administrators/Archive 9

Hi, My article "Beachcomber Hotels" was deleted and I can't recreate it. What's the problem with the article ? There is nothing advertising in this article. It's just informative. Can you guys help me. I've read all the wiki article concerning a new article. What's wrong with my previous version.

Thanking you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbchot (talk • contribs) 05:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As is clearly posted at the top of this page: "This talk page is not the place to post questions for administrators. For questions, go to Wiki: Questions" -- œ^™ 13:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume this has been brought up before (I haven't looked in the archives) -- Was every admin who passed through a successful RfA selected because they are the wisest users? For example, should almost every bot owner become an administrator because they are trusted for their responsibility of operating bots? I have some feeling that users who I've consulted with had high chances of become admins. Did these people somehow become popular here, showing their following of the site's policies? Schfifty3 02:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a better question to ask at WT:RFA but "wisest" could correspond to WP:CLUE in which case yes (ideally), but you seem to be trying to define it in terms of overall skillset. That's usually only considered in the positive sense ("Editor A has skills X, Y, and Z") and not in the negative ("Oppose - Can't write a bot/manage the edit filter/understand rangeblocks"). A recentish example is that of Wiki: Requests for adminship/Cobi 4. User:Cobi runs Cluebot, and yet his first three RfAs did not pass. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a basis for desysopping that's come up in the past and isn't in that list:

Exceptionally, unilateral decisions of an egregious nature, which they surely knew would be highly disruptive, or outside community norms, in a serious matter (eg overturning a block or BLP deletion in a high-drama-potential case that was clearly against consensus and norms).

In some exceptional cases this has been a cause for arbitration and desysopping. It's not in the list. Any objection to adding it? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Would this come under wheel warring? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a proposal, Wiki: Administrator Code of Conduct, that was last edited in October 2009 and has been in proposal form for a long time now. Is there anything within it that is objectionable, or can it be promoted to be a guideline to supplement WP:Administrators#Administrator conduct? I think it looks broadly OK, but it may really be redundant. Fences&Windows 22:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 

I've created a vector version of the logo (using a SVG mop from Commons, and the revised logo), and was wondering if it could replace the low-res PNG that is currently in use. Thanks, Connormah (talk | contribs) 20:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Although that logo as it's most commonly used is so small I don't think it's gonna make much of a difference, visually anyway. -- œ^™ 05:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

can someone help me to create the page {{helpme}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh Jagam (talk • contribs) 07:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You used the {{helpme}} tag but you did not post a question. Please write out your question and when you are done, place back the tag. I or someone else will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the new contributors help desk, the help desk, or join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC help channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access. Avicennasis @ 07:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The lede says: "They are never required to use their tools and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved."

Generally this sounds okay, but I'd suggest a change, to address situations where an uninvolved admin chooses to not use the tools with respect to edits that represent a POV with which the admin is sympathetic. So, I suggest: "They are never required to use their tools except to be evenhanded, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved.". Any thoughts?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Admins are never required to use their tools, full stop. If they DO choose to use them, they are expected to do so in an evenhanded manner. Implying that admins are ever required to do anything at all is neither a good idea nor a reflection of reality. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's go straight to a hypothetical. David is an uninvolved admin who blocks users about once a week for various types of misdeeds at the marijuana article. But whenever someone who is anti-legalization makes an edit at that article violating Wikipedia policy, David looks the other way, and leaves it for other admins to deal with if they learn about it and want to act. David figures that admins never have to use their tools. Is there some way to tweak the lede in this policy so that David will clearly understand what he's supposed to do?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
David is never obligated to do anything at all. He is absolutely permitted to do so, but there's simply no way to enforce thoughtcrime against admins for their failure to take action against transgressions they observe which might happen to go along with their personal biases. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
David is an honest person who tries to follow all applicable rules even when he knows that no one is watching and/or he cannot get caught. The only reason that he's engaging in this behavior is because he believes the lede of this policy explicitly allows it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to hear what other folks think about the situation you've posed. Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
David the pothead admin does not exist. Situations like this don't occur or at least don't occur in such clear-cut terms. It goes without saying that admins should do their best to be fair to all, but the proposed change (not to mention its wording) is a solution in search of a problem. Pichpich (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
David is anti-legalization per this hypothetical, not a pothead. And if situations like this occur in less clear-cut terms, then I don't see the harm in fixing the lede of this policy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that the change is supposed to fix a basically non-existent problem but has the downside of creating all sorts of misinterpretation. It doesn't make sense to require that admins use their tools for purpose x, y or z. Sure, David might have some slight bias towards a certain POV but one of two things happens.

