Wikipedia talk:Administrator Code of Conduct

message: Opinions welcome. Including those of non-admins, of course. Radiant_>|< 13:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. Such things shouldn't really be necessary, but unfortunately it appears so. I have a minor nitpick with some of the limitations on admin behaviour which appear unnecessary, IMO (e.g. "don't undelete without going through DRV"). Instead, we should follow what WP:WHEEL says, IMO -- if it makes sense, just do it. If people disagree, don't do it again and discuss. That simple rule should be enough. Johnleemk | Talk 14:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps an exception can be made for undeleting a "speedy deletion" as long as it is put up on WP:AfD --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *This may need rewording. The issue is that (1) if something is speedily deleted, undeletion may be appropriate e.g. to expand the article or fix a mistake; and yet (2) if something is deleted per Template:Deletiondebates, apparent consensus has already been formed on the issue, so a dissension should be taken to DRV. Radiant_>|< 14:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice!  On the issue of MediaWiki pages, though: "should never be modified without prior discussion in a central place" seems a little strong; the concern is over major changes in function or appearance, not the occasional typo fix. —Kirill Lokshin 14:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this is really great, but what happens if anyone doesn't follow the rules.  Will there be a incident board or something? --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As an administrator at 5 other Wiki sites but not here, I consider this proposal excellent! It may also be eventually useful at other Wiki sites.--Jusjih 10:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Great job Radiant. Unlike people who keep on complaining at WP:RfA that more rules be put in to have less admins, you actually decided to make some rules for existing admins. Awesome!
However, I believe this should be called Wikipedia:Administrator's code of conduct instead of Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct. So, an additional "'s", and lower -case letters. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, but Code of Conduct is just a disamibig, and wikt:Code of Conduct is a redlink. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *wikt:code of conduct capitalizes it. code of conduct redirs to Code of Conduct. Radiant_>|< 19:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, you convinced me of this one. There is still the issue of "administrator" vs "administrator's", but I don't care much about it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'll rename to the aposthropied version unless there are any objections soon. Radiant_>|< 03:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Excuse me for snickering at the short form WP:COC.... it may be an (inadvertant?) editorial comment about those admins not completely adhering to the code, or just a freudian slip, or just an oversight, but I suggest maybe a better short form be chosen!! (Note, ACOC isn't much better, maybe ACC?) Think of the newbies! ++Lar: t/c 19:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *:If you do add an apostrophe, it has to be Administrators', not Administrator's as proposed.  However, use of Administrator as an attributive noun is also entirely grammatical. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: It might also be appropriate to lock the page on the version placed by the Lone Crusader if the vast majority of the editors of the page are merely reverting him using the power of numbers and not speech to enforce a false consensus. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made this addition Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Radiant's removal of the entirety of the "lone crusader" examples is also acceptable, probably better. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lone Crusader 

message: I can't at short notice remeber any recent consensus at WP:CP.Geni 18:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About what? Radiant_>|< 18:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumeably this sentence: Pages should only be deleted if they meet a criterion for speedy deletion, or if a consensus was reached to delete the page on one of the deletion process pages. —Cryptic (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Good point. I've added that. Radiant_>|< 20:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *large amounts of stuff is vapourised at WP:IFD without discusion as well. I'm not even sure what the abrevations mean.Geni 20:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: **Well, click on them to find out. IFD = images for deletion, and also covers other media such as sound files. Falls under Template:Deletiondebates, though. Radiant_>|< 21:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: **:I think Geni was referring to the confusing mass of abbreviations IfD itself uses.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: A lot of this seems ill-advised - it's a mix of descriptive things (e.g. the logging thing, which is true now) and the perscriptive parts (like the abitrators part, which is not even about administrators). Much of it is existing practice -- it seems like it would be better for the author to point out the changes from current policy so they may be discussed. --Improv 23:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if there aren't significant changes, this should be renamed as a "guide to administratorship" and used as such.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *We already have a guide to adminship (the "recommended reading list", at least). The point of this is that many people want some kind of accountability for admins. Everything on this page was already a given, but it was spread over a dozen different pages so hard to be found, and some of it had never been written down. See WP:AAP for many comments on the issues herein. For instance, several people had the opinion that the rollback button should only be used on obvious vandalism. Is there anything in particular on this page that you disagree with? Radiant_>|< 09:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I Have to say I agree with Radiant on this one. This page actually summarises a lot of existing policies (i.e. shortening and simplifying, not expanding). I think it could do a lot to help prevent (if it is followed) some of the criticism I keep on hearing about admins (which is sometimes justified, sometimes not). Petros471 14:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No administrator shall perform more than 3 (three) blockings of any one user (editor) within time span of a week (7 days). Breach of this rule of law is sanctionable by a fine of up to $2.50 (two dollars and fifty cents) or, per the recent USA law that annoying people on-line is illegal, up to two years in jail.
*Clearly that's wrong. That's why this page is worded more like "Do not block people over a personal dispute. Admins who do this anyway can be held accountable on ANI, or in severe cases to the ArbCom". Please name me an issue on this page that, when breached, is not already likely to get an admin being scrutinized on ANI. Before you object to "more new rules", remember the way we actually work with rules on Wikipedia and bend them to common sense, aside from the point that none of this is really new. Radiant_>|< 15:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this is poor 

