Wikipedia talk:Admin neutrality

Result

The first result is an increase in disputes because every dispute means fewer people who can block you. Second result is the lack of an end to existing disputes because forgive and forget now has the nasty consequence of increasing the number of people who can block you. The end result is the people who can block are limited to those who know the least about the person and once they know ebough to block are by definition now involved in a dispute and can't do it again. The needed rules to make all this not happen can be summarized by saying this policy does not apply - so why apply it in the first place. 4.250.201.171 22:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Unblock tag

I've looked through the category and I'm pretty sure that no one has ever had that tag successfully unblock them. Usually they have to go on IRC. So if this is policy, the unblock tag will actually can get people unblocked. Anomo 01:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The tag often enough attracts attention and review of the block by an uninvolved admin. The main problem is that it often takes hours until the unblock template is reveiwed, and in the case of 24 hour or shorter blocks review usually comes too late to make a substantial difference. Kusma (討論) 09:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked some. If you are an admin and want to improve things consider transcluding User:Dragons flight/Category tracker/Summary to your talk page or user page. Rich Farmbrough, 12:54 10 December 2006 (GMT).

Same here, I've unblocked more than a couple people who were using the unblock tag, though admittedly the majority of them were autoblock victims. ~Kylu (u|t) 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...

"However, if the blocked editor can demonstrate that the admin who blocked him was involved in a content dispute with him prior to the block, the blocked editor enjoys the presumption of innocence and should be unblocked until a new policy violation draws the attention of a neutral admin."

I don't like that. Maybe upon a situation like this, the reviewing admin, who must be different from the blocking admin, defers to the blocking admin and requests diffs/evidence. Set a time period window for the blocking admin to respond, eg. 12/24/x hours. If the blocking admin shows diffs, and the reviewing admin agrees with the block on the basis of the diffs, then the block stands. If the reviewing admin disagrees with the block, then the block is lifted. If the admin doesn't respond, then the block is lifted by default.

Although it may sound like instruction creep, it seems silly to let editors who deserve to be blocked being unblocked because of a procedural flaw. Product, not process.

Thoughts? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Definitely agree. A little bit of instruction creep is better than letting vandals walk on a purely procedural basis. I mean, yes, admins should not block users they're disputing with, (and if an admin does so more than once, something should be done), but giving someone the presumption of innocence in an instance where evidence/diffs can be shown is just ridiculous. ♠PMC♠ 11:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No free passes based on who was the blocking admin

An editor who has been uncivil or edit warring should not be unblocked on purely procedural grounds of who blocked him. If the block was deserved, it should be upheld. If it was undeserved, it should be overturned. If there is concern that the admin uses the block button as a tool in content disputes, this should lead to a RfC or RfAr. The present proposal only provides more potential for Wikilawyering (was the admin involved in a dispute with the user or not?), and provides a free pass for disruptive users based on "the wrong admin blocked them". Kusma (討論) 09:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I ditto this sentiment. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the unblocking (neutral) admin should see if the block was justified first then unblock if it's reaasonable. I don't think someone should be unblocked based on who blocked them. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 11:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

WTS. Rich Farmbrough, 12:59 10 December 2006 (GMT).

Instruction creep

Oppose, at least in its current form. An admin blocking editors with whom he is engaged in an active dispute is already abusing admin powers; such situations have appeared at AN/I and RFC many times. I understand and appreciate the motivation behind the proposal, but giving this idea its own projectspace page won't dissuage the occasional bad or simply overzealous admin, but will add even more reading material for those trying to stay abreast of Wikipedia's slow instruction creep. Serpent's Choice 09:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It really doesn't deal with the issue

I suspect I was the one who indirectly caused this page to arise and it's probably a good idea to adress this problematic. Yet I feel that the the text as it is now has nothing to do with the problem itself.

In my case, the administrator was not directly involved in the content dispute. What she did was not being neutral and taking sides too easily without looking at the complexity of the dispute, growing personal animosity against me because I disputed (out of ignorance) her initial warn and eventually exploding and getting me blocked for a nuisance long after I had corrected my behaviour very clearly.