• a) He's consciously using his admin tools to push that POV. In that case, he's violating the current policy as well as basic ethics of editing and it won't take long before someone calls him on it.
• b) He's just doing his honest best. In that case, he would not feel that the proposed wording is of any relevance to his actions.

Requiring action in the interest of evenhandedness creates two new problems. First, it forces admins into an arbiter role which they are expressly supposed to avoid. Secondly, it opens the door to new dubious claims of admin bias and we can do without new sources of drama. Pichpich (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That's quite a decisive opinion for a wikignome, Pichpich. Anyway, if requiring admins to be evenhanded would force them into an arbiter role, then so does requiring them to use their tools "fairly" (which has not inspired an avalanche of dubious claims).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your first sentence is supposed to insinuate... Pichpich (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I've never had the pleasure of conversing with a self-described wikignome before. Nice to meet you.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
One more objection, saying what everyone else is. We're all volunteers here, even the admins, we don't have to do anything. All the rules can require of us is not to do certain things. Look at the page itself, it says "The English Wikipedia has 1,731 administrators as of June 26, 2010." Most are active. If you see a specific action that David is unwilling to do, find one of the remaining 1,730, I'm sure there will be plenty able and willing. If you think he is biased in applying his tools in this area, you can ask him to refrain from applying them; but he is in no way obligated to apply them more.--GRuban (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Off-topic but the sad fact is that only 48% of admins are fully active. (Of course, that still means ~830 people can be called to the task) Pichpich (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion

We're basically talking about an Admin (David) who is a POV-pusher --- a subtle POV-pusher but a POV-pusher all the same. And I'm concerned that the lede of this policy explicitly allows it. I should not have to go canvassing or hunting for admins with a different POV or a different attitude. I might be able to phrase this in negative terms rather than positive terms: "They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved, nor use them selectively to give an advantage even if they are uninvolved."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Admin action should never 'favor' one side in a dispute. LK (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced that this solves an actual problem and I still feel that the addition is a recipe for more drama. Admins, like anyone, should not push their POV, whether it's with or without the buttons but that's already covered elsewhere. This page is about the specific handling of the admin buttons. Pichpich (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Suppose an admin happens across a dispute on a page that he/she has strong feelings about, but has never visited before (and so is seen as 'uninvolved'). Would it be proper for him/her to warn and threaten blocks for disputants only on one side of the dispute (even if both sides have edit warred), and then revert and lock-down the page on a version preferred by the side that he/she favors? This situation is not a hypothetical, there are cases where this has happened. LK (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
From my personal experience INVOLVED is already a recipe for ABF. I don't think the project would be served by adding any more pretexts to accuse administrators of bias. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
My personal experience is that there's a real problem at controversial Wikipedia articles. I didn't come here for fun, but rather based on my 15,000 article edits. At the same time, I have no doubt whatsoever that you're accurately summarizing your experiences too Jclemens. Please consider that there may be a way to not only satisfy my concerns about uninvolved admins, but also your ABF concerns about involved admins. The solution would be to include an AGF in the same sentence:
"They are never required to use their tools, must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved, must never use them selectively to give an advantage even when they are uninvolved, and anyone seeking to establish that an administrator has misused the tools will have to overcome a presumption of good faith."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• No. Admins are not required to use their tools. If there is a concern about one specific administrator's use of tools, one addresses that specific problem, one does not rewrite a longstanding policy. What one user views as 'selective' use of tools may well be that the admin is following longstanding consensus not to block hours after an event has occurred and been remedied; or that there is no actual violation of policy, except as perceived by the other party. The hypothetical here is already covered in the policy, and is a classic example of a solution in search of a problem. Risker (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's already covered by the policy, then of course I'll retract the suggestion. But is it? What part of the policy forbids the hypothetical admin (David) at the hypothetical article (marijuana) from selectively using the tools only against editors who exhibit no anti-legalization bias? People indicated above that nothing forbids it, so editors would have to go canvassing for more neutral admins.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
There are situations where you might only block one of two equally blockable parties (for whatever reason) because you are unable to deal with the backlash of blocking both. Instead leaving the other to someone else. Prodego ^talk 03:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
That ought to be forbidden, unless the person you're afraid to block is God herself. In that case, I could support an exception.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Well in that situation no one gets blocked who should get blocked. Which I think you'd agree is undesirable. :) Prodego ^talk 04:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be better to leave two parties feuding than to only penalize the little guy who you're not afraid of. The situation would best be addressed by bringing both parties to ANI, rather than repeatedly blocking only one of them, thereby allowing the other to completely control the articleAnythingyouwant (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I tend to find it is usually two 'big' guys. One thing at a time. Prodego ^talk 04:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, let's get down to brass tacks here. Who are you targeting here? Why do you believe this is a problem that needs to be addressed? If you have a complaint about a specific admin, say so. Otherwise, you are proposing a solution for a non-existent problem. This is Wikipedia, and we don't create or modify policies based on hypotheticals. Risker (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
So you agree that it's not covered by current policy? Let's get that straight, please.
If it's not covered by policy, then it seems like a gaping hole that could be harmlessly and easily plugged (unlike the Gulf). As LawrenceKHoo said above in this talk page section, these incidents are not just hypothetical, and that has been my experience as well. No one has been violating any rules, because the rules have been imperfect; therefore, I don't thnk it would be proper for me to name names, and in any event I have not been taking copious notes for the past six years. Look at it this way: if the rules were to say explicitly that admins are free to discriminate based on POV, don't you think many admins would do so? That's effectively what the rules say now, if you concede that nothing in the rules now prevents the hypo I described.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I concede nothing, Anythingyouwant. However, after many years of experience in watching people try to modify policy without broad community consensus, it is my observation that such modifications are a means to an end that usually has nothing to do with the good of the project, and everything to do with the advancement of a specific agenda. You have failed to illustrate a reason for changing the policy, and are proposing a change that goes far beyond the hypothetical situation you are using to suggest the change. You are proposing an amendment to this policy which will fundamentally change the way in which administrators are expected to act. The answer to that is no. If you have a problem about the actions of a particular administrator(s), say so and address that. Risker (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I identified what seems to me (and another editor above) to be a flaw in Wikipedia rules, and I suggested a correction for the good of the project, having nothing to do with any plans of me personally. Instead, you come to demonize me, accuse me of having some hidden agenda. Risker, with all due respect, this discussion is over. As a matter of fact, please full protect my user page and talk page. I am tired of you people, and will be away indefinitely. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Administrators, I cannot find where the tag is to disuss the deletion of the Cookie Logic page.

