Welcome to hypercone.com on January 8 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Purge the cache to refresh this page

General
Content
User issues
Noticeboards
Are you in the right place? Using this page
Shortcuts:
WP:AN
WP:ANB
  • Please start new threads under a level-2 heading, using double equals-signs and an informative title: ==Informative title==. If a thread is related to an ongoing discussion, consider instead placing it under a level-3 heading within that discussion.
  • As a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed.
  • If no comment, or no further comment, has been made after a 48-hour period, your post and any responses will be automatically archived.
  • When posting, please sign and date all contributions, using four tilde characters "~~~~", which is translated into a signature and a time stamp automatically. The archival bot, which moves the oldest sections to the archives in order to reduce page length below 256KB every day, does not always recognize nonstandard, manually-inserted timestamps.
  • If discussion is already ongoing at another page, or there is another page which is a more natural location for a discussion, please continue the discussion there, and only put a short note of the issue, and a link to the relevant location, on this page.
  • In case you cannot edit this page due to it being protected, place your comments on this page and they will be addressed accordingly.
What these pages are not

These pages are not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. Wikipedia has a dispute resolution procedure editors should follow where possible. Please take such disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration rather than here. If you are here to report a violation of Wikipedia's policies on civility or personal attacks, please instead raise them at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.

Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed.
Click here to start a new discussion thread

Contents




[edit] Search bar for AN

How's this, maybe for the header? Try it out.

~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent; I would get it up on all the admin pages asap. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Nice, this would come handy. --Tone 20:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Good work! Now I can see who's been spreading rumors about me. caknuck ° resolves to be more caknuck-y 01:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It will make it easier to find archived threads if you know the name. Now we just need to put it in the header here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It's making my job of updating links to archived threads much easier. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Another user has taken over my Userspace Talk page

Another user, Tb (talk) has taken over my Userspace Talk page. He keeps placing rude and offensive remarks there and has refused my polite but firm requests to leave. He also keeps reverting me -- on my own Talk page -- and has taken control over it. Since the vast majority of this user's edits are edit warring with others throughout Wikipedia and since he is edit warring in my own Userspace against my frequent requests to stop, I ask that he be banned. Thank you. Ad.minster (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted only to remove my own comments after they became the occasion for personal attacks on me, and when they no longer served any purpose. Since I did so, I have engaged in no further conversation with User:Ad.minster except for [1] which was an attempt to resolve this very discussion directly. I have hardly "taken control" over anything. Any user can examine my own edit history and see that the statement made on that regard is incorrect. Tb (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I counted at least 6 instances of reverting me on my own Talk page in 12 hours, so at least you can block him based on the Wikipedia:3RR rules. And then there are the issues of taking over my pages and hounding me there after he was asked many times to leave, to justify banning. Thank you! Ad.minster (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The WP:3RR rules are explicit that they do not apply to an editor reverting his own edits. I have only reverted my own comments, and left the rest untouched. By contrast, your reversions are not reverts of your own edits, and likely do violate WP:3RR, though I think that's really beside the point here. Tb (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
At a casual glance, I see no justification for banning. How about you just stop squabbling? I see some pretty questionable behavior on your part here. Other people are allowed to leave you messages on your talk page- that's what your talk page is for. Friday (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I have asked to stop squabbling, but he will not. Further, edit warring on my own pages is still against WP. These are not articles, over which I am the moderator. If he realizes that what he said was wrong, there is no need to conceal that. Ad.minster (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
(EC)He seems to be trying to remove his comments and withdraw from the conversation, which you are both edit warring over. This doesn't seem to be productive. I'd suggest you allow him to strike his comments, rather than remove, and both of you consider the matter finished. Dayewalker (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
"Other people are allowed to leave you messages on your talk page- that's what your talk page is for." A user talk page is for communicating about things to improve the encyclopedia or to leave non-harassing messages. If a message is left and removed by that user, the communication was already made. There's very little reason to put it back except to be harassing. And if a person says such edits are not helping, there's nothing to be gained to putting more of the same kind there, so the other person should respect those wishes. DreamGuy (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
User:DreamGuy, you may have misunderstood the situation. This is not a case where I left a message, he deleted it, and I keep readding it. It's the opposite. I left a message, he read it, he added a personal attack, and I deleted the original message I had left when it seemed to be pointless to keep it around and the occasion for personal attack. Tb (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
He is removing his comments, but not withdrawing from the conversation. Who controls your Userspace? Ad.minster (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I've asked him to stop reverting and just leave it alone. I hope this will fix the immediate problem. No one editor has absolute control over your user talk page- this is a wiki, so it's a collaborative thing. Friday (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You do, to a limited extent anyway. Admins can put permanent notices on it in certain circumstances, or remove copyright violations or whatever. Certainly this other person doesn't own your talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You have a certain amount of control over your talk page, as you do over your comments. I've left him a message suggesting he strike the comments, which hopefully will end the discussion. Also, I've informed him of this thread. Dayewalker (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, I am permitted to revert my own changes according to WP:3RR. I may have misunderstood, since this situation seems rather unusual. Another editor suggests that I should strike through my comments, as a compromise, but I believe this is not sufficient. I believe that User:Ad.minster's comments constitute personal attacks. I note that he has now created User talk:Ad.minster/Dealing_with_difficult_people in which he thus identifies me as a "difficult person" by name--already not allowed--and continues the attack. As for whether I have withdrawn from the conversation, I believe I have. I have made only one edit other than to remove my comments, which was here [2]. This was an attempt to discuss it directly, following upon the suggestion I received in response to an admin help request here [3]. A satisfactory resolution for me would be for User:Ad.minster to agree to the removal of my comments from his pages (both User talk:Ad.minster and User talk:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people, and he should feel free to edit or remove his comments however he wants provided he leaves me out of it. Tb (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Ad.minster has now put the same comments in User:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people, labelled a "permanent record". ATM, User talk:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people is only partial. Since the purpose of these pages is purely to continue to post the personal attack against me, I object to them. I would normally simply open a RfD on them, but it seems more productive to wait for some resolution of this complaint. Tb (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

