Wikipedia talk:Administrators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Administrators page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post questions for administrators. For questions, go to Wikipedia:Questions.
Citation
This page was cited by Stvilia, B. et al. Information Quality Discussions in Wikipedia. University of Illinois U-C.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] New feature

I think an excellent new feature in Wikipedia would be an "admin timeout" feature for all admins. The idea is simple: for a period of time, on a regular basis, administrators should have their administrative privileges turned off. Maybe a certain number of days a week. That way, they would remember what it means to be a min-admin user. It would be simple to rotate through the administrator userbase and always ensure that some percentage of them have their administrator features blocked. Of course, they could still make content contributions, but they would be a lot more thoughtful about wheel wars, etc.--Francis45 01:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally disagree. I think I understand what you are talking about. I heard that Wikipedia needs more admins than less. Perhaps it may be a good idea just to keep their administrative tools. I am not sure about taking away admin tools of admins that do not engage in wheel wars or use the tools profusely. I am not an admin; please pardon me if my voice will not be recognized. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 02:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the User:Francis45 is not an admin either; he has less than 200 edits. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 02:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
They can "remember what it's like" by just logging out or using a different account. What is the point of preventing people from doing productive administrative tasks because of the rare actions of a miniscule number of admins? If an admin causes problems, he can be desysopped. This proposal does not happen to be listed on Wikipedia:Perenial proposals, but it is one. —Centrx→talk • 02:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dynaflow

Anybody know what happened to Dynaflow and his RfA? --Amaraiel 14:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No big deal

I think that Jimbo's "no big deal" quote should be removed. It has nothing to do with reality. It is hypocrisy. If you denied Jimbo and his friends all access except regular user access, it would be a big deal to him. It is very easy for the "haves" to be smug.--76.204.179.121 16:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it should just be made clear that, while it is far from being true, it's a desirable ideal. A.Z. 19:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
It isn't a big deal. Everyone has to follow policy, we can just implement the few commands that are not safe to give to everyone. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Since almost everyone in WP does consider it a big deal, the advice while it may be very much needed is a little ironic. My reaction when I first saw that line, was that it isnt a big deal--to him. Perhaps it needs some context.DGG (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
For some, adminship is a big deal. However, there are users who consider adminship to be a "no big deal". Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move suggeston for "Other access types"

I propose moving Wikipedia:Administrators#Other_access_types to Wikipedia:User access levels. I think it's more relevant on that page.--Chaser - T 17:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

Hi all, I don't mean to be picky but in the 'Reverting' sub-section (1.4) it reads, "...and it is not nice to omit that (either by rolling back, or by leaving the summary field blank)." - Does anyone feel that "not nice" is terribly vague? "...not considered polite" or "...not considered correct [Wikipedia] etiquette" - would be my suggestions for a replacement. But oh well, it could be me just being picky :-) ScarianTalk 09:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, [1]. —Centrx→talk • 04:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Merci :-) ScarianTalk 20:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "REDIRECT"ed term not hit or posted by Google

"REDIRECT"ed term is not posted by search engine by such as Google, why ?

If frequently used "term A" has the page or article in Wikipedia, and "term B" is redirect to "term A", why "term B" is not posted by search engine like Google. "Term A" is well posted by most search engine, Google too. I am talking on the case of Japanese wikipedia terms and Japanese Google's case, but Iguess this might be apply to US-English edition for both Wikipedia and Google.--Namazu-tron 10:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no control over what Google does. But let's try an example and see how Google handles redirects. Picking a completely random page from the last question I tried to answer: Basic authentication is a redirect to Basic access authentication. Search Wikipedia with Google for both titles:
So, if this random example is representative, it looks like Google does not index redirect pages on Wikipedia (I would lean toward that conclusion because I have searched Wikipedia with Google probably hundreds of times, and come to think of it I cannot recall a redirect page appearing in the search results). Since Google is Google and not Wikipedia, you may not be able to find out why Google works this way. Wikipedia documents nearly everything it does (actually, nearly everything we do) in astounding detail, whereas Google documents hardly anything (I hate to say it, but even Microsoft is probably more informative). If you want to know why something is the way it is on Wikipedia, you can probably find out (just ask us); but if you want to know why something is the way it is on Google, you probably have to get hired by Google first, and work your way up high enough in the company to have access to that particular information. There does seem to be a Google Help desk, but I have never actually seen it. --Teratornis 05:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Teratornis. Yes, Google and Wikipedia is different "animals", and no relative control each other. I appreciate your check on example Basic authentication. Now it is realized that both edition of animals behave the same way. If article Basic access authentication does not say any thing about Basic authentication , Basic authentication is may not posted by Google, it is sad isn't it ? Now we got the homework, why and how to solve the simple but serious(?) phenomenon/trouble. Do you think can I wait Wikipedia headquarter or Sysops solve this problem, or Sysops talk with Google? --Namazu-tron 16:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Help desk7 October 10, 7.12 "REDIRECT"ed term not hit or posted by Google --Namazu-tron 21:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed REDIRECT-ed" term is hit by "Japanese Yahoo" search site, but not by Google and EXCITE site. Anybody can check with Yahoo English site and other search site ?--Namazu-tron 10:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

since one of our uses of redirects is to provide indexing access to material merged into articles, this is relevant and needs following up. The way to have google notice something is to post about it on slashdot--not that they will acknowledge, but they do read it. DGG (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin's anthem

[2] :-) `'Míkka>t 21:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impersonating admins

Could someone please direct me to the policies or procedures to consult and follow regarding editors who identify themselves as adminstrators? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You can review whether the user is an administrator or not through the Wikipedia:List of administrators and Special:Listusers. If the user is indeed impersonating one and is not, you are not misunderstanding him, and he is using that to sustain opinions or judgment, he could be blocked for disruption. If you think it is indeed happening (I like to assume there is always the chance of misunderstanding, which is the "least evil" in this case), please post a note at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corruption in the Simple English wiki.

I was banned by administrator User:Barliner for having an unacceptable name (the one I use here, e.g. King Óðinn The Aesir). This user didn't give me a warning and I suspect that my IP was banned due to the fact that User:Cometstyles (a supposed admin) sent me a tirade of accusations because I correcte the article on Norse Mythology. I pointed out that what I did was acceptable and he didn't reply.

When I signed up using my user name I tried to send a message saying that I had added a list of Norse days of the week to the article but couldn't. Also my complaint to Comet was deleted so he could safe face after incorrectly labelling me as a vandal.

I say the simple English wiki is corrupt. Barliner and Comet are not fit to be admins; they are immature and uncivil.

King Óðinn The Aesir (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Simple English wikipedia has an (understandable, given their being in simple english) policy which does not allow non-latin characters in usernames. It's not abuse for them to enforce this. Besides, what are we supposed to do about it here? -Amarkov moo! 01