I have a trademark on the name Cookie Logic and I believed I would provide information about what Cookie Logic is on Wiki English. I understand this promotes the show and my blog, but the information about Cookie Logic is true. Should I remove time and air dates? What do you suggest?

Sincerely, Rhonda Davis Stoner "Cookie" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiesto (talk • contribs) 23:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I just added the following line here (I'm sure you can find it elsewhere too, but it was pertinent in this location): "In fact, a wise administrator will always consult with at least one other administrator, before they take administrative action. "

This is pretty much old-school, and I'm pretty sure variants can be found as far back as c2: . This fact also came up in my foundation-l analysis of Jimbo Wales' loss of founder rights. No-one can violate this rule indefinitely, and expect to got away with it. Not even Jimbo (as the poor man discovered, to his embarrassment :-( )

I wouldn't go as far as to say jt is mandatory to consult other admins and users (and listen to them!), because there is no one going around checking to make sure that you have done so. On the other hand, it is near certainty that you will get into potentially career-limiting trouble sooner or later if you do not consult with other admins or users. (I know I did :-P )

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I undid your edit because the statement is far too broad; e.g. - Should I consult with at least one other administrator before blocking an obvious vandal that was properly warned and subsequently reported to AIV after continuing their disruption? Or before deleting a clearly uncontroversial {{db-u1}} request? etc. I think you were maybe going for something else. –xeno^talk 15:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I do multiple administrative actions a day in copyright cleanup. I'm afraid if I always consulted with at least one other administrator, copyright cleanup on Wikipedia would slow to a standstill. Likewise, we process many, many articles in CSD (Special:Log/delete). While consulting with other administrators may be advisable if administrative action is likely to be controversial, it would be a massive time-waster as a matter of routine and not really "wise" for that reason. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @xeno In that case, if there's really really a big hurry, you could take it as read that you are following the advice of the reporter. There's been at least 2 sets of eyes on the issue.