How about just stop squabbling? No one is attacking you, my friend. Since you started squabbling, I am obligated to maintain a record. Had you dropped it like I and everyone else asked, there would be no need for that. If you had behaved appropriately, you would not be worried about the record of your actions, good sir.
Please stop! Ad.minster (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The edit logs are a sufficient record if that's what you want. In accord with WP:Assume good faith, I take you at your word that all you want is a record (preserved in the edit log) and the comments removed (which you say was your goal all along). I ask that you now
* delete my comments from your page, which you say you wanted, and could always have done, and
* allow the edit logs to be a fully sufficient "record" of whatever you think needs recording. Tb (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for resolution. I am distressed by this whole matter, and I am particularly distressed that resolution is so slow to occur. I believe it is clear that Ad.minster insists that his pages with attacks against me be left in some way. He seems willing to push the bits around, but always provided it seems that there is some attack left. I would like the whole thing simply removed, and I insist that I believe that WP policy is perfectly clear that I am permitted to revert my own edit, and that he is not permitted to add comments under my name. I would be entirely satisfied by the removal of my edits and the agreement by him to drop the whole thing from his user page. No admin here has seen fit to object to my actions--though I readily confess that there must have been a better way for me to deal, I could not find it, and when I asked, I was simply pointed as WP:DR, and I'm doing that the best I know how, miserably perhaps though it may be. I believe it's transparent that his comments constitute personal attacks, and equally transparent that the comments I left on his page do not. I would like to hear some kind of approach to a resolution. I believe what I think is a fair resolution is clear. It is also perfectly clear that "hey, you two work it out" is not going to happen. I do not appreciate being attacked, or laughed at, or treated as an object of ridicule, and that is what Ad.minster is doing, in my opinion. Tb (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Now he has a "story" which purports to tell the tale of my horrific actions, again with a link to the edit log--still a personal attack. He says "you're not mentioned in it", and then all a user must do is click twice to see my name, and his attacks against me. I would like an administrator to help me understand what I can do to have the attacks removed rather than obfuscated, moved to sub-pages, linked-to-in-edit-log, or otherwise kept. Tb (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Now he is deleting my own comments, not his own!
Please stop. That is a very gracious story. Furthermore you are not named at all. The worst thing you could say is that I called you -- or someone -- my friend. Are you my friend?
Further it is not a personal attack to say here or in a talk page that you are a difficult person.
Several people have asked you to stop squabbling, please stop. Ad.minster (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
No you are not my friend. The story contained a link to me. Without the link, I have no objection, but with a link saying, "oh, and this is the original", it is disingenuous to protest that I'm not mentioned. The story, which you find so gracious, labels me as ego-ridden and unable to get over myself. If you were genuinely willing to let the matter drop--that is, dropped without any commentary on your pages, I would be quite content. Failing that, commentary without my name, without pointers to my name, and without my words, is an acceptible compromise to me. Tb (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggested what I thought was an easy way to get past this, neither party went for it. Just for Ad.minster's reference, I think what you've done is questionable in nature and shows very bad faith against this editor. Please don't take my suggestion as endorsing your side of the discussion. This is not an instance of one side being right or wrong, this entire situation is ridiculous. Dayewalker (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Great! Let's drop it as I have been asking from the beginning. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! Ad.minster (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure which "you" you're referring to Dayewalker, can you clarify? The story in question labels me as ego-ridden. Tb (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if you read my silly story, the ego part of it is in the first person, thus taking the onus on me, not anyone else. At most it labels an anonymous person as "my friend." But since you say you are not a friend, can you drop it now? Ad.minster (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(OD)To clarify, I was speaking to Ad.minster, since his above comments seemed to imply that editors were asking Tb to stop, and by inference denying his own involvement.

