Wikipedia talk:Administrator Code of Conduct

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opinions welcome. Including those of non-admins, of course. Radiant_>|< 13:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
  • 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)


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)
  • It is intended to be strong. The reason is that, in the past month, someone changed the "history" tab to read "page history", and the "rollback" button to read "revert vandalism". Both were probably seen as minor changes, but since they affect the entire wiki they really cannot be considered minor. Both were quickly reverted. Radiant_>|< 14:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


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)
  • As stated at the top, the admin should be held accountable by his fellow admins, and failing that, should be investigated by the arbitration committee. Systematic offenders should be removed from adminship. Radiant_>|< 14:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This is good, but isn't it all already in the various policies? Anything that isn't should simply be put into them. Instruction creep is bad and we should take special care to minimize the creation of redundant policy pages. - Taxman Talk 15:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The intent of the page is to have everything together in one list, so that new admins can simply read this as a guide of what they can and cannot do. Also, there have been several calls from new users that they want a clear policy of what admins can and cannot do. You'd have to admit that the various policy pages are rather long, and they mix in "how to" sections and examples. Radiant_>|< 22:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This stuff rocks. One comment I have: Would it make sense to tie it back to other policy pages? Some sections have "see also" but some don't. Shouldn't they all? Other than that, great stuff, the creation of this page in principle is spot on.... Some loose ends may still need resolving around wheel wars and other currently open questions. For this to MEAN anything, it needs enforcement, but that's properly the remit of a different section. The law against kiting checks doesn't describe what prison cells have in them, after all. Radiant, you say "should be held accountable by fellow admins"... isn't that just a recipe for wheel warring if there is no formal enforcement mechanism? ++Lar: t/c 07:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • If you want to tie in to other policy pages, please do so. I do hope that the new ArbCom will step in to enforce this. By "enforcement by other admins" I mean that admins that overstep their bounds are subject to censure by other admins, and that may include temporary blocks. At present, such blocks tend to be immediately undone by friends of the blockee, but a Conduct Policy should change that. Radiant_>|< 11:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Tieing: I will if I get a chance, I was asking about advisiability, not asking you to do the work for me. "such blocks tend to be immediately undone by friends of the blockee" == "such blocks have the potential to spark wheel wars" since undoing a block is the first salvo in such a war, IMHO, which is what I was driving at. ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you (Radiant) give any examples of recent situations that you think would have been less controversial were this policy/guideline/whatever in existence? Christopher Parham (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • If you look over WP:ANI and WP:RFC/USER, there are plenty of controversies regarding (just a few) individual admins, and a frequent call to hold them accountable to their actions. More people's opinions can be found at WP:AAP. But really, this "proposal" is hardly new, it merely codifies the way most people feel about admins. As suggested on the AAP, at an estimate 99% of our ~800 admins are doing fine; there is only one percent (about eight admins) we should be worried about. As such, this page makes for a good way of reminding that 1% of what they should not do, and it makes good reading material for novice admins or nominees. Radiant_>|< 09:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm aware of the conflicts, I'm more thinking of how this will contribute to stopping them, because it doesn't seem to add anyting new. But since you appear to intend this mainly as a listing of other existing guidelines, rather than something itself new, then never mind. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Other than prevention, enforcement can only come in two ways. First, if an admin abuses his power, other admins can block him. In the past, such blocks were almost always immediately the subject of wheel wars. If there is clarity as to what constitutes abuse, such wheel wars can be averted. Second, there's the ArbCom. The ArbCom often generates its own findings of rules, but it may help them to have this page available and know it's supported by the community (as indicated by WP:AAP but some rewording may be appropriate). Radiant_>|< 11:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
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)

Contents

[edit] Comments from a non-admin

I really like this page. Very nice job. As a non-admin, am I allowed to make minor changes, like for typos, or should I make all suggestions here?

Other comments:

  • Remove gender-specific terms, or make an even distribution of "him" and "her" pronouns. Not all admins are male. Otherwise there's an implication that only the male admins are the problem ones.  ;)
  • I would recommend adding a "Summary" section at the end that kind of ties everything together.
  • Also in "Bullying and threats", I would like to propose additional wording: Admins should be aware that even warning a user of a block, especially when a user has no prior history of problems, can be perceived as a very serious threat. When dealing with normally good-behavior users in such situations, an admin should first try to address the issue by identifying themselves as an admin, and making a gentle suggestion. A caution of block should be brought up later only if the problem behavior continues.

