Wikipedia talk:Administrators

Remove the bit please ...

I haven't used any of the admin tools in yonks and don't currently have a need for them. Could a passing 'crat remove the bit for me please? Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 17:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: WP:BN GMG^talk 17:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

That's where I thought I was [blush] Thanks!  Roger Davies ^talk 17:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2025

Could {{Shortcut|WP:DESYSOP}} be added under the section on reviewing and removal? It's a redirect created for this purpose but has no indication of it and it seems pretty useful. 208.114.63.4 (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:MODS" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:MODS has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 27 § Wikipedia:MODS until a consensus is reached. --Plantman (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Bringing RAAA in line with actual practice

Participating in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Admin Bbb23, and in particular reading the subsection 331dot and Unblock requests, it strikes me, not for the first time, that WP:RAAA 1) does not do a good job of summarizing current best practices for reverting another admin's action and 2) is worded in such a way that it can be easily mistaken, in good or bad faith, for a broader prohibition than it is. In the AN thread, we can see that an admin was able to, for years, tell other admins that reverting his actions without his agreement was de facto or de jure forbidden, most egregiously here, leaving the then-newbie admin they misled with a yearslong misunderstanding of policy. This is not the first time an admin has twisted RAAA to shield incorrect blocks, and if the wording is not changed, will not be the last.

What I propose is something that I think much better conveys how RAAA already works in practice, without seeming to privilege deference to other admins over the best interests of the project.

Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause and careful thought. It is good practice to attempt to contact an administrator before reversing their action, in order to fully understand the context of the action, but this policy does not prevent administrators from acting decisively to reverse actions that clearly were unintentional, technically flawed, against policy, not justified by the circumstances, or otherwise harmful.

Diff from current text

− Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought, and (if likely to be objected to), where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged. + Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause and careful thought. It is good practice to attempt to contact an administrator before reversing their action, in order to fully understand the context of the action, but this policy does not prevent administrators from acting decisively to reverse actions that clearly were unintentional, technically flawed, against policy, not justified by the circumstances, or otherwise harmful.

What do others think? I will cross-post to here from the AN thread. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

This looks good to me. I'm not entirely sold on the precise proposed wording, but can't quite put my finger on how, but it is better than the current wording. (Which I should note I was surprised to see the interpretation that "thou shalt not unblock without the blocking admin's concurrance" after returning from a bit of a Wikibreak last November, seeing as a very long time ago I touched off a bit of a firestorm with an unblock of what I believed (and consensus, in the end, agreed) was an unjustified block of a since/now-long-community-banned user...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Support from me. Like Bushranger, I don't think it's perfect wording, but Perfect is the enemy of good, and this would be a clear improvement over the current wording. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Also wish to express my support for this, and agreement that something needs to be done, or else we risk seeing further instances of similar conduct. The only thing I can possibly think of is that it needs to be made clear that administrators do not "own" their blocks of other users - whilst I agree with you that it is good practice to talk to the blocking admin before making any unblocking decisions (especially on matters like the standard offer, where it might be the case that a user has demonstrated an increase in maturity since the original block), this case has demonstrated that people might be reluctant to step in and urgently resolve harmful actions, especially if they've been met with hostility in the past for it. Patient Zero^talk 03:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was going for by clarifying "in order to fully understand the context of the action", with the implication being that it's not a matter of permission but understanding. It's worth noting that WP:EXPLAINBLOCK encourages but does not require presenting the evidence for a block at time-of-block, which means there are situations where it's not possible to know whether a block was valid without first talking to the blocking admin. In practice, I and most admins try to present all evidence up-front, as the policy recommends, but there will always be times where what to me seems so obvious that it doesn't need explanation, looks to some other admin a year later like an unexplained block. And particularly on sockblocks and UPEblocks, admins often err on the side of saying less, for WP:BEANS reasons. So if I've blocked an account as just "sock of X on behavioral evidence", I would hope that another admin would ask me what that behavioral evidence is before unblocking. But that doesn't mean I have any special right to prevent an unblock if someone disagrees even after familiarizing themself with the evidence.