Ad.minster, I see no productive reason why you would want to keep a record of this incident, but if you want to keep it without directly referring to Tb (as the page stands now), I see nothing wrong with that. If you insist on keeping his comments after he has repeatedly tried to end the discussion and delete them, this may enter into the area of personal attacks and edit warring, and admin attention may be required.

According to WP:3RR, you're both in your rights as to reverting what has already happened. However, not breaking WP:3RR does not mean that edit warring hasn't taken place. If you both can just say now that this is over and leave things as they are, that would be best. If an admin has to waste time sorting through this one, blocks may be handed out. It's best to handle this between the two of you. As I said, the way the page is now seems fine. Dayewalker (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We're back. :(: I thought we had reached resolution, in which User:Ad.minster would leave his little story up, but remove the references to me, including those via linking. He has apparently decided now that this is not ok, and restored the personal reference to me. I would appreciate advice about how to proceed next. I am not willing to simply ignore the personal attack. Particularly offensive is this: [4], but it is not the only present example. Is it appropriate for me to introduce a WP:RfC now? Is it appropriate for me to introduce a WP:MfD on User:Ad.minster/Dealing with difficult people now? Tb (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please consider waiting to see his response to my comments on his talk page. I'm hoping a word from an uninvolved person will be able to prevent the need for the hassle of RFC, MFD, etc. I know this is dragging out longer than you would like, but I'd still like to give it a chance. --barneca (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, no problem. I've given up any hope of speedy resolution. Perhaps my impatience is part of the original problem. Tb (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Better, but not done: An admin today removed the most offensive part of the personal attack, but I still object to being named in any context which is designed either to attack my behavior or ridicule me, and the pages still do that. Tb (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the entire page at User:Ad.minster/Dealing_with_difficult_people ought to be deleted. Even if technically it might not be suitable for a speedy deletion as an attack page, I don't think it is serving any constructive purpose, and my understanding is that we generally only allow users to make comments on (or store links that record) other users' behaviour when it's being done in preparation for some sort of dispute resolution. That does not seem to be the case here. This just looks like one user wants to create a permanent record of another user's behaviour, and to accompany it with their own commentary. And it most certainly is not what it claims to be, which is an example of how to use humour to defuse tension. In my experience, one has to make oneself the butt of the joke for such a tactic to work. Remarks like Did it ever occur to you that your pointless comments here are rude and offensive? You drip with anger and hate, like a fresh-fried squirrel in pecan batter. are more likely to be counterproductive. And Do I sense a whiff of intolerance? I pray God may the spirit of love soon fill your heart might seem innocuous enough - if you're an evangelical Christian - but if so, how would you feel if someone suggested, e.g. that you'd be less intolerant if you weren't crippled by your dogmatic religion, or that it'd all be okay if you just made a sacrifice to our lord Satan? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I've courtesy blanked the page in the interim due to Ad.minster's tendency to edit sporadically. MFD may also be an option. –xeno (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ad.minster???