message: Radiant, the difference between something being perscriptive and descriptive is not whether the content is original or not, it is whether it is considered binding (rule-like) or guide-like. Is this a set of suggesstions, or is it meant to be a set of rules? I also am concerned about the specific possible use of this to bind admins to following process in all cases. That's a very large discussion that should presumably happen at both the highest (read: Jimbo and the board) and lowest levels of Wikipedia if it is to be changed. Slipping a conclusion on such a contentious issue into something like this, especially when people have to dig into the grit to find that that's what you mean, is just another means to produce rules (if that's what this is meant to be) that people will ignore because they're not for the good of the encyclopedia. I understand that this issue in particular has been very contentious and painful for us as of late with the userbox issue, but I think this isn't a good way to adapt to that kind of situation. Personally, I am somewhat bothered by the breaches of process, but I am also significantly bothered by a combination of poor rules and people (especially people who haven't been around very long and who have not adapted to our culture) getting the idea that the project should bend to their votes, regardless of the harm to the project. It is unfortunate that we can't have it both ways (although the current detente may not be a bad thing). I can't say that it's only problem users and people with wrong attitudes who are bothered, as I do see other folk (like you) who are upset or concerned, but the problem users are certainly the loudest. --Improv 14:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No administrator shall perform more than 3 (three) blockings of any one user (editor) within time span of a week (7 days). Breach of this rule of law is sanctionable by a fine of up to $2.50 (two dollars and fifty cents) or, per the recent USA law that annoying people on-line is illegal, up to two years in jail.
*Clearly that's wrong. That's why this page is worded more like "Do not block people over a personal dispute. Admins who do this anyway can be held accountable on ANI, or in severe cases to the ArbCom". Please name me an issue on this page that, when breached, is not already likely to get an admin being scrutinized on ANI. Before you object to "more new rules", remember the way we actually work with rules on Wikipedia and bend them to common sense, aside from the point that none of this is really new. Radiant_>|< 15:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ease of editing section header

message: In the sectopn on wheel wars the text now says "An admin should never have to perform the same admin action twice in rapid succession". I know wehat is meant here, and i apporve of the intent. But technically the wording woudl also apply to repeatedly reverting or repairing vandalism, or reepatedly deleting multiple recrestions of deleted content. Obviously tha tisn't what is meant here. I think we need to reword this for increased clarity. DES (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can think of some situations in which the rapid and repeated actions of an admin would certainly not be considered abusive.  Removal of defamatory material against attempts by other sysops to retain it, removal of material inciting vandalism to Wikipedia against attempts by other sysops to retain it, action taken to swiftly remove potentially damaging material where a strong consensus to delete already formed, against contrary action by sysops.  In such cases, there can be legitimate differences of opinion about the urgent need for action.  Sysops should use their best judgement in such cases, and in similar cases, and will not be penalized for doing so, no matter what policy documents Radiant may care to write up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapid repeats 

message: The policy as it currently reads states that administrators are held to the same standards of conduct as all other Wikipedians.  I think that this is, or should be, inaccurate.  Administrators ought to be held to higher standards.  They should go out of their way to assume good faith, be pleasant and patient to even the most troublesome users, and show an excellent ability to mediate disputes, recognize NPOV, and so forth.  Administrators should be the vanguard of Wikipedia, and we ought to be critical of protocol breaches by administrators that we might let slide were it an ordinary user. KrazyCaley 00:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Higher Standard

