Wikipedia talk:Administrators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Help Project (Rated NA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


Hello Pardesisaini (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Pardesisaini: - hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I've left a welcome note on your talk page just now. Please let me know if you need any assistance. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Replacing sourced content with failed verification content

What is the policy for an admin who replaces sourced content with failed verification content? If there is no policy then we could make new policy. QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It is not clear what you mean. Which admin did what? Please link to the diff. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
See "Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities." What is the accountability for when they violate policy? Specifically when an admin replaces sourced content with failed verification content. QuackGuru (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: Which incident are you talking about? Which admin did what? Please link to the diff. WP:DIFF. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I would like to focus on improving this policy rather than discuss specifics. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, you cannot change policy, and administrators are rarely if ever held accountable for anything. And a "policy for an admin who replaces sourced content with failed verification content" would get a WP:SNOW oppose. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Why can't we update policy? If administrators are rarely if ever held accountable for anything then we could try to update policy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC) (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Probably best to read the entire Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Adminship section. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
You have been helpful. Enough talk. See "An admin who repeatedly replaces sourced content with failed verification content may be blocked for up to a year."[1] Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:PUNITIVE. Ideally, blocks are used to protect the encyclopedia, not to punish people you and I dislike. Also, adminship is supposed to be no big deal; it would be weird to punish them far more harshly than we punish most nazi vandals. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the behavior of a particular user, you should address it with that user either on their own, or on the article talk. In the case that fails, consider WP:DR or, having exhausted all other options, WP:ANI or WP:AN. If you decline to follow these avenues because you are apparently unable or unwilling to provide diffs or identify the user you are having a dispute with, then the best option is probably to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. We don't change policy based on hypotheticals and we don't file behavioral reports on anonymous users. TimothyJosephWood 19:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
This is (at least) the third time in as many days that QuackGuru has shown up on a Wikipedia-namespace policy or guideline page to announce that there is an urgent problem requiring immediate policy amendments, while simultaneously strenuously denying all requests for information about the background which prompted the proposals. (See also Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Medical source for non-medical claims, Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Medical source for non-medical claims, Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#How to use a medical source for medical claims.)
All the proposals deal with introducing very specific wording into policies and guidelines in order to provide a trump card for some oddly-specific disputes. Despite repeated requests from multiple editors, QuackGuru refuses to provide links or diffs to identify particular pages where the purported problems he aims to prevent or resolve have occurred, and declines to bring any of the purported problems to the attention of appropriate noticeboards for input or resolution. (Which is particularly strange, since even if he were successful in changing the text of a guideline, he would still have to bring a dispute to a noticeboard to get an admin to take action anyway.) It doesn't help that he's tried to unilaterally force his changes into the guidelines and policies prior to any discussion taking place: [2], [3]. In all cases, the consensus has developed that his proposed changes are redundant, unnecessary, inappropriate, and/or confusing.
It's becoming clear that all QuackGuru is doing on these pages is wasting the time of other editors by stonewalling people who, unaware of his history, are patiently trying to understand and help him. That abuse of his fellow editors' patience, trust, and goodwill needs to end. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:Administrators"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA