so as to avoid further controversy (and do their work properly). Regardless, we cannot forget that there wouldn't be so much interest in a proposal like this, if there wasn't a noticeable concern about the number of "bad apples" being discovered, old or new, and the (time-consuming) manner in which they are dealt with. Note: I'm not saying the proposal itself is without flaws. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ncmvocalist, the proposers are not listening. I've voiced my concerns repeatedly and they have just ignored them. Jehochman Brrr 15:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I hope you will not allege that Hammersoft, I, or anyone else is overdominating this discussion because of legitimate attempts to keep this discussion focussed on the specific input that was needed from this discussion; you will have plenty of opportunity (and even invitation) to restate other concerns at a separate discussion in the near future. I'm sure you have many concerns, and some may appear unaddressed - I'll definitely try to highlight them. But in this discussion, at this time, could you articulate (or restate) your concerns which specifically relate to how (and to what extent) this proposal would affect your performance of admin duties, if it was enacted? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ncmvocalist, the proposers are not listening. I've voiced my concerns repeatedly and they have just ignored them. Jehochman Brrr 15:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Falsely claiming that the proposers aren't listening does not help your cause; the question at the top specifically invites input from those affected by this proposal to articulate how, why, and to what extent they are affected by this proposal. Perhaps this proposal means that some will need to improve their act so as to avoid further controversy (and do their work properly). Regardless, we cannot forget that there wouldn't be so much interest in a proposal like this, if there wasn't a noticeable concern about the number of "bad apples" being discovered, old or new, and the (time-consuming) manner in which they are dealt with. Note: I'm not saying the proposal itself is without flaws. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, you have no right to limit the scope of discussions. Asking what color should we paint the bikeshed invites the question do we even need a bikeshed? Jehochman Brrr 15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- A fine comment, but can we please reserve debate about CDA itself for other places? I'd like to stay focused on the question. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why do you ask? Jafeluv (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is important to understand what impact CDA might have on the project were it implemented. One of the ways in which it might have an impact is administrator behavior. I'm not seeking answers condemning or supporting CDA, but answers that are self evaluative from administrators regarding how CDA may or may not impact their administrator actions. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I would not anticipate CDA having any impact on me as an admin. The reason is because 98% or more of my admin actions are processing requests at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Since the vast majority of my admin edits are not in controversy-causing areas in the project, CDA and I may never cross paths. Other than the odd serial sockmaster, I really cannot imagine someone getting angry with me as an administrator (well, except maybe those seeing out-of-process blocks and page protections whom I have declined). — Kralizec! (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly, none whatsoever. As proposed, a CFA nomination wouldn't even be a possibility unless I've acted foolish on several occasions (it's not for one-offs, unless extremely serious), and only then after some sort of legitimate dispute resolution had been tried with me and to failed to produce an amicable outcome, and even then it would take 10 editors with 500 edits and 3 months registration just to get it to a poll, where then it would need 50+ !votes and a strong consensus of the editing community. Therefore it would not affect my daily duties, and I can't see how it would affect any good admin, as you'd have to be a complete knob head if you cannot come to some kind of satisfactory compromise during legitimate dispute resolution. NJA (t/c) 15:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Also since there seems to be a line drawn between 'safe' and risky admin duties, I wanted to note that believe I do quite variety of admin tasks, including 3RR blocks, sock clerking and blocks, username vios, deletions, block reviews, etc. I've been accused of admin abuse, and have been told that they will file complaints against me, etc. Even still, the knowledge that a community based mechanism (as currently worded in the draft) to nominate me for a de-sysop poll would not affect my activities, as again I think you'd have to be very thick headed to not resolve it during dispute resolution. NJA (t/c) 15:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Let's say you piss off a cabal of pro-Elbonian editors by blocking one of their leaders who's violated arbitration sanctions. The cabal members sheik "adminabuse" and nominate you for CDA. The process runs for a week or two, and various past people you've blocked come forward and toss mud at you. Even if the process fails to remove your access, is this the way you want to spend your time on Wikipedia? The problem here is that there is no protection against abuse, unlike WP:RFC and WP:RFAR. Please address this point. Jehochman Brrr 15:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
This is why I suggested that Hammersoft not ask his question about the CDA stuff, here. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- No. Similar to Moonriddengirl and Kralizec!, I generally limit myself to blocking vandals and deleting crap out of preference, and don't get involved in Arbcom/political/religious/ethno/nationalist/US political/Eastern European/Israeli/pseudo-scientific/Global warming/filmplot/etc -type disputes. I applaud admins who take on those tasks and wouldn't want to see them disadvantaged or deterred. However I would hope that anyone involved in those areas could maintain at least 50% support across the whole community. One thing I would like to see is the 10 editor nomination requirement increased for such admins because it's easy to piss off cabals of that size. It seems a lot of people are actually aware of what goes on at RfA, and where a good candidate is suffering a cabal onslaught, suddenly hundreds of independent others will appear out of nowhere to deliver the right result. I expect a similar phenomena at CDA. But lets not waste all that time unnecessarily. (This is not necessarily an endorsement) -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- No I rather think the policy has its process conditions so limiting that it will accomplish nothing at all, good or bad. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- No as I am already recallable. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hammersoft, repeatedly asking the same questions wherever you can (having had responses every time - despite your claims of being ignored) is really pusing AGF now. You are dictating what people can say, and forcing people to repeat responses by copying the answers that you were happy with into a new section. This is just not on, and I really feel you are wasting people's time now. I wasn't bothered with you posting here, it's just the way you go about it - it's not right. You are consistently trying to make it look like you have more support than you do, but bundling people's previous comments together isn't going to impress anyone but the laziest of busy people.
