Wikipedia talk:Administrators
Nowadays, Wikipedia talk:Administrators has become a topic of great interest and relevance in today's society. More and more people are looking for information about Wikipedia talk:Administrators and its impact in different areas. From politics to technology, Wikipedia talk:Administrators has proven to be a determining factor that has captured the attention of specialists, experts and the general public. This article seeks to analyze and delve into the meaning and scope of Wikipedia talk:Administrators, as well as its influence on our lives. Along these lines, we will explore the different facets of Wikipedia talk:Administrators and its importance in today's world.
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrators page. |
|
Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
 | NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post questions for administrators.
|
| NOTE: This talk page is not the place to request access to administrator user rights. For requests for adminship, see WP:RfA. |
 | This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Stvilia, B. et al. Information Quality Discussions in Wikipedia. University of Illinois U-C. |
Ramy Khodeir is protected.
Ramy Khodeir is protected. The wikipedia page should be created. 2600:1702:68D0:CA60:69A6:701C:900C:158B (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- Ramy Khodeir 2600:1702:68D0:CA60:69A6:701C:900C:158B (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- Hey there. I don't think that page is protected from creation in the normal sense (WP:SALT). I think that page is protected from creation from users that aren't WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, which is a rule we apply to all article creation. In your case, if you don't want to log in and get some experience, I'd recommend creating it via WP:AW, which will put it in draftspace, where you can submit it for review by an experienced reviewer. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- The page needs an administrator to edit. Userpoli01 (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Draft:Ramy Khodeir is indeed create protected. This is due to repeated recreation of drafts at this title that were exclusively promotional and which didn't demonstrate notability. This was in 2019 though, so things might have changed since then - can you share some sources that demonstrate the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (ideally more recent than 2019). Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- The page needs an administrator to edit. Userpoli01 (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hey there. I don't think that page is protected from creation in the normal sense (WP:SALT). I think that page is protected from creation from users that aren't WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, which is a rule we apply to all article creation. In your case, if you don't want to log in and get some experience, I'd recommend creating it via WP:AW, which will put it in draftspace, where you can submit it for review by an experienced reviewer. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Changes to wording under the restoration of admin tools section
Hi everyone! I just published a change to the restoration of admin tools section of the policy page in order to clean up grammar and word use, and to make the information more consistent and easier to read and understand. There shouldn't be anything changed that would constitute an addition, modification, or removal of existing policies - just how they were worded. If anyone has any concerns, please don't hesitate to respond to this discussion and let me know so that I can address or fix any problems or work with you to find a solution that works. Please ping me in your responses, as I have a lot of pages on my watchlist and to the point that I don't even refer to it in order to look for updates to discussions that I started. Going through my watchlist with a machete and a flamethrower is on my to-do list. ;-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Oshwah most of that is fine, but I think "restoration of admin tools" is better as a header and primary description than "administrator reinstatement" because the latter feels like treating "administrator" as a title or status when we should be encouraging people to do the opposite of that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thryduulf - Fair enough; I'll change the header back right now... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thryduulf -
Done. Thanks for taking a look and for responding with your thoughts. :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thryduulf -
- Thryduulf - Fair enough; I'll change the header back right now... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: As usual with your edits to this page that you keep making, I find that a lot of it is just taking more words to say the same thing and switching one bit of jargon for different jargon (e.g. "requests for adminship" (which is the actual name of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship) → "requests for administrator", "admin tools" → "administrator user rights"). While I see a few things that seem like actual improvements, like stating that WP:BN is the place to request procedural reinstanement at the top of the section about that, mostly I think these edits take things in an unnecessarily wordy direction. Personally I'd be inclined to revert and then see what good parts might be re-added. Anomie⚔ 14:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Anomie - I appreciate the response, and hope that the edits I've made (both past and present) aren't interpreted as me trying to be pushy or imply that I have some fixation on trying to change anything to "my preferred version". I assure you that this is not the case. ;-) I also started to recognize what you stated about the "switching of jargon" after I took a break and gave the changes I made another look. My intent with the "jargon changes" was to try and formalize the terms, but maybe what I ended up actually doing just changed one jargon term for another instead of actually solving or formalizing anything. You're welcome to do what you feel is best; if that means reverting the changes, it's obviously not going to hurt my feelings. I have much taller and more important hills to die on than whether or not what I believed to be improvements were actually kept or not. ;-) Regardless, I appreciate your input and your feedback. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the criticism so well. I'll wait for others' input before taking any action, I could be the one off-base here. 🙂 Anomie⚔ 17:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- I also don't see a need for these changes. They mostly add words to things that were already clear. Also, they've introduced a significant error to the footnote regarding resysops after erroneous CBANs, as the note now says this has happened multiple times, whereas in reality no admin has ever been desysopped under BANDESYSOP, let alone resysopped because a ban was overturned for actual error. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Tamzin - I appreciate the input and your thoughts as well. I took the text from the previous revision,
"<ref>Except in the rare instance where the ban is reversed due to a mistake by the community (but not merely due to a successful appeal of the ban), in which case the tools' removals are reversed as well. See 2023 RfC.</ref>"
and we-wrote it as,"<ref>There have been extremely rare instances where a user's ban has been reversed or overturned due to a mistake by the community being discovered that resulted in the ban being imposed in the first place, and not simply due to a successful appeal of the ban. In these instances, the removal of the user's administrator permissions were reversed as well. See 2023 RfC.</ref>"
. I only made the "instances" plural to account for if there was more than one; I didn't know for 100% sure if that was the case or not. It could be easily modified from saying,"There have been extremely rare instances..."