So the problem is not getting in content dispute, what wasn't the case, but getting into personal animosity and having a favoritism for another used who has been descirbed as disruptive editor, harasser, etc. The problem is in issuing a block without sufficient guarantess in cases of alleged PAs, which are described in all relevant policies as needing of much greater caution before issuing a block.

Someone suggested that blocks should need two admins to enforce, so it would be harder to commit such errors/abuses. Of course this has other disadvantages and in my opinion the best would be that blocks would be reviewed by a panel of admins on request of the blocked user, either during the block or after it has expired. Supposedly now that's done at ANI, yet what I found is that no admin dared to take the case on their shoulders and review it issuing another resolution, either supportive of the block or rejecting it. This forces me to go to ArbCom as the only space where I can ask for such review. --Sugaar 10:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the incident which inspired this was SlimVirgin blocking ManEatingDonut. --NathanDW 02:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the block of user:ManEatingDonut was handled properly, there's no need to create a new policy to change the outcome. -Will Beback · † · 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Pointless

The proposal is already amply covered in existing policy. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I tend to agree. Also, it encourages a blocked user to attempt to bring the blocking admin in disrepute, instead of address the issue of why he was blocked in the first place. (Radiant) 13:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• That's pretty much what I came here to say. Also, I doubt that most criticism of Wikipedia has to do with admin abuse... maybe most criticism from people who've tried to push a POV or use Wikipedia to promote their forum, but most relevent and published criticism has to do with Wikipedia's reliability, overall quality, philosophy and to a lesser extent specific policies more relevent to readers, like copyright and NPOV. --W.marsh 20:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that reputation shouldn't be a concern and that we all can understand that admins can and in fact (at least occasionally) commit errors. When they do and reject to reconsider there's no way to appeal other than ArbCom (and that is a problem, really).

What I mean is that I don't hink that admins are systematically abusive or anything of the like but when they happen to commit errors there's no almost protection against their power. Challenging an admin's decision should not affect his/her reputation (only if that happens very often and with reason, there may be a problem with that particular person) but it should be possible precisely because admins are human like the rest and therefore can commit errors. --Sugaar 13:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• There is another way to appeal an administrator's decision. Asking other administrators on WP:AN. If their decision was in error, someone will be happy to revert it. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really. They may well let the case die (forcing it to go to ArbCom), probably because they tend to back each other. I don't know why but it seems to me that admins won't question other admins' decisions, at least oficially.

ANI is supposed to be the place to appeal an unjust block (according to WP:BLOCK), yet nobody actually hears appeals there: they tend to say: "let it go", "forget it"... and that's not a serious procedure. Nobody is obligued to review appealed cases and therefore they will probably end up being archived without any decision. What, in the end, it's justice denied. --Sugaar 13:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"Think Outside the Hivemind"

The great threat to Wikipedia's credibility is not that admins are allowing precious opportunities for banning lesser editors to slip through their fingers, like a traffic cop that isn't making his quota of tickets. The threat to Wikipedia's credibility comes from gangs of POV-pushing admins who impose their bias on important articles throughout the project, and block anyone who objects.

Someone above in the discussion is worried about the possibility that an uninvolved admin might not know the editor who needs to be blocked. All the better. If it is really a blockable offense, it should be obvious to an outside party. --209.244.42.86 15:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the problem is that admin are already snowed under dealing with the hordes of self-promoters and content-sellers trying to increase their net traffic, stupid vandals, and POV warriors. Please supply some examples of these 'POV pushing admins who block anyone who objects' - I've never seen this. Proto::► 11:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• You're asking us to read a thread at the Wikipedia Review? They're biased against Wikipedia and admins in particular. When Proto asked for examples he meant diffs taken from Wikipedia itself. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Apologies, there appear to be rules and some positive notes on Wikipedia on there. I retract my striked out statement above. The point of my last sentence still stands. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct

I prefer the wording to Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct over this essay... Addhoc 15:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at this, and it looks all right. Has it ever actually been enforced? I can think of so many violations it makes my head spin. And I know, from following some of what goes on at WP:ANI, that admins routinely excuse each other's transgressions on the basis of, "Oh well, his intentions were good, and the victim was probably a troll or a troublemaker." --NathanDW 21:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)