Great page! Elonka 17:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with the addition of the proposed paragraph above (Admins should be aware...). My reasoning for this goes along the lines that if it is generally seen as appropriate to use test1 through to test 4 before blocking a vandal, then a 'normal' editor should certainly be treated with at least as much respect and good faith. Just to push the comparison a bit further (hopefully not too far, as it is not the same situation) test 1 includes language that suggests thanks for trying, but you didn't really do it quite right, 'this is where you can get help to do better....'. Test 2 clearly says what is wrong, but has no mention of even the possibility of a block. Test 3 then says that a block is possible, but still gives plenty of opportunity to stop without any further action. Test 4 is obviously the final warning, just to make the point.
Anyway in case you didn't follow that, what I was trying to say is if most vandals don't get threatened with a block until they continue their bad behaviour for a while (in terms of edits not time) then other people shouldn't be either. --Petros471 19:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    1. It's a wiki, so yes, feel free to edit it. Also, please link to whatever you think is useful.
    2. I (obviously) have no objection against gender-neutral terms (however please use "he or she" or "the admin" or plurals, rather than such exotics as "xe" or "ye"), I just stem from a culture where it's less of a big deal than in the US.
    3. I couldn't think of a meaningful summary myself since every section is really quite short and different. However feel free to add a summary if you have one.
    4. Regarding "bullying", please be aware that a block is generally for a short amount of time (as opposed to a ban, which is generally for a long or indefinite amount of time). Of course, in any case improvement is better than blocked. What I usually do myself is send a concise message such as "please don't do (this edit), it's goes against our policy of (some link)", except in outrageous cases.
    5. It usually is appropriate to cycle through test1-test4; however it should be clear that it isn't a requirement. As an extreme example, someone who replaces ten pages with images of genitalia gets blocked without further warning.
  • And thanks for the comments! Radiant_>|< 22:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

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)

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)
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)
  • I'll rename to the aposthropied version unless there are any objections soon. Radiant_>|< 03:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • LOL. Added ACC as a shortcut. Radiant_>|< 12:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Cool. I'd lose the other one before people start using it too much. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 15:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lone Crusader

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)

I have made this addition Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Radiant's removal of the entirety of the "lone crusader" examples is also acceptable, probably better. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

I can't at short notice remeber any recent consensus at WP:CP.Geni 18:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

About what? Radiant_>|< 18:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
  • Good point. I've added that. Radiant_>|< 20:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      I think Geni was referring to the confusing mass of abbreviations IfD itself uses. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'd rather wish they didn't, actually, but it's explained at the top of the page. Radiant_>|< 21:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think this is poor

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)

  • Part about arbitration struck, it doesn't belong here. This page is supposed to be prescriptive (i.e. don't do this-and-that with your admin buttons); how those buttons work is explained on several other pages. Is there anything in particular on this page that you disagree with? Radiant_>|< 09:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)

I'd like to see the prescriptive stuff moved out, and it should be a guideline. There are for instance occasions when administrators quite legitimately ignore process in the interests of the encyclopedia. To adopt this as policy would be another example of unnecessary m:instruction creep. Some problems can only be solved by an administrator who has an instinct for choosing a path through to consensus and the balls to take action alone in the first instance, and conversely there are administrators who have used process as a tool to inhibit the formation of a consensus that they do not personally support. Wikipedia sysopping is an art, not a science, and restricting the scope of action of administrators by unnecessary prescription is not the way to improve the service we get from our administrators.