to instead just say"There was a rare instance..."
or something similar - so I didn't think it would be seen as a "significant error" as you call it. Again, I really appreciate you for taking the time to review this and for letting me know what you saw to be problematic. If you'll have me, I can go revise that statement. :-) However, if this situation has never happened before, why was it there in the first place? Am I missing something? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)- @Oshwah: But there's never been an instance! That's what I'm saying. The footnote is there because the BANDESYSOP RfC agreed that that could happen in some hypothetical, and the old footnote never claimed this was something that had happened, just that it could. So yes I do think that's a significant error, and the sort of thing that shows why it can be detrimental to try to rewrite policy sections when there isn't an issue with the current wording. Every word choice, every footnote, all reflects the decisions of lots of people over the years, often implementing RfC or policy-talkpage consensuses, or adding clarifications when some issue arose. Trying to wordsmith all those choices away without being intimately familiar with all of that backstory leads to missing important details and, in this case, inserting incorrect ones. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 20:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Tamzin - Ahh, I see what you're saying... It still seems a bit counterproductive to have extremely rare hypothetical situations on a policy page like that, but I can't say that what I did made it any better... :-) Well, like I said, this is why I started this discussion; I wanted to get input, thoughts, opinions, and feedback - even if they're negative or if it results in me getting a bit of egg in my face. And (again, like I said) I'm totally fine to trump this up as a fail on my part if the changes get reverted and if nothing I changed gets published at all. Some people may see "failure" or "it didn't go as planned" as a bad thing, but I don't. If I never failed at anything or never had things not go as planned, first of all I'd be a big liar - and second, I wouldn't be the editor that I am today. Again, I thank you for the feedback and for taking the time to discuss this with me. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Oshwah: But there's never been an instance! That's what I'm saying. The footnote is there because the BANDESYSOP RfC agreed that that could happen in some hypothetical, and the old footnote never claimed this was something that had happened, just that it could. So yes I do think that's a significant error, and the sort of thing that shows why it can be detrimental to try to rewrite policy sections when there isn't an issue with the current wording. Every word choice, every footnote, all reflects the decisions of lots of people over the years, often implementing RfC or policy-talkpage consensuses, or adding clarifications when some issue arose. Trying to wordsmith all those choices away without being intimately familiar with all of that backstory leads to missing important details and, in this case, inserting incorrect ones. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 20:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Tamzin - I appreciate the input and your thoughts as well. I took the text from the previous revision,
- I also don't see a need for these changes. They mostly add words to things that were already clear. Also, they've introduced a significant error to the footnote regarding resysops after erroneous CBANs, as the note now says this has happened multiple times, whereas in reality no admin has ever been desysopped under BANDESYSOP, let alone resysopped because a ban was overturned for actual error. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the criticism so well. I'll wait for others' input before taking any action, I could be the one off-base here. 🙂 Anomie⚔ 17:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Anomie - I appreciate the response, and hope that the edits I've made (both past and present) aren't interpreted as me trying to be pushy or imply that I have some fixation on trying to change anything to "my preferred version". I assure you that this is not the case. ;-) I also started to recognize what you stated about the "switching of jargon" after I took a break and gave the changes I made another look. My intent with the "jargon changes" was to try and formalize the terms, but maybe what I ended up actually doing just changed one jargon term for another instead of actually solving or formalizing anything. You're welcome to do what you feel is best; if that means reverting the changes, it's obviously not going to hurt my feelings. I have much taller and more important hills to die on than whether or not what I believed to be improvements were actually kept or not. ;-) Regardless, I appreciate your input and your feedback. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Recall check-in
I have started an rfc to check-in on admin recall after 10 petitions. Interested editors may wish to participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Transcluded section
I noticed today that the first part of the "Misuse of administrative tools" section (WP:TOOLMISUSE) is actually being transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators/Misuse of tools section. Apparently this was so it could also be used at Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools, but there are better ways of transcluding a section, and at any rate that page was blanked-and-redirected back in 2018. Would anyone complain if I moved everything back into WP:ADMIN? If someone makes a change to the policy, it should be visible to the 1,924 people who watch this page, not just the 18 who watch the other one. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Now done; let me know if you disagree. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)