Wikipedia talk:Administrators' reading list

message: I just became an administrator! However, I have a quick question. Are there any information that should be kept confidential (between administrators only), or are all such information public? I know that on many sites, certain administration information are kept confidential, and I'd like to know if Wikipedia has any such policies.
Thanks in advance. --Ixfd64 17:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Danny, I'd say that's call based on your own gut feeling. There's a lot of things that obviously should be kept private (e.g., personal contact information) unless a user otherwise says so. And if you get an email where the sender says something akin to "this is private". However, for the most part everything here on Wikipedia is usually done in the open, for one & all to see. While this can be a bad thing (e.g., were I to rant about User:X merely to vent my frustration on one talk page, it can easily be read by User:X), I think this is a good thing because it forces all of us to be thoughtful in how we act here, & to speak in a respectful manner to each other. (Although many of us fail to do this all of the time.) -- llywrch 23:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  confidential information? 

message: The first item on this list, namely 'account suspensions' is a historical page now and I don't see why it should remain on this list if it is no longer being used. Yes, perhaps potential administrators should know what used to happen, but I'm not sure it should be required reading material. I also suspect that there may well be other pages in the same situation as the list hasn't really been updated for quite some time. What do people think? It would seem sensible to me to remove it from the list. Thanks. —Xyrael / 16:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it from the list. It's not been used for ages, and is clearly historical, so no point in reading all about it. Links to AN and ANI are fine (as that's where that sort of this is noted and discussed. Petros471 20:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical pages 

message: Everyone should really already know the five pillars and the foundation issues, but some people miss them on the way I've discovered, so it might be wise to mention them anyway.
Kim Bruning 03:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should already know 

message: Hi, since I'm not too familiar with :en-Wikipedia's procedures I'm posting here, hoping for some help.
I'm trying to regain my initial account User:Nemissimo on the :en. I'm not able to recall the pw (didn't make a notice RL ;-( ) It would be great if anyone could help me to access it again. Since the account is clearly stating that it is mine (interwikilink) it should be possible. If there should any doubt about my identity... I'm a administrator on the German project, the other admins should be able to confirm this easily...
I highly appreciate any help with this. Kind regards from Germany. My Userpage on the German Wikipedia --Nemissimo II 18:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for help 

message: I have added WP:LOP which I believe should be in the reading list.  If you disagree, comment below and we can see if we should remove it. Archtransit (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: added

message: I propose we create and develop Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' reading list. Kingturtle (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' reading list 

message: Does anybody object to me including WP:MEDRS in the list of content policies, at the top, above WP:BLP? I believe it is the more important policy, because a mistake on a BLP can be pretty devastating, but not as devastating as some poor medical advice. Anthony (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Anthony (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:MEDRS]]

message: Curious how many editors would actually disagree there aren't clear parallels with the experiment. (An microcosm of society consisting of two segments: those with rules enforcement powers, those without.) I don't think it's a reach I think the parallel is strikingly close to Wikipedia (admins with powers, reg editors without). Also, one would think a read of the Stanford article wouldn't be detrimental to an admin's education or awareness (although it's unknown if/how said awareness would have any real impact on future behavior; but I don't see how it would possibly hurt). IHTS (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit comment ("study of a parallel environment: what happened when one of two segments possesses authoritarian powers to punish in the name of enforcing rules, the other having no power and at their mercy") made it clear what point you were trying to make, and it goes far beyond your "admins with powers, reg editors without" description above and well into POV pushing. The fact of the matter is that if I, an ordinary editor, follow Wikipedia's policies, Jimbo himself cannot "punish" me and make it stick, nor can any admin, steward, arbcom member, or WMF employee. If, however, and admin willfully repeatedly violates Wikipedia's policies and refuses to stop doing that, I can initiate a set of consequences that will result in the admin being desysopped and blocked. This is in sharp contrast to facebook, twitter, reddit, paypal, etc. etc. where there really are individuals who can ban users for no reason and with no recourse. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Standford experiment and Wikipedia environment have striking parallels, yes. Re POV, it's not an article it's a reading list thought up by contributing editors what would be good for admins to read. I believe it wouldn't be bad for admins to read the Stanford article, and might be good to read. (The Stanford experiment has been gaining in relative significance, for example, it is heavily used along with original interviews of professor Zimbardo in National Geographic Science of Evil program [and DVD], 2009.) • The mechanism to remove a rogue admin is rarely employed on the WP, as everyone knows (for e.g. see Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process), and especially the rogue admin knows. •  is often subjective, gray area open to interpretation (not binary as you're suggesting it is), so those are the most open channels for abuse of fellow editors. Plus, WP policies are many times incomplete, or even lacking, as current AE case demonstrates. IHTS (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There are indeed gray areas, but I challenge you to find a single editor who follows Wikipedia policies roughly as well as I do who has ever been blocked without someone almost immediately unblocking him. I can, if required provide multiple examples of people being blocked with no recourse from reddit or facebook, and in the case of paypal I can provide multiple examples of people being blocked with paypal seizing tens of thousands of dollars that are in their accounts and with paypal happily continuing to collect money for things they have sold and keeping the cash, never informing the buyers of the block. Most websites do indeed have a dictatorship of the administrators, but Wikipedia in not one of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins seldom interfere in other admins' abuses. Arb cases are few because notoriously bureaucratic, slow, laborious. The rarity of desysop lets admins exploit if they choose to (e.g. carrying out a grudge). A closed system that can & does bring out the worst. (Thus the point of Stanford experiment & WP.) Other sites' goverance is immaterial & off-topic. And am not willing to entertain the notion that your own personal WP behavior is some sort of "model" WP behavior, for point of argument.  IHTS (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parallel to [[Stanford prison experiment]]