On acccountability of administrators, they are of course accountable to the arbitration committee. Sanctions already exist, and sysop bits have been flipped, over abuse of administrator powers. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Most people don't agree with you. Read WP:AAP for details. The code of conduct does not restrict admins except from actions widely considered disruptive. And none of this is new; codifying existing practice is by definition not instruction creep. Radiant_>|< 13:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Codifying existing practice" is precisely what instruction creep is. This is an attempt to be prescriptive rather than descriptive. I don't think that there is any substantial agreement that there should be a prescription of what administrators can and cannot do. There are existing policies and existing accountability mechanisms. Hemming in sysops even more is unnecessary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Regarding instruction creep, you are wrong; please read m:instruction creep. Regarding substantial agreement, you are also wrong; please read WP:AAP. Regarding existing policies and accountability, this code relies on them, and doesn't hem in sysops except from actions widely considered disruptive. Radiant_>|< 14:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
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)

I've read instruction creep. Now explain why I am wrong. If this document is not intended to further hem in sysops, then the prescriptive elements can be removed by describing the existing elements of policy. It is always wrong for any editor to act in a disruptive manner, but two arbitrators ( Statement by JamesF, Statement by Fred Bauder) both serving in the current arbitration committee, have made it plain that good faith actions in times of serious dispute are not regarded as disruptive. Two other arbitrators (one of whom has since retired) also considered the case, which coincidentally was brought by you, and rejected it. So if you say I'm wrong and four arbitrators say you're wrong, who is to say who is right? Now it seems that you are trying to claim that such actions are disruptive. While it may please you to say so, trying to change policy on the basis of the results of a non-binding poll is probably not going to work. You're probably better off sticking with a guideline. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • First off, this is not about that recent ArbCom case (indeed, using your logic would mean that if an arbitration request about the 3RR was rejected, the 3RR would no longer been valid; clearly that is not the case). Second, if you want to "pull rank" on this one, I should point out that seven current arbiters and Jimbo agree with me that Wheel Warring is disruptive. And third, the WP:AAP states at the top that "if public sentiment is that a certain policy would be beneficial, effort can be made towards creating a policy proposal." If consensus backs an issue, that issue can be policy. Consensus does not equate to unanimity. Radiant_>|< 15:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I take your point on 3RR. That's a good one. However do you not see that thisconcrete, rather than hypothetical, refusal of the arbitration committee to consider your complaint has ramifications for your attempt to propose what (despite your claims to the contrary) would be a substantial example of rule creep? That administrators involved in the behavior that you personally deprecate not only were not criticised but were 'commended in this case suggests to me that you're barking up the wrong tree. Arbitrators don't normally go out of their way to say of putative malefactors "X's behaviour in particular, and especially his comments, above, on each individual matter, are exemplary" and "all I see is people doing the best they can". This suggests to that we're a long way from having a proper discussion (rather than a poll, and an avowedly non-binding one at that) to decide what is and is not abusive behavior by administrators. In the meantime, absent arbiration cases in which so-called "wheel wars" feature, I suggest that further restricting the scope of action of administrators, who do the job voluntarily and are, most of us, dedicated, honest and considerate in our actions, is ill-conceived.

I notice that you didn't answer my question on instruction creep, and now in your most recent edit summary you say "nor do I condone wikilawyering". It seems to me that you're now using edit summaries for the purpose of making sneaky personal attacks. As you'll be aware from the above, there's nothing wikilawyerish about me. I'm just showing you that there is no clear agreement on what constitutes abusive behavior by sysops and that, on recent evidence, your own opinion is somewhat wide of the mark. Nevertheless as other have suggested this document, shorn of its prescriptions, would probably make a useful guideline for new administrators. Much of it duplicates existing policy and some of its prescriptions are inappropriate or mis-statements of policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Huh? No, that edit summary was written with a response to Improv, who suggested that this proposal may be used for wikilawyering (which, obviously, I do not condone).
  • Regarding instruction creep, it refers to (1) creating overly complex rules, or (2) creating a rule in the spirit of "hey wouldn't it be nice if" and thinking that people would actually follow that. Codifying existing practice is the antithesis of that.
  • Regarding the recent Arb case, note that (1) that only concerns wheel warring, not the rest of this proposal; (2) arbiters are a judicial body, not a legislatory one; (3) the current ArbCom and Jimbo endorse the notion that wheel warring is disruptive, as does most of the community; (4) in his response, JDForrester stated he disapproved of JTkiefer's wheel warring; and (5) in his response, Morven stated he hoped that you had learned your lesson. The reasonable explanation seems to be that, while the ArbCom does not approve of wheel warring, they did not think there had been enough incidents to base a case on.
  • I agree that most of our administrators are dedicated, honest and considerate in our actions. But from both community opinion and the fact that people aren't perfect, it is reasonable to state that some admins are not. Hence, it is a good idea to make a concise code of conduct, which only restricts admins from disruptive actions. Radiant_>|< 16:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ease of editing section header