I've never seen Ad.minster before, but I do have problems with his name and wanted to see what the rest of you thought. He is not an administer, but his name implies that he is. He has been established for about 3 months now, but wanted to see if others felt his name is problematic?---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 00:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is officially approved and edits go back to 2006!! Approval: [5] and Establishment: [6]Ad.minster (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any problems with it, I assumed it was less of a admin thing and more religious, since he seems prone to religious tracts on his talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec)The fact that it has been discussed previously, does not mean that the name is acceptable. It still implies that you are something you are not, which is IMO problematic. The reason I didn't bring it up at UAA is because you do have a history here.---Balloonman PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 00:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the name that the RfD board decided in the final resolution. It was Wikipedia's choice for me. Ad.minster (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the link you all are looking for is here [7]. Note sure what the 2006 date is about; that was the old user name "Adminster". Tb (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, my friend(?). And please laugh at me. Ad.minster (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Privacy problem: posting of IP address that were previously concealed

I am not sure if this is the correct place to report a privacy problem: i.e. the posting of an IP address that was previously concealed. When an autoblock is lifted, the unblock success notice reveals the IP address. Please can the IP address be removed from the template? Lightmouse (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the IP address is already revealed by the user posting the unblock request. I don't think that they can be unblocked without giving up that part of their privacy. Stifle (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It is actually some number like #XXXXXXX, which is not a real IP address. Ruslik (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The block message asks the autoblocked user to provide the IP address and the blockid as part of the unblock request. For an admin to unblock, all they need is the blockid which does not identify the individual IP. Woody (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I think what the complaint is actually about, is that afterwords the unblocking admin leaves the IP address written on the page. I believe that the solution should include replacing the body of {{unblock-auto}} (the box with the block info and the admin instructions) as I did here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I have now fixed {{unblock-auto}} per above. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I just have two points of clarification:

  • The IP address was formerly revealed as part of the request.
  • The IP address was formerly revealed when the request was granted.

What is the situation now? Lightmouse (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Now:
  • The IP address is revealed as part of the request.
  • In granting a release from an autoblock, the recommended message no longer contains the IP address, although in other blocks the recommended message does. (Note that the admin is free to use a different message in the case of granting an unblock).
עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. User:Ruslik0 said it "is not a real IP address" and User:Woody said "For an admin to unblock, all they need is the blockid which does not identify the individual IP". I don't understand what they both mean but can we eliminate the IP address from the request too? Lightmouse (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this is useful to spot multiple unblock requests from the same IP, and to investigate what happened. If an autoblocked user doesn't wish personal informations to be revealed (the fact that they are on the same IP as a blocked user is a personal information), they can sit through the 24 hours block. -- lucasbfr talk 13:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the response. Od Mishehu said that autoblock message now doesn't reveal the IP but "in other blocks the recommended message does". Can they be changed too? Lightmouse (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets take this in easy steps. Can somebody provide a list of templates that reveal the IP address? Lightmouse (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Can regular editors decline blocks?

