Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Misuse of tools section

Uninvolved admins

I reworked the section a bit, to add a bit more overview to it. I've been linking WP:UNINVOLVED in places, but sometimes I want it to be a quick definition of what Uninvolved is, rather than just the exception.

I also think it's worth giving some thought to the timing factor. For example, do we want a statute of limitations on "content dispute"? If an admin was involved in a dispute in a certain topic area in 2003, does that mean that they are never again to use their tools in that topic area, ever again? We might want to add "relatively recent" or "ongoing" or "within the last year" or something like that. --El on ka 07:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved administrators: proposal and request for feedback

The first of the three bullets "Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required" defines CoI, and appears to be very similar to the concept of "uninvolved". Here's that bullet point:

Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute — Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools.

There appear to be two problems with that bullet point: first, this critical definition of "conflict of interest/non-neutrality" includes "content dispute" in its title, but content disputes are only half of the matter (interactions with editors being the other half, and not mentioned here—see the "uninvolved" section beneath). In the other direction, content disputes involve admin issues other than CoI/uninvolved, and the title appears to exclusively associate content dispute with CoI, at least on first approach. This is a category mix-up in two ways, and may make it hard for new admins to easily get a clear idea of the "uninvolved"/CoI policy.

Second, the shortcut WP:UNINVOLVED, quite widely used, doesn't start with a definition of "uninvolved"; instead, it seems to be all about an "important caveat" to a policy that isn't there. This is partly because Killer Ch. rightly identified this duplication last week, and made quite a major edit to the "Uninvolved" section, removing the duplicated definitional opening (this action arose from a recent discussion at Admin talk.) Here was that opening:

An administrator is considered "uninvolved" if it is clear that they are able to exercise their tools from a position of neutrality. If they have been involved in a content dispute, were a significant editor of an article in question, were involved in revert wars, or are under their own sanctions for that topic area, they do not qualify as uninvolved.

We may have lost just a little useful wording by this edit, although thanks to Killer Ch. for bringing our attention to the whole problematic text. I believe that the definitional text in the first bullet should be brought down to the "Uninvolved admins" section, borrowing the original opening before last week's edit.

May I suggest the following? First, that the bullet point be changed to this:

Conflict of interest/non-neutrality – See "Uninvolved administrators" below.

The other bullets would remain. Note that the third bullet is already of the "see elsewhere" type. I really do wonder what on earth this means: "This is a matter of judgement if necessary." Admins always use "judgement", and the "if necessary" is ... well, not necessary to state, is it?

Second, I suggest that the "Uninvolved admins" be changed to this, in a major rationalisation that has been hinted at by at least one ArbCom member (Casliber), and a number of admins (Admin talk).

Uninvolved administrators

An administrator is considered "uninvolved" if it is clear they are able to exercise their tools from a position of neutrality. They should not use their tools to their advantage in a content dispute to which they are a party, in a page in which they have been a significant editor, or where in any other respect a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist.

However, this policy does not preclude an administrator:

who has been involved with a user or article in a purely administrative role (such as by enforcing a policy, addressing a dispute or problematic conduct, or providing administrative assistance or an outside opinion or advice), or
whose actions on a page have been minor and not demonstrably biased, or
where obvious vandalism is concerned,

from taking administrative action in relation to that user or article. An administrator may still wish to pass such a matter to another administrator who is more distant from the situation, but is not required to do so.