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)

  • That is a good point. Yes, it is meant to be rule-like, and no, it is not supposed to bind admins into following process (indeed, I don't think it implies that anywhere, could you please point it out?) But that's a core issue - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and all policy yields to common sense rather than to wikilawyering. That is not an argument for not having policy, it is an argument for not using policy as a sledgehammer, and for not writing policy like this:
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)
    • If all these things do is suggest scrutiny, then I find this less troublesome (so long as we don't get people reciting them like a mantra or problem users kavetching and referring to this in cries of "Admin Ralph breaks the rules!" when for the good of the encyclopedia people sidestep these things. My only remaining concern is the "wikipedia works by consensus" section, which I think is problematic because it oversimplifies (or maybe attempts to change) the way things work. I would instead suggest "Some parts of Wikipedia work primarily by consensus" as being more accurate and acceptable. I honestly don't see a purpose for this code of conduct, but it would at least be less objectionable with that changed. --Improv 16:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. For the purpose of this, see WP:AAP and frequent community outcry. I'll think about the consensus paragraph, but I do believe that most of Wikipedia works primarily by consensus (by which I obviously don't mean that everything must be discussed before action can be taken). The exception would be legal issues, and the fact that NPOV is non-negotiable. Radiant_>|< 16:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I understand that the community would likely support positions in a poll that would tell them that they're the boss, but they're not, and I'm unwilling to support this degree of populism. It may be *a* good to use polls where they make sense in certain areas, but that is because they have been witnessed to be pragmatic -- the foundation of wikipedia is not consensus, nor should it be, in my opinion. Community consensus is a useful tool, not a foundational one and certainly not a dogma. --Improv 19:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rapid repeats

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)

  • Good point. I see you already fixed it. Radiant_>|< 09:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
  • It is already a given that any policy has exceptions and can be trumped by common sense. We treat all our policies this way; asserting that this policy would be treated differently is a straw man. Aside from that, you are correct that removing of potentially damaging material is such an issue. I would appreciate a link to such an incident where a wheel war has taken place, and I should once again note that "legitimate differences of opinion" are a good reason for debate, not for forcing either side through. Radiant_>|< 15:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. With that proviso I see no problems. The particular incident in which potentally damaging material was removed after a strong consensus was formed to delete it was the Catholic Alliance of Wikipedia MD. Other sysops repeatedly undeleted the material until finally the MD was closed. This was one of the cases that you cited in your failed wheel war arbitration application. I first deleted that page on the grounds that it was "not remotely compatible with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality" at 15:06, 25 December 2005 when there were about 15 delete votes and 6 of the 7 keep voters had done so fter being instructed to do so by the creator of the page [1] [2]. The creator of the page had described it on Wikipedia as a "redily summonable voting block in case a pro-life article is threatened."

Sometimes the legitimate differences of opinion are over whether there is an urgent need to remove materual from Wikipedia. When those disputes arise one party is, perforce, going to take action rather than sit around discussing things. This is why the term "wheel war", which is derived from abusive practices by bored sysadmins on Unix systems, is inappropriate here. This is a real, working, open encyclopedia and as long our sysops are individuals we will always have sysops who don't agree with one another. This should not be used as a pretext for forbidding them to take urgent action on their own cognizance. There is a general consensus, made all the more pressing by experience such as the Seigenthaler affair, that damaging material should be removed as soon as possible. Sysops should not be deterred from doing so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I do agree that some things need to be urgently removed, and I certainly endorse the right of an admin (or indeed any editor) to take bold action without prior discussion. However, if there is a dispute about whether something needs to be urgently removed, wheel warring is not particularly helpful (and that, of course, goes for both the deleting side and the restoring side; a compromise might be to blank and protect).
  • That said, I don't quite think the Catholic Alliance is such a good example - that page contained two lines only and there already was a deletion debate on it; I really fail to see the point of repeatedly deleting it before a debate concluded three days later that would have ended up with deleting it anyway. As a side point, "Wheel war" may not be the most appropriate term but I'm afraid the meme has stuck already. I wouldn't mind a different term though. Radiant_>|< 17:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Higher Standard