For clarification - can and should non-admin contributors decline blocks? --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to defend myself here: the case was clear cut, and I was helping to keep the backlog down as much as possible. Non-admins are encouraged to close AFDs and decline CSDs where it's obvious no admin action is needed; why not extend this to blocks and protections, if it isn't already (in very limited cases, mind)? What's the harm? Sceptre (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Sceptre, Afds and Csds are on highly watched pages. Unblock requests are not. Don't do this. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Blunt answer - people will only complain if you get it wrong. Long winded answer - I don't mind, to be honest, although there's two camps, some editors believe you need to have the trust of the community to deal with blocks, so you need to have passed RfA, whilst other editors would argue turning down a block is something any editor can do as long as it's done properly. The reaction you'll get will depend on what you do, whether it's right or wrong, and the persons philosophy. Nick (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Yet a bit of clue suggests that non-Admins can't and shouldn't do this. Suppose a non-Admin decides that unblocking is appropriate? We're no further forward. --Rodhullandemu 02:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, things like ability to view deleted contributions can be an important factor in unblock requests - if the user reviewing the unblock can't see the 3 attack pages a user has created and then goes onto agree unblocking is in order, they're not really helping either, but if it's a straightforward unblock request that will only ever be declined, say something like a prolific sockpuppet or something, there's not much a non admin can do wrong if they're doing things properly. Nick (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Which is why I declined it. If there was any reason why the unblock would be granted for that request, I would've not declined it. Sceptre (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The issue here is not power, but responsibility. Whereas all editors are accountable in some way, Admins are given the trust of the community to be able to take these decisions, and that trust is based on their perceived experience, ability and, er, trustworthiness. I'd say that whereas many non-admin editors *could* exercise that discretion equally properly, the community has not given it to them. One reason is that whereas de-sysopping is a very real sanction for inappropriate use of discretion, which concentrates the mind, there is no effective sanction for other editors and thus a rogue editor (as opposed to a rouge admin) could refuse unblock requests, thereby taking them out of the category and preventing their review by admins. I don't think that's what is intended by WP:BLOCK. Worse if they purport to grant them, because the blocked editor then wonders why they can't edit. I take the view that unblocking is not an asymmetric function of an admin, and therefore should not be delegated. WP:SNOW Afd closes are quite different, because a discretion doesn't really arise. --Rodhullandemu 03:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Admins are only really responsible for making sure that the wiki doesn't asplode if they use one of their buttons. (seriously, we have a lot of really dumb admins atm, this was never different). Everything else is determined by consensus. So sure, 2 or more regular editors can discuss an unblock request, and it be upon the head of the admin if they then go against the consensus! (up to and including losing the bit). An admin does not delegate their responsibilities to the community, the community delegates certain responsibilities to the admin. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
If you're worried about rogue users, well, they can already do that kind of thing right? Even if nothing else, the probably the template needs to be hardened against that particular abuse? Would you be able to think of a way to do so? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there now (or ever) a significant backlog in this category? If an unblock request that's going to be denied anyway sits in the queue for a while longer, no harm will come to Wikipedia. If an unblock request that should be granted sits for too long, there's nothing that a non-admin can do (directly) anyway. Feel free to add a short comment or recommendation (if you must) to requests that should be denied, but you probably shouldn't close them yourself. Frankly, the really clear-cut closes cases don't take very long to examine, and while your intentions are good, I suspect that you're probably not saving anyone very much time.
If there's an unblock request that you think should be granted, then drop a note on AN/I. Those are the requests that are worthwhile to answer quickly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Protonk (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely so! --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC) I can make a coherent argument too ;-)
Gainsaying is not helpful. If you are interested in making a cogent argument on the subject, I'm welcome to it, though what is in place immediately below doesn't really cut the mustard. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's always seemed obvious to me that non-admins shouldn't be responding to unblock requests; as I recently warned Ncmvocalist, non-administrators do not have the technical capability nor expressed community trust to block and unblock users. While I have no issues with non-admins leaving comments for blocked users on their talk pages to offer advice or something else, the backlog of requests is never so long that non-admins need to be attempting to take care of them. GlassCobra 04:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, regular editors can help decide to place or decline blocks and unblocks, provided their judgment is sound. I've never had any trouble doing so.