Nobody can stop CDA now just because you (or anyone else) theorises that X,Y,Z disasters will happen. You simply do not know what will happen, and your demand for proof that CDA will be a guaranteed success is unfair and unworkable. CDA doesn't have to proven to be better than other system either. It doesn't have to fix a gaping hole, or compete with anything. If any admin in here admit to you that a CDA process would make them even more afraid of making "difficult decisions", then should they really be those kind of admin in the first place? Perhaps they should focus on the other types of adminsterative jobs.
The majority of editors actually respect tough/brave admin who make hard decisions (it's hypocracy or breaking the rules that tends to bug most editors), and they would support them before 10 committed angry editors can realistically start up a de-adminship process. There are plenty of safeguards surrounding CDA, so the vast majority of our 'braver' admin will have nothing to fear - unless they consistently go OTT on a very dodgy matter without heeding at all what a number of editors think. Angry editors have to go through the various forms of dispute resolution first - they can't just run to CDA frothing at the mouths. After all of that, an admin may (just may) have people soberly looking at a CDA. But the chances are that any reasonable admin would have started listening first. A resolution before CDA even happens (what CDA is really about imo). Most cases of admin gone completely 'mad' will be dealt with by other admin via the other channels. We will all be voting on whether to give CDA a try (it surely can't be stopped now), so I suggest we focus on the process itself, or wait for the RFC vote. Matt Lewis (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Abd-William M. Connolley
Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification:
1) Abd and William M. Connolley prohibited from interacting Abd (talk · contribs) and William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) shall not interact with each other, nor comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other, on any page in Wikipedia. Should either editor do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
BAG membership request
I have been nominated for Bot Approvals Group membership by MBisanz, and I am posting a notification here as encouraged by the bot policy. If you have time, please comment at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/The Earwig. Thanks, — The Earwig @ 03:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Request for Admin Assistance: Need to modify template {{WPMED}}
Hi -- I have just created a new page for the Wikiproject Medicine Toxicology Task Force. One of the last steps I've got remaining for setup is modifying the {{WPMED}} template to include two new parameters -- "toxicology" (yes/no) and "toxicology-imp" (standard importance options) -- and add documentation for them to both Template:WPMED/doc and WP:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Task force parameters ... Would someone with admin privileges mind taking care of this for me? Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you might need some technical assistance, but it's not admin assistance you need because that template is only semi-protected. If you want some help, please post on Template talk:WPMED with some specifics. I've got it on my watchlist. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Something not right
Having read over Wikipedia:Drv#Human_Instrumentality_Project, I concurred with restoring the history of the page. I was then going to re-introduce the redirect, and then protect from editing by all but admins. I carefully and clearly followed the steps, but the history of the article still does not seem to appear ... what did I miss? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Works for me. Can you see this diff [3]? If so, it's probably just database slowness. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Fixing a link on a protected template - help please
Please could someone edit the fully-protected Template:Infobox UK place to fix a link to a disambiguation page? At the moment it links to Douglas, and it should link to Douglas, Isle of Man. The link is under the "city distances section". Thankyou. --BelovedFreak 13:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've updated Template:Infobox UK place/sandbox to fix this and two other minor bugs. I'm not an admin but just add {{editprotected}} to the discussion at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Link to disambiguation page if/when everyone is satisfied with the proposed amendments, then an admin will know to check the proposed change and implement it. — Richardguk (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
NPR story: "Has Wikipedia gotten too big for its britches?"
Wednesday's Here and Now program on National Public Radio in the United States is headlining a story titled "Has Wikipedia gotten too big for its britches?" While I am not saying that it will cause a wave of new editors to come and 'fix' Wikipedia articles Colbert-style, we should probably keep an eye out nonetheless. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Complaint re Administrator - SirFozzie
I have recently had my talk page edited by this administrator [4] contrary to the rules.
I understand it is not appropriate for anyone and that includes administrators to edit a users talkpage in such a manner. --81.187.71.75 (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think so. You're clearly being disruptive, and Fozz was well within his bounds to make that edit to your talk page. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Explain disruptive please? if you can! --81.187.71.75 (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:DE and WP:POINT. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I removed a personal attack, and an inflammatory series of statements attempting to rile up opponents. If the block evading user behind the IP thinks I was flippant, then I do apologize. However, the removal of their inflammatory statements was justified by Wikipedia's rules and policies. SirFozzie (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)