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)

  • Kevin Baas has added the phrase "Admins, having more power, can do more harm than an average user, and thus are subject to higher standards of behavior." The first part is pretty much true, but I'm not so sure about the part about the higher standards. What is meant by it? Should admins be more NPOV, more civilized, more heedful to the opinions of others, or better at editing? While all of that would be nice as wishful thinking, I see no evidence that (1) it is actually the case, or (2) it is enforced or enforceable. >Radiant< 10:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Admins are held at least partially to a different standard than everyone else. As people who have presumably been on Wikipedia for a long time and have a good grasp of the community and its goals, they take it on themselves to be more responsible for the community as a whole. Admins should be expected to see the big picture more clearly, and to act in the interests of the project, and to the extent that they do so, the amount of leeway they have with interpreting core policy in relation to other rules should be increased. This, and the willingness to propose new policy or otherwise be prominent in policy discussion, are a large part of what makes an admin an admin. It should be noted that in all cases good communication is critical -- one thing that I think has often been neglected is the importance of communicating clearly every time possibly contentious edits occur -- a good admin should not be afraid of controversy, nor necessarily avoid imposing a decision, but when that is done, they should make an effort to make those involved know why they did it in a civil (but firm) fashion. One should, of course, be cautious when doing this, because when one does go against community consensus or otherwise imposes, one does stick one's neck out. --Improv 13:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First sentence

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)
  • Good point. Admins are primarily accountable to the community (as is everyone else), and any (well, nearly any) admin action is primarily reversible by other admins (who can also block a disruptive admin if they see fit). >Radiant< 11:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice Job

It is nice to see all of this in one place. Wikipedia cannot be hurt by having more descriptions of civil behavior. My big problem though, is that to there is not much overall structure or organization to the Wikipedia pages. I've been here about two years, I'm an admin, I've made thousands of edits, but every week I come across yet another page of "policy" or "guidelines" that I'd never seen. I'd like to see all thes pages made into subpages of a singular wikipedia handbook. This gets worse when there are discussions about policy, as different groups of people discuss things in different places. If you have an issue, it is not always clear where to discuss it. I think that is part of the current problem with administrators. Many people just don't know where to discuss issues with admins. So as much as I like what you have done, I'm hoping it can be combined with all the other pages related to admins into something that is much better organized. This is a good start. Thanks for undertaking it. -- Samuel Wantman 08:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Great work guys, this is something I would strongly support in becoming policy.
My only concern, like Herostratus above, is the opening sentence, although I have a different take on the true nature of admin accountability. I think the sentence as written is correct, in that issues of accountability currently do rest primarily with other admins. I think this is wikipedia's greatest problem, and accountability needs to be spread much more equitably to the community at large. Until that happens however, I think the page as it stands now is excellent.
I also strongly agree with Samuel Wantman about centralisation of policy matters. I have just arrived here, somewhat gobsmacked, after stumbling across Wikipedia:Proposed deletion by accident. OK, it seems that it was "advertised" in some places, but this appears to be a live process which has been implemented at breakneck speed by a relatively small group of editors. A centralised policy / proposals sump would be a good thing. Navigating around this Byzantine labyrinth can be difficult for even the most experienced of users. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The central area for that is WP:RFC (of course, not everybody is aware of that :( ). If you want to keep an eye on new developments, take a look at Category:Wikipedia proposals. >Radiant< 13:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that Radiant, but the RFC/Policy subpage states "This list is only for when policy and guideline issues are still problematic after inconclusive talks", so many things probably don't get listed there. The category looks useful for spotting things though ;) --Cactus.man ✍ 14:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's weird. That warning shouldn't be there; requesting comments on a new policy proposal is perfectly normal regardless of whether a dispute exists. >Radiant< 14:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I see you've cleaned up the intro, but it's been there since the edit immediately following the page creation. [3]That probably goes some way towards explaining why there are relatively few proposals listed there when compared to those in Category:Wikipedia proposals. I have tweaked the wording at Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy#How_to_propose_a_new_policy. If they are listed on both Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and the RfC sub page in addition to the Category, then there will be more community awareness. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

So if we were to make a list of places where admin policy is discussed it would contain:

or you could browse through all the listings at:

Or check all the talk pages for existing policies about admins to see what is being discussed. These talk pages are to discuss the policy page, so often that is where the discussions and policy is decided. I'm sure there are some places I've missed on the list above.