It is extremely important for normal editors to be able do as many tasks as is possible and safe, to avoid a situation where we creating an elite that effectively rules over the wiki. We want the community to be in charge and stay in charge. There's no reason to disenfranchise ourselves.

I also really like Nick's answer. "No one will complain as long as you get it right". Heh, wikipedia in a nutshell! ;-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"AFAIK, regular editors can help decide to place or decline blocks and unblocks, provided their judgment is sound." This premise is not true, or I can find no evidence of it at WP:BLOCK. Also, since block reviews are a stickier sort of matter--the review of the block may result in a situation where an administrative decision will be reversed or revised against the will of the original administrator--more care must be taken than with simply recommending blocking. Since that skirts WP:WHEEL, the utmost care must be taken by administrators in reviewing and discussing block reviews. Specific, detailed coverage of this exists in Wikipedia:BLOCK#Block_reviews. The function of the block review is to get the process right and to proceed gingerly. Simply getting the "outcome right" is shotgunning and relying on getting that outcome "right" to justify the act itself fundamentally misses the point. Further, {{Unblock}} notes: "Administrator use only: If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following as notification.", templates are not policy, but common practice and a lack of positive identification of administrator status in signatures would lead a rational person to believe that a non-administrator should not use that template. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Nail, head; head, nail. --Rodhullandemu 04:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I thought it was fine, turns out it's not. No harm done, really. And we've got clarification on the matter :) Sceptre (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Protonk: Why would the judgement of an administrator be any better than that of anyone else in this case?
This is not a disingenuous question: You see, you can't argue that "the community said so at RFA" because rfa is judged mostly on numbers of edits to paticular pages, which says absolutely nothing about admin ability to actually judge an unblock request.
If you happen to accept the current RFA criteria as sufficient to become an admin, you can't then turn around and claim that admins are more capable of judging this kind of thing than any other person.
But this leaves the question as to what grounds there are to actually have this template only be used by admins.
My own take on this is that admins are trusted to not use their buttons to abuse the wiki. I agree that the current admin criteria at RFA don't exactly test for this either (and in fact, I have complained about this). Nevertheless, new admins do get the buttons put into their hands, and they are expected to not break the wiki. So de facto, this is true.
I would then at least put forward that anything that *can* be done safely by a none-admin should be doable by a none-admin. This has actually been how wikipedia has worked for as long as we have had admins.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC) One reason for having my admin bit set to "off" is that it is a lot easier to catch these situations as they occur. If I'm forced to make a choice between telling people off, or having my bit set back to "on" to retain a particular functionality; I'll try telling people off first :-P
You are turning this into an existential question where the matter at hand neither requires it nor is our discussion sufficient to resolve it. We cannot tell whether or not your decision making capacity is "greater" than mine simply by looking at the admin bit. You could list a host of reasons why you aren't an admin or why RfA is a bad proxy for "decision making ability". None of that is in question. We live in a micro-society. As such, we have to dole out responsibility within the community to certain individuals. Some process must exist to do that and some distinction must exist between those who have that responsibility and those who don't. Most of the things on wiki are lightweight and look nothing like processes to determine "responsibility" in the outside world. Often, the process is (by design) self-selection. In most cases that works well. Sometimes there is a formal selection process, sometimes there is an informal selection process. Where RfA fits in that taxonomy of