There are many such mechanisms that provide at least 2 sets of eyes.

Of course, best of all here would be to go on AIV patrol with one other admin by your side (physically or virtually), so you can quickly double-check each other. Sometimes there's more behind a vandal report than meets the eye. Just like there is sometimes more to a "pornographic image" than meets the eye. (for instance, it might be a famous painting being described on the German wikipedia. The guilty know who they are ;-) )

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

@xeno @moonriddengirl Hmm, perhaps a better phrasing might be "Except in the most obvious of casesa wise administrator will always consult with at least one other person, before they take administrative action."
My own issue with that phrasing is that sometimes obvious cases are not obvious, and you end up doing damage. CSD is a good example of a policy that is actually negatively influencing wiki-growth.
Figuring methods/procedures to ensure "at least 4 eyes" that are still fast is a continuing challenge.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of admin tasks are entirely dull and non-controversial. Per MRG above, perhaps something with respect to seeking advice before taking controversial administrative actions might be in order (the inverse of your suggestion above), but as it stood your introduction was unworkable. –xeno^talk 15:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
You generally only find out that an action is/will be controversial when:
• You boldly take the action, and then find yourself on WP:RFC, or under steward scrutiny. (who, me?)
• You ask someone else to review/take the action, and they give you "That Look" and tell you that you're nuts. (I'm perfectly sane, I swear)
Life sucks that way. At least in the latter case, the scope of your embarrassment is limited somewhat.
You're right that many admin actions are uncontroversial; mainly because they have been pre-checked in some way. The general rule still holds though; unchecked/un-consulted admin actions tend to lead to suffering.
Perhaps there's a better way to word it? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the premise (or I don't understand what 'pre-checked' means, but I certainly am not happy with the idea of pairing as an expected thing. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Though it is certainly wise to pair, I wouldn't quite go as far as to say it is expected.
Pairing allows you to work more consistently and you will be less likely to run into issues. You also tend to work faster when you're working together with another person, as you tend to support each other. :-)

Are there downsides to pairing, that you have experienced?
Or is it that you disagree that many eyes make a problem shallow?
(or something else?)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how 'pairing' could lead to 'working faster'. It seems that it would lead to working much slower, as you need to explain to the other person about a particular proposed action, they need to review it, reply, perhaps there is some further back-and-forth. It seems like this would double or triple the already fully-loaded administrative plate. –xeno^talk 16:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
("fully loaded administrative plate" = we're running low on admins? )
Admittedly, there's some debate as to the efficiency of pairing, but when I check out the numbers for pairing in programming, it's in the 15% up-or-down range, not 100-200% like you hypothesize. My opinion is that you can go up to 15% faster with a bit of practice. Sometimes things might not work out, and you end up going up to 15% slower. (Which could be ameliorated by a little more practice)
But even if you're slightly slower, you still make less mistakes, which leads to less wikidrama and timewasting on AN ;-) :-P
If we're just going for 4-eyes-on-issue, rather than full pairing; that's an efficiently parallelizable process, at least.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Programming is not Wikipedia administration. It just seems like you're trying to come up with a solution to a problem that occurs fairly rarely. –xeno^talk 17:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually the underlying processes are pretty similar these days, (History: Ward Cunningham didn't just invent the wiki, he was also involved in the development of new approaches to programming; there has been a lot of sharing of best practices and jargon between the (agile) programming community and the wiki community. eg. "refactoring", "diffs", "collaborative editing", etc... )
That said, I was looking for numbers on efficiency. I think the differences in efficiency between (agile) programming process and wiki-admin process wouldn't be all too different, due to their historical ties. Therefore Imho +/-15% is a good indication. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Out of the tens-of-thousands of administrative actions I've performed, you can probably count the "goofs" on two hands. Having to discuss those tens-of-thousands of actions ahead of time just to (potentially) prevent a handful of goofs is inefficient at best. –xeno^talk 17:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not think the cost-to-benefit ratio of secondary review is attractive. Would it really benefit Wikipedia to suggest that two admins should review each listing at Wiki: Requested moves or Category:Wikipedia files on Wiki Commons or Wiki: Requests for page protection or Wiki: Templates for deletion (and etc.) before taking admin action? How many additional admins would we need to accomplish this work in a timely fashion (especially given that we can't seem to do so even now :/)? I have on occasion thought that a period of peer-mentorship after an admin first gets the tools could be beneficial to make sure that a new admin hasn't gotten the right about something, and frankly some kind of "continuing education" could be useful for experienced admins who lose touch with updated practices (have seen it happen myself :)), but I think discouraging admins from taking routine action on the grounds that is unwise isn't going to help us get the mess cleaned up better or faster. By the same "four eyes are better than two" standard, we could eliminate a good many errors and problems on Wikipedia if we required tag-team editing, but "revision review" notwithstanding it would certainly put a hamper on development. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's my original reasoning on foundation-l: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg10788.html ; (Now that it is mentioned, please take it as read into the on-wiki conversation.) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I would fear that pairing would generate issues. I've seen this, I'm afraid, in copyright cleanup as we have few active admins in that area and necessarily tend to congregate in the same places. When another copyright admin weighs in to support me, I have gotten, "Of course he agreed with you; you two are friends." :/ Of course, that only happens anyway when actions are controversial and second opinion is required, but I fear that if admins pair routinely the notion that they must have each others' backs and can't possibly agree because they're right will be reinforced.