I've been here two years and I'm still not sure where to post a proposal or where to start a discussion. Some pages are linked to other pages, some are not. I spent months discussing a policy at Wikipedia:Categorization and thought we were near consensus until someone (Radiant! I think) told me that I should have posted it at CfD, and not a "backwater" like Wikipedia talk:Categorization. The problem is that it is really difficult to determine where the rapids are, and where the backwater is.

As I see it, this confusion is related to the structure of wikipedia space. Wikipedia space is a place where policy resides, where policy is discussed and decisions about policy are made, and where policy is applied. This trinity has to fit into a space that is essentially binary. The talk page about the page where a policy resides is sometimes the place where the policy is discussed and proposals are made. Sometimes proposals are put on their own page and discussed on the talk page. Sometimes policy is discussed on the talk pages where policy is applied, for example the talk pages of wp:cfd or wp:rfa. Then there are all the meta pages that connect to these pages, and the help pages that connect to these pages, and the village pump pages that connect, and the categories they are in, etc... There's just too much. -- Samuel Wantman 06:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving this forward

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)

  • Personally, I don't think this proposal has ever had anything worth saving in it, and hope it will die in committee. No offense intended to Radiant -- I myself have occasionally put forth proposals that in retrospect should not have gone anywhere. --Improv 15:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed. This proposal is rather imbalanced, focusing too much on the administrator as an executor of process and ignoring the administrator as caretaker of the encyclopedia. (Indeed, it's perhaps instructive that the word "encyclopedia" does not appear in the proposal.) Christopher Parham (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Could you please elaborate on what you mean by being 'caretaker of the encyclopedia' as opposed to 'executor of process', and how this proposal can be improved to re-address the imbalance? Whilst you may think that it is not ready to be policy now, why do you think the general principle is bad? Petros471 13:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't really see how to make this much clearer: this proposal seeks to hold admins accountable for the degree to which their actions follow written process or policy. It should be obvious why this is not an especially useful standard -- specifically, accurately enforcing the letter of our deletion/blocking/protection policy is not among the goals of this project. The focus in judging administrative actions should be "did this action help or hinder the improvement of the encyclopedia." So the ideal adminstrator code of conduct would read like this: "Presumably, when we made you an admin we acknowledged that you have a pretty good idea what the project is about. Now, do things that help the encyclopedia, and don't do things that hurt it. Here's some ideas: [list of processes and tasks]." Where people disagree about what is best, our dispute resolution mechanisms can handle it. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Surely the written process or policy should all help the improvement of the encyclopaedia. If not then it should be changed (by discussion on the relevant policy pages). Admins sticking to policy should be improving the encyclopaedia. However as I commented below I'd be willing to support this becoming a guideline, would you be as opposed to that? Petros471 09:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
            • No, it shouldn't be guideline or policy or anything -- it serves only to highlight specific process rules as if they are important in and of themselves, while obfuscating the principles that actually motivate all our editing and administrative actions. The existing diverse set of process and policy pages actually serve us better by helping us recognize that process and policy are not a ruleset governing our actions on Wikipedia, but rather tools that are frequently (but not always) useful in furthering our basic principles. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support': I believe we need to take advantage of the hypertext abilities and make the policy guidelines very simple. Move this page forward to policy support guidelines that focus on strengths of the encyclopedia. — Dzonatas 22:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
  • I think this stands fine as it is, as a summary of what admins should ideally do. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's decent enough, but it's pretty much redundant to the policies we already have. If there's anything unclear in those, they should be clarified, not add another layer. Every extra policy page and guideline has an additional cost in making it less likely someone that doesn't already know what is going on will find what they need. We should be simplifying and clarifying the existing policy pages, not adding more. - Taxman Talk 21:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Admin: Inshanee is breaching the Code of COnduct repeatedly

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)

[edit] Blocking

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.
Korossyl 02:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status? Is this now a historic page?

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)

I have added the historical template. —Centrx→talk • 22:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/m/Wikipedia_talk%7EAdministrator_Code_of_Conduct_5e95.html"