Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Non-administrator arbitrators

{{tlx|Unblock|No reason was mentioned for blocking the account}}

My IP Address has been blocked while the reason is unknown for me. Kindly unblock the account. Kushalav Bulemoni (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:@Kushalav Bulemoni. Please re-post this at User talk:Kushalav Bulemoni instead of here. That will start the unblock process. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

To Anomie - I have fixed the civility enforcement concerns you mentioned in your edit summary. The rest of the changes are simply clearer wording or were moved to a more relevant section. Let me know if you still have concerns. You'll want to ping me; I have so many pages on my watchlist, I'll likely miss your responses here (if such are made). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

: {{re|Oshwah}} I think you went overboard with the italics, it comes across as strange and stilted and like someone will complain if you miss some implication of the specific words being italicized. And I'm really not fond of the "non-negotiable requirement" language you're throwing around in there (including the similar text you added back in November that you seem to be building on now), which I haven't seen discussion for and I personally find concerning. Even the parts not doing that sort of thing I find fairly neutral, not clearer or more relevant. I'm tempted to do a clean-up pass that would still undo many of your changes. Anomie⚔ 13:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Thirded. {{yo|Oshwah}} You know I love you, but you cannot decide on your own what is and is not nonnegotiable, and that's what you're doing here. This is not mere 'clearer wording'; this is change. If you want to change the expectations of admins, you know how to propose it, and it's not through arguing your point in edit summaries. Katie^talk 20:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Anomie, Novem Linguae, KrakatoaKatie - I understand all of your concerns and I sincerely apologize for adding terms and wording that stepped too far. I hope that you all know that my heart was in the right place when trying to expand the page. I was doing two things at once, and I probably should have separated one goal from the other. The first? Put details and wording into better sections and sub-sections. Goal two? To clarify to the community that we're no better than non-admins, and to detail this so that users understand this more clearly. That's all that I was trying to accomplish. I wasn't trying to "POV edit" or do any of that nastiness that we've all seen users do; I would never dream of being "one of those users"... I hope you all know this.

::::I obviously will not continue to try and alter this page in the manner and direction that I did, but can we discuss some aspects here? What about the section changes and additions that moved information into, what I felt, were the right ones or better ones? Were those okay? Going a bit further: Shouldn't we be civil, follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and set the example for all editors at all times? That obviously isn't something we should be okay with administrators violating. I take my responsibilities seriously, and I'm always grateful of the trust that the community (and ArbCom) have given to me. I never ever want to ruin that in any way, shape or form. What can we discuss and come to an agreement with? Were there any changes at all that you did agree should be added? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::::: Personally I'm very wary of changing the policy itself to hold admins to a higher standard than other editors. Even though this is already the case informally, and semi-formally in ArbCom precedent, formalizing it makes it all the more likely that detractors will dig up every less-than-perfect interaction they can find to attack an admin they have a disliking towards. If the policy is saying it's a "non-negotiable requirement" that must be followed "in any way, shape, or form" and "at all times", that leaves very little room for WP:AGF or WP:APBB. Anomie⚔ 13:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Anomie - Fair enough. I'll leave things be. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I haven't used any of the admin tools in yonks and don't currently have a need for them. Could a passing 'crat remove the bit for me please? Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 17:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Roger Davies}} WP:BN GMG^talk 17:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::That's where I thought I was [blush] Thanks!  Roger Davies ^talk 17:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Edit protected|answered=yes}}

Could {{Shortcut|WP:DESYSOP}} be added under the section on reviewing and removal? It's a redirect created for this purpose but has no indication of it and it seems pretty useful. 208.114.63.4 (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}}. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)