Wikipedia talk:Administrators

Notification of RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation

There is an RfC on seeking tools via a voluntary RfA after resignation at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Question about wheel

Wikipedia:Unblocking links here when it says "Unblocking will almost never be acceptable when it would constitute wheel warring" but this page states "When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a decision by consensus." It's unclear to me if WHEELing would involve an initial unblock without consensus/consulting the original blocking admin or if this only becomes relevant if a third admin comes by and reverses the unblock. Because if it's the latter meaning, the link here from unblocking doesn't really make sense. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that the first block and the first unblock are allowed. Then anything after that, without a corresponding discussion to get consensus, is wheel warring. That first unblock can sometimes be unpopular and go against the guidance of checking with the blocking admin, but I think it's allowed under policy and is not wheel warring. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

If A blocks, B unblocks, C reblocks, and D reunblocks, all without discussion, then C and D are wheel warring as they reinstated a previous administrative action without clear discussion to establish a consensus view. The first reversal is allowed by the community as it desires quick reversals of problematic actions, but the reversal should be followed by discussion. In theory, if the community enacted an editing restriction enforced by a block until a given condition was met (for simplicity, let's say a partial block), and A unblocked, B reblocked, and C reunblocked, without discussion, then C would be wheel warring. isaacl (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

On the other hand, if A's block happened in 2018 while B, C, and D all acted this week, I'd say only D is wheel warring even if A's original block was done without a prior discussion. At some point (and I'm not going to try to define when exactly that point is) the original block becomes a status quo and B's unblock can be seen as a fresh action rather than a reversal of the prior action. Anomie⚔ 13:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the main question in such a case is whether the third/etc. action is based on new information or not.

• A blocks. 3 years later, B says "that was a bad block" and unblocks. C reblocks. C has wheel-warred; B may or may not have violated WP:RAAA.
• A blocks. 3 years later, B accepts an unblock request. C disagrees with the acceptance and reblocks. D unblocks. This would be a serious RAAA violation by C, but not a wheel war, because the first mover for the current set of information is B. D, however, has wheel-warred.
• A blocks. 3 years later, B accepts an unblock request. The user then vandalizes and C blocks them. This violates neither WHEEL nor RAAA. D then unblocks, violating RAAA but not WHEEL. E then reblocks. It's E who's violated WHEEL, because they're the third mover for the current set of information.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that responding to an unblock request starts a new sequence of administrative actions. Although reblocking isn't wheel warring, in cases where the unblock wasn't clearly in error, if there is no ongoing problem that needs urgent attention, it's not unusual for the editor to be given the benefit of the doubt and left unblocked until further discussion is held. If an unblocked user commits a new action for which blocking is authorized by guidance, then a block also starts a new sequence. isaacl (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The best example is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement, which was a straight block / unblock / reblock case, where the final admin to reblock was desysopped for cause. (Oh, it also stemmed from Malleus Fatuorum Eric Corbett calling admins the "c" word, which used to be a good way to reduce the world supply of popcorn....) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Can somebody explain the rationale for desysop for inactivity?

Hi, I'm a long-time admin, and at times was extremely active in setting up policies and procedures. I haven't been very active in recent years, but might again at some point, but I do respond to specific requests on my talk page. What is the point of desysoping admins like myself for inactivity? What harm are we causing? Why discourage us from becoming more active again? I don't get it. Please explain. Thanks -- SamuelWantman 00:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The first RFC, for desysopping admins who haven't done anything for 12 months, came after a dormant admin account was hacked. The second was due to the idea that admins who haven't made a minimum number of edits for several years may have "lost touch" with the community, with a side of negativity towards people who became admins in earlier days when standards were lower.

The message on your talk page is supposed to encourage you to become more active, not discourage you. If you find it discouraging rather than encouraging, it might help to describe why so people doing that messaging can consider adjusting the wording. Anomie⚔ 02:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Anomie described the situation well but note that over 500 accounts are listed at Category:Compromised accounts. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I would add that there have been quite a number of arbitration cases and other incidents related to barely-active admins who began using their tools again after not doing so for a prolonged period, with... poor results at best.