Feedback is welcome on this proposal to shorten, re-organise and clarify the text. My intention is not to change the intended meaning; I have removed the woolly language, the tortuous commented-out bit, and the vague phrase "With few specific exceptions" (unless someone can define them ...?), and the reference to edit-warring, because it is surely covered by the text as proposed; I don't quite understand the "topic sanctions" thing—is it necessary here, given the need to nip, tuck and trim? Tony (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, like the box :) Seriously, it does read better and come across as clearer than the current section which is I presume what we are replacing? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Casliber. I've uber-copy-edited again. One thing concerns me: why should the exclusions of the policy (the "However" bullets) be restricted to articles? This whole thing came up because an admin was castigated by some IP vandal at ANI for CoI in blocking the vandal for gross vandalism to the admin's page. So, I'm thinking "article" should be "page" here; do people agree? Tony (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording looks good, though it might be better to change "in an article in which they are a significant editor" to "in an article or topic area in which they have been a significant editor". For example, if someone has been a significant editor of the Heliocentrism article, and then a problem occurs at the Nicolaus Copernicus article, then even though the admin may not be an active editor of the Copernicus article, they still probably shouldn't be using admin tools there. --El on ka 18:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good point, Elonka. I've also changed "article" to "page", pending feedback. Tony (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading the above correctly, it appears to separate the concept of "to advantage" from the concept of "in a page in which they have been a significant editor". This could just be a question of the placement of the comma, but I interpret it as saying admins cannot use the tools at all on pages they have made significant contributions to, as opposed to using the tools to their advantage in such articles. If that is further extended to a topic area, it could easily be interpreted to mean entire subjects. Using my own contributions as an example, I have made significant content edits to a wide range of television, astronomy, and Canadian articles. Does than mean my hands are tied in terms of dealing with issues that arise in those articles? This would be a significant and (I feel) counter-productive change as it could potentially hamper many administrators from effectively dealing with problems in the topic areas they are most active in (and therefore most likely to encounter issues.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ckatz, you have a fine eye for detail; thank you. I've removed the comma. Is it OK now? In an unrelated improvement, I've added "their", to make it "to their advantage", for clarity). Tony (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the text. As I interpret it with your changes, it now makes it clear that I (for example) cannot use admin. tools to benefit my own goals in editing an article to which I have made a significant contribution, while not limiting me from acting in a situation related to the article that does not involve me. This is a critical point, as it maintains the ability for an administrator to use his or her discretion in assessing the correct course of action.

One further point that I'd like to put forward is to consider changing the wording:

"actions on a page have been minor and not demonstrably biased"

in point number two of the "does not preclude" section to something along the lines of:

"actions with regards to the incident in question have been not demonstrably biased"

I don't think the ability to act should necessarily hinge upon the level of one's contributions to an article as a whole, but rather to how the individual has participated in regards to the incident in question (and, of course, any past incidents that are related). It is quite possible for an administrator to have been a significant contributor to the overall article, but to have intentionally remained out of a particular content dispute in order to attempt to try to resolve the issue. Speaking again for myself, I can recall an incident where a content dispute arose between two editors who were (as with myself) regulars on a particular page. In this particular 3RR case, I deliberately refrained from taking sides in the dispute in order to be able to take administrative action to resolve the issue by temporarily locking the page (for about five minutes). The end result was that the edit war stopped, the users were calmed down, and two valuable contributors were thus able to resolve their disagreement. If I had handed it over to a third party admin who did not know the page or the individuals, it is very likely that the incident would have ended with both parties getting blocked for exceeding 3RR, with no resolution to the disagreement and bad blood on both sides.

It is this sort of discretion that I would not want to see removed from the administrator's role. We need to ensure that our efforts to promote responsible behaviour do not at the same time unduly restrict the ability to act responsibly where action is needed. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CKatz, thanks; your interpretation in the first para is pretty much as I'd been seeing it. Your proposal in the second para is a change in the policy, isn't it? A narrowing of the application of CoI? Tony (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Leftward bounce.] How's this draft?

Uninvolved administrators

Any administrator is welcome to combat indisputable vandalism, anywhere.

Indisputable vandalism aside, administrative action should be left to administrators who are "uninvolved", a term explained below.

"Uninvolved" arbitrators are those whose neutrality could not reasonably be questioned. They could not reasonanbly be suspected of using their extra clout to forward their position or opinion (a) in a content dispute to which they are a party, (b) in an article (or topic) they have edited in a way that is relevant to the need for administrative action, (c) against another editor with whom they have had a dispute, or (d) where there might be any other significant conflict of interest.

However, an administrator's earlier involvement with a user or article in a purely administrative role (such as by enforcing a policy, addressing a dispute or problematic conduct, changing protection level or advising about relevant policy) leaves them "uninvolved", as do earlier edits to an article or topic that are not clearly relevant to the issue calling for action.

Fire away! -- Hoary (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, I like the way you've avoided the elaborate, winding, statute-like structure of my bulleted list. Not so keen on the sideways opening, nor "indisputable" (bit strong?), nor "clout" (perhaps a little informal here?). I hope you don't mind if I try to merge the best of both? Tony (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already dislike my version (though I must say that "clout" is my favorite word within it). Well, it's all GFDL, innit? So please recycle anything within it that merits recycling. -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

recent reversion

I reverted this well-intentioned edit as it doesn't seem to be an improvement. —valereee (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]