processes is not important to the fact that some process exists and some distinction exists. I note above that you say that "Admins are only really responsible for making sure that the wiki doesn't asplode if they use one of their buttons." At the risk of being tautological, I would have to disagree. We can't just have admins responsible for that or otherwise we wouldn't need administrators--there would be no one to block, ban, or otherwise restrict in a world where admins are only responsible for policing themselves. Since we aren't in that world, we have to deal with the fact that some responsibilities get parsed out and some (see Rodhullandemu) are less devolvable than others. As such it is not useful to diverge from speaking of responsibility to speaking of pure decision-making capacity. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
First up: you ask what we still need admins for, and the answer is really that we hardly need the separate flag at all anymore. Adminship has been thoroughly nerfed. Originally admins got particular buttons that could actually damage the wiki (deletion was permanent, you could run arbitrary mysql SELECTs, including queries that could run forever, etc.) So we really don't need admins for many tasks anymore. What we do still have admins for is for the split-second decisions: block a vandal before they make a bigger mess, or to speedy delete the pages the vandal just created.
Practically anything else can be done at a more leisurely tempo by the community. So also an unblock review. If we review the process you linked to yourself, you'll see that most of the steps involve discussions and gaining consensus. This can de facto be done by any user: discussing and gaining consensus are things any user can do, after all.
You are only supposed to edit the template as the final step in the process. If you have followed the process correctly, then you already know that what you are going to say in the template has consensus of the involved admins, and of the community. If not, you have made a mistake (it doesn't matter here whether you are an admin or a normal user either).
The only thing that a normal user can -not- do is that they cannot hit an unblock button if it turns out that unblocking is necessary. If they have been discussing with the admin in question, they can ask the admin to do the unblock. (once again, if this is being done by an admin, it would still be wise for the admin to get a second opinion from another admin who might then push the unblock button themselves, so once again, the difference between an admin and a regular user is minimal)
So checking the process itself, there doesn't seem to be a pressing need to require that the template be edited by an admin. Any conscientious user can do so safely.
Is there anything I've missed? --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC) This is essentially part of my argument why the admin flag is redundant for sufficiently experienced wikipedians. I think I already demonstrated that the basic argument is correct a long time ago. I'm getting bit tired of demonstrating though. So I'll admit that sometimes I'm terribly tempted to just ask for the flag back and tell people "see? I'm an admin, look at my shiny flag, now stfu", but that would set a terribly bad example. I do not think admins should be able to do that at all.
I'm a strong supporter of devolving administrator rights. I believe that almost every part of the "bit" that can be technically moved to specialist usergroups and controlled through a less...colorful process than RfA should be. However, we have not devolved the right and responsibility to block/unblock so we should not act as though we have simply because we feel we are better judges of who is responsible than RfA. And frankly, discussing the unblock (a perfectly reasonable thing to do) is a far cry from declining/accepting it and removing the trancluded template. It doesn't even bear on the subject to say that any non-admin can discuss blocks--we aren't talking about that. The responsibility of declining/accepting unblock requests or 'dealing' with them substantively rests with administrators--not because of some special gift in the person between the keyboard and the chair but because the community has already determined that will be the case. Protonk (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure anyone has really discussed it much until now. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC) (Best note I've found so far: Template_talk:Unblock#Notice_to_Admins_and_why_Admins_only.3F. No one replied)