With all due respect and meaning no offense, you have made two logged administrative action in the past eight years or so, the last one being almost four years ago. If you'd like to become an active admin again, that would be welcome, but the fact that you are just now objecting to a requirements that the community began developing fourteen years ago suggests you may not have been keeping abreast of what is expected of admins in the contemporary editing environment. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 04:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, there has also been at least one arbitration case where people dug up things settled 10 years prior to rejudge them under today's social norms, and the arbs (including you, Beeblebrox) unfortunately went along with it. And the target attempting to defend themself was taken as further bad behavior.

I also note that a recent proposal to focus on tool use rather than edits was soundly rejected, and the portion of the current policy Sam objects to was enacted only 3 years ago, not 14. Anomie⚔ 13:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Sam. I'm sorry you are faced with this situation.

As I recall, when this was originally rolled out, we (the community) had agreed to 2 years of no (little?) editing. The main reasons as I recall were two-fold: That there are many things an admin does which are not logged. And for the other, because those in the military could be sent on a 2 year tour out-of-country (and other such jobs where such might happen).

Since then, situations have come up which have influenced the community to shorten and change those criteria (as the others above have noted).

I am an active reader, and read much more of Wikipedia than I edit these days, and arbcom has long been an interest of mine, so I have read many (and participated in a few) of those admin-related cases.

What I think happened (and this is very much merely me "reading into" various situations) in several cases, was that some admins who were less-than-active, decided to make their "logged action" (in order to retain the tools) involve blocking another editor in some way, and ran up against the ever-shifting sense of what the community is comfortable with concerning blocking. Rollback is another tool that has changed in community sense of what is acceptable. Unbundling was trumpeted as "no different than reverting edits", but now it has tighter criteria for use.

After seeing several arbcom desysops, and even a "pressured" de-sysop due to a new community process, I would suggest any admin who is in anyway unsure about blocking to avoid using that tool until they get a feel for the unsaid community feeling about it.

One of these days I'll get around to doing the follow-up RfC(s) that we (the community) talked about in the past. (Has it really been that long?)

Anyway, in the meantime - as always - there are plenty of ways an admin can dig in and help out which (I think anyway) are probably much easier to re-acclimate/learn about community updates, to.

I hope this helps. I wish you nothing but great things : ) - jc37 14:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Re decided to make their "logged action" ... involve blocking another editor in some way - this is not cool. If you really need to make one admin action per blue moon in order to keep the bit, there are much less controversial actions; for example, carrying out a bona-fide WP:CSD#U1 or WP:CSD#G7 deletion (have a look in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user, there's a few there most days). But always check the page history to ensure that the tagger was the only significant contributor. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree, hence my comments. - jc37 22:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• This is only somewhat related to the question of "why" asked here, but I am not sure our definition of "inactivity" is correct. User:Jarry1250, who is active and responsive as operator of User:LivingBot (for example, he updated the bot a few weeks ago to deal with a rule change in the WikiCup), was desysopped today because his activity is not by making edits with his main account. —Kusma (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  That's a shame. I met Jarry1250 (talk · contribs) [pronounced to rhyme with "carry one too five oh"] – and also Grandiose (talk · contribs) – simultaneously way back in 2012, and have always been struck by how good they are on both tech and admin matters. They look like twins, but they're not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  Desysops for inactivity are not necessarily permanent, and if Jarry (or any other admin in this group) wishes to regain the administrative toolset there is a process for that. It is also entirely possible that some still-active but de-sysopped editors do not find the need for the tools any more, which is why they have not done so. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Unblock

{{Unblock|No reason was mentioned for blocking the account}}

My IP Address has been blocked while the reason is unknown for me. Kindly unblock the account. Kushalav Bulemoni (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kushalav Bulemoni. Please re-post this at User talk:Kushalav Bulemoni instead of here. That will start the unblock process. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)