message: Wow, this is some great stuff, and it's written really well too.  I had a little problem with the very first sentence: "Admins are primarily held accountable by other admins."
*I'm not sure it's true. In two recent notorious cases, two admins who went out-of-process were pretty much held to account by the community as a whole, basically by public shaming and being rejected for ArbCom. I don't think ArbCom or the other administrators as a group did much of anything special, unless I missed it.
*I'm not sure it should be true. If you're using a standard org model, admins should be held to account by bureaucrats. If you're using a more wiki model, admins should be held to account by the community at large.Herostratus 05:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: As Radiant! has sadly left Wikipedia for now, we don't have him driving this forward. But on Wikipedia we shouldn't stop just because of this. So lets keep this proposal, develop it if needed, then make it policy if possible. I think Radiant deserves to see something good come out of this; and even if you don't want to do it for him, this is a good proposal to help all of Wikipedia. Petros471 11:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting making this a proposed guideline, rather than a proposed policy? I would probably support that if it meant this could gain general acceptance. Petros471 09:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving this forward 

message: He is uncivil and has been warned various times about his breach of code and neglence. I want his position ooked at. He has been habitually incivil to myself and other users. 72.57.230.179
: Take this to Inshanee's talk page, then if things don't get better take it to RfC.  See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. --Tony Sidaway 23:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Admin: [[Inshanee]] is breaching the Code of COnduct repeatedly

message: Isn't there also a rule, written or unwritten, that an admin should never block a user who he's in a dispute or edit war with? Even if justified, it can very easily seem not to be, and that just leads to more frustration. It must also be tempting to look very hard for a violation of policy to call someone on when you're warring with them. Just a thought.<BR>
Korossyl 02:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking 

message: Yes, what is the status of this proposal? I would put on the relevant tag, which seems to be Template:Rejected, but this is much stronger in declaring that the proposal is actually rejected, rather than just defunct or inactive with no substantive edits in the past several months. -- Centrx 01:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the historical template. —Centrx→talk • 22:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status? Is this now a historic page? 

message: Perhaps it's time to dust this off and have a fresh look at it. — Ched :  ?  01:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmmm... 

message: Currently the draft says that only admins with email enabled should block. Is it possible that this dates from a time when blocked users could not edit their own talkpages? If so I suggest we drop this criteria. ϢereSpielChequers 19:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed.  Also, if we're going to put some work into this - perhaps we should replace the historical tag with something more current - maybe the proposed one? — Ched :  ?  20:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocked users have always been able to edit their page. It is here because there is/was a feeling admins should be directly contactable in such instances.  See Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll#Admins placing blocks should be contactable via email. Hiding T  12:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm contactable by Email, but if I retire would I keep this Email account? I don't think I use it for anything other than Wikipedia. I think that a policy set in 2006 is worth reconsidering now, I suspect that many of those who were blocking users in 06 are now retired and doubt if all of them are now contactable via Email. If the aim is to give blocked users the option to contact an admin by Email then I think we can put something in to the effect that if the blocking admin is no longer an active administrator or does not have email enabled then an unblock request can be made of any active admin. We also need to put something in as to what admins should do if they are being asked to overturn the action of an admin on wikibreak, retired or who has given up the tools. ϢereSpielChequers 14:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah.  The idea was to make an admin contactable by email for repeal of a block within a timely period. I think 2 years is at the wrong end of timely. Hiding T  23:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Email enabled 

message: "Administrators, like all editors, should act to improve Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." <-- code of conduct. You could just redirect this to a page on the general code of conduct.  Or maybe WP:5P or policy trifecta or something. :) kmccoy (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are some specific things that come with the tools. But maybe we could merge them. ϢereSpielChequers 10:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code of Conduct 

message: Currently this says "Admins are primarily held accountable by other admins." I think the truth is more complex. Ideally we are accountable to the community, but in practice without access to deleted contributions the community has to sometimes rely on us to police each other. At the same time only Arbcom has formal power to desysop (though I think the communities informal power can be quite effective). Any suggestions for a better phrase? ϢereSpielChequers 10:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about something like: "Admins are held accountable by the community as a whole, primarily by other admins and ultimately by Arbcom." It makes it more complicated to understand, but it is a better representation of reality I think. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

text: So glad to see some interest in this.  I have some things to do today, but I'll think about it.  I'll get back to you asap. — Ched :  ?  16:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Two thoughts real quick before I run out for a while:  
#kmmcoy posts a good lead here.  I also noticed this from the AN board: Administrators are expected to solve problems instead of making them worse, to recognize their mistakes, to listen to criticism, to communicate when asked, to speak diplomatically when possible, to recognize legitimate disagreement, to exercise restraint and caution and to exercise otherwise their best judgment at all times. Though no administrator will ever be perfect, they are asked to do their best.--Tznkai (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accountability