(Undent)TL;DR, but, there is no written policy anywhere that non sysop persons can or cannot deny unblock requests. Its worth noting two things. First, that sysops are the only ones who can accept unblock requests - you need the tool to lift the block so there is a certain amount of parity expected that sysops are the ones doing the unblock requests - if for no other reason than it may (unintentionally) confuse the blocked user. Second, pretty much everything on Wikipedia relies on an editor's ability to "get the message." when they're acting outside of what a relevant portion of the community wishes.--Tznkai (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your position. I'm looking at this from the pov that (I hope that) the unblock review is being done by at least some small group of people, rather than by an admin all by themselves (that's what typically happened/happens when I did/do unblocks, with/without admin buttons). In that case it doesn't really matter which member of the group really does the typing in the unblock review template. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
In theory yes - in practice many unblock reviews are done by a single (user acting as an) administrator --Tznkai (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
*Nod* and that might not always be a great idea.
Naturally, it would be foolish to tell people off for following the best practice, while allowing a common-but-not-so-good-practice to flourish. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm disinclined to accept on faith that claim. You would have to provide some compelling evidence to say that a single user accepting or declining an unblock is inferior to a group of users doing the same thing. In some cases I can see how that would be the case, however in others I can see how the result would be worse. So what is your evidence that group discussion of unblocks represents best practice? Protonk (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
As you probably *don't* know (because someone has been editing the page that documented the fact... grrrr), in November 2005, I stated an interesting experiment. I quietly asked User:Angela to remove my admin bit, but I didn't actually stop doing any of my normal duties. It took roughly 6 months for the first person to notice I was adminning without actually having the technical admin bit ;-). By handing in my bit, I was forced to go to other admins to double-check my positions whenever I wanted to take a hard-security action. And the interesting thing is that in 2006, AFAICR I really did get into rather less trouble and wikidrama than in 2005.
I think it takes roughly a year of experience as an administrator before you can do without the bit. Some people with good mediation skills have been a tad quicker about it, while other people never become skilled enough. In your case, I think you'd have to wait 'till october of this year, correct? Otherwise I'd have challenged you to simply try it out and see. ;-)
I agree that looking at my own experience is just one data-point. Previously, Wikipedia:Former Administrators listed other people who decided to do the same thing; but someone has evidently removed that documentation from the page, possibly because it wasn't clear enough, for some reason.
One reason I'm making a bit of noise here is due to the fact that I'd like to continue to actually take all/most appropriate admin actions without resorting to asking the bit back. That would not be cool, because it could mean mean that the admin bit has taken on a non-technical role as a badge, and that the wikipedia community has taken a step towards the hierarchical governance model (a model which is fine for armies for instance, but it is not particularly suitable for wikis).
I agree that it's just a small thing, but over time, a lot of small things have slowly been adding up to much bigger things. This is evidenced by the fact that a lot of people here seem to push for admins having more than a purely technical role. (To wit: by arguing that (a) certain template(s) should now be restricted to admin use only. -Note that at the time of the creation of the admin role, said template definitely did not exist, so this is clearly a fairly new thing)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC) There are many reasons why one can act as an admin without an admin bit. The better you get at meatball:SoftSecurity, the more effective you can become at it, to the point where the admin bit can actually become a hindrance.
Shorter version: An alternate argument for those who TL;DR, and/or "must follow policy": it takes at least 2 people to discuss an unblock request in the case of wanting to unblock, because it is policy: The original blocking admin, and whoever it is who is doing the review. Further, (as also argued at WP:BRD for edits), it's generally wise to let someone reverse their own actions, rather than doing it for them, as that reduces the chances for conflict. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm hardly one to put the "role" of admins on a pedestal, but this like closing an AFD as "Delete" is one of those things that only admins with tools should be doing. The wiki-way, besides being a talking point, obviously does not and was never intended to go to "all things", or else every IP user would have the tools. rootology (C)(T) 06:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I am often critical of our admin concept here in Wikipedia, I admit that there are some functions that need to be the perogative of admins. Making an unblock decision is one of them. Non-admins should stay away from unblock requests except to help advise the deciding admin on the decision to make. Cla68 (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there an additional problem here with desyopped ex-admins? Hasn't the community (in that case) explicitly noted that they do not trust that class of editor to be involved in broom work? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really get it, why are there all these drama why are there all these technical fuss over something so insignificant. This user is obviously trolling around with the unblock requests. Are we trying to create some-sort of burocracy for how things are done here? If we are saying that only admins can decline that sort of unblock request, we might as well say "you can't revert vandalism unless your an administrator" as well, because he might as well placed an unblock reason like this, {{unblock|FUCK YOU ALL WIKI AMDINS FOR BLOCKING ME}} and are we saying that the only person who can respond to that is an admin? Y. Ichiro (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I must not see it. Where is the drama? A general question was asked and people are debating it (as we are wont to do). No one is getting butthurt over it, no one is slinging invective. This is a reasonable discussion of where people feel comfortable with admin/non-admin rights. If you want drama see the thread below. Protonk (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I should reword that then. :) But it's all these techinical fuss that makes us so buerocratic. We need no admin to say that unblock is invalid, anybody with common sense can see that. Yet why is an administrator needed to respond to this. I think it's all these little things probably making Wikipedia administrators more of a position of power than just being