It will also require coordinating schedules. I don't know any other admins who put as many hours into copyright cleanup as I do. I'm afraid there aren't enough interested individuals for me to recruit more. :/ (Not that I don't try!)

I'm inclined to agree with others that the bulk of our janitorial work is uncontroversial, and while I agree certainly that seeking feedback for controversial matters is a good idea, I'd expect that to be the exception rather than the rule. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it's up to us to use our own judgement here. Before I saw Moonriddengirl's comments I'd already concluded that we'd get people saying 'of course he agreed with you'. I don't think we'd get less bad blocks and I think we'd get fewer good ones. As Xeno says, it would increase an already heavy workload. I work sporadically and if I had to consult every time I'd just do less. I already ask for reviews if I have any doubt. Going slower may mean less Wiki-drama but it does not mean fewer mistakes if you count the blocks that should have been made but won't be made as mistakes. And I doubt it will make less Wiki-drama, those that want to create it will still create it. Pairing in programming is not really comparable with consulting on blocks. I don't use my tools, or even am active, in a way that would make real-time pairing possible. Dougweller (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's fascinating to find that things I've always taken for granted are now utterly unknown to current admins , or that they actually believe the opposite to be true.

It's a strange feeling. :-/

I'm going to think about this for a bit.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In your defense, it appears you have not administered here since 2005 [5]; a time when I'd guess administrative backlog was but a grey strand in Jimbo's beard. Perhaps you'd like to pick the tools back up and see how productive you are when bouncing every action you intend to make off another admin prior to making it? –xeno^talk 18:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course I still administer here, silly! Three guesses how I do it?

The fun thing is, for about 6 months after I asked User:Angela to remove my flag, no one even noticed anything had changed. And they didn't really comment on it much afterwards either. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC) It did help that I had a practiced doing Soft security a lot; so I didn't need the buttons as hard in the first place. ;-)

Yes, what I wrote above should've been read as "you haven't taken any administrative action since 2005" - I know you are still an administrator who left their tools in the shop. So I suppose you are, in a way, proving that you have four eyes on all of your administrator actions since you never take the action. However, I don't think that applying this same concept across-the-board is going to work: it doesn't scale - jmho. –xeno^talk 19:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have always concentrated heavily on controversial areas... --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, maybe that's the difference. :) Typically, I don't. I think there are probably a lot of us who do fairly routine work. User:Anthony Appleyard, for instance, puts in a heroic effort at Wiki: Cut and paste move repair holding pen (see, for instance, [6]). I think it may be a good idea to seek review for controversial stuff and have routinely trotted long-term blocks I feel might warrant a second opinion to ANI; it's just implying that doing so is always good practice for admin actions that I have a problem with. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Admins are appointed for clue, and may be removed for lack of it. Part of clue is that undefinable sense of when something might be commonsense or uncontentious, when to be bold (WP:BRD), when to consult formally or informally, when to act and when to go gently or discuss first, and so on.

Good adminship more than requires - it mandates - a mix of those (and as many users note, some tasks need some of these more than others). Tying oneself to any one fixed approach ("one size fits all") will often cause a problem for any given approach tried. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)