So, we could make this more explicit, maybe inserting ... but administrators do not "own" their actions and this policy ... or ... but this is not the same as requiring their consent before reversing, and this policy .... Or we could let it be implied. I'm happy either way. @The Bushranger and EggRoll97: Thoughts? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Of those, I'd say the second, but I think the wording as-is makes that clear enough without going into too much detail, if that makes sense? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the second version here is good. Even without it though, if consensus results in any change to the wording trending more towards using discretion to reverse blocks that are no longer needed or were not needed in the first place, I believe the large majority of admins will generally take that, regardless of the wording, to mean that the community views it as acceptable practice. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I think I agree that reaching out to the blocking admin is not about "permission", but I'm not sure I agree it's just about "understanding" or getting all the facts either. Even if the facts are totally clear, if a user is making a standard offer-style unblock request, I hope that we can agree a brief "hey, are you cool with this?" discussion with the blocking admin is expected before you accept the unblock request. Instead of "permission", it's about consensus—it's about starting a dialogue with a fellow contributor and making sure there is agreement about what's best for the project. If there is disagreement, then bring in more folks, e.g. on WP:AN. The reason why we sometimes reluctantly tolerate unilateral unblocks is because in those cases either (1) the block was so bad or erroneous that obviously there would be no community consensus for it, or (2) subsequent discussion confirmed there was no consensus to support (or continue supporting) the block. Mz7 (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

"administrators do not "own" their blocks of other users..." Yes, we also have to get past the idea that even a "bad" unblock (by that I mean: one where the unblockee subsequently causes problems again) won't break the encyclopedia long-term. You wanna unblock someone I blocked? Go for it, but for the love of god, please help keep an eye on them for a while. Joyous! Noise! 04:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Some admins (particularly Floquenbeam) seem happy to step up to the plate and reverse questionable blocks. Me, since this ANI thread, I've generally stopped doing so without getting a firm consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

In 99.9% of cases this would be a great improvement, and maybe that's all that matters. But the problem, of course, is that making it easier to unblock some innocent user always means making it easier to unblock the unblockables, and downgrading the discussion requirement from "should" to just "good practice" clears away one of the only obstacles to exactly the sort of cavalier unblocks of power users that we're all familiar with. As someone who agrees that "the second-mover advantage WP:WHEEL gives to administrators reversing a block is a major problem that needs serious policy work to properly resolve", I'm skeptical of anything that goes in the opposite direction. I'm not necessarily opposed, but I think we ought to consider that RAAA is striking a difficult balance between a set of situations where it's too strict and a set of situations where it's too loose. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Exactly what I was going to say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this is an improvement. Perhaps we should have some form of caveat for reversing a block or unblock of a high-profile unblockable; such actions should (if they happen at all) probably be immediately brought to WP:AN for community review. —Kusma (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I've always subscribed to the idea that any admin action should be reversed if challenged, erring on the site of less restricted ie: page restored, user unblocked. In a specific instance, I recall unblocking a user specifically because another administrator opposed it, even though I still thought the block was justified and within policy. For the "Eric Corbett" style unblocks, I would recommend raising them at ANI. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why OP is pointing to a discussion about a phrase in WP:BLOCK (quoting the OP, "most egregiously here") for this change, if BLOCK needs to change, than RAAA is the wrong place to do that. I also don't agree with the wide latitude "or otherwise" gives. You want to replace your judgement for another's judgement? You should talk about it with them first (or try to). (Have you considered how you might be harming the project, with undiscussed reversion? Are you so sure, you are on the side of the angels? Discussion might reveal what you have not considered.) It is also simply respect for self and others, which is itself improvement to the project. (Another point of RAAA is undiscussed warring, instead of discussion, is disfavored, even at the admin levels of the project -- discussion is what is in line with the project's ethos. And discussion is in line with the values of ADMINAACT) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure a change is needed. think WP:IAR already applied if someone made an obvious error or did something blatantly stupid. Otherwise, discussing with an admin who "is presently available" seems reasonable, to avoid something being missed. It never obligated one to necessarily get the other admin's blessing, or wait days (or even hours) for them to be available, depending on the urgency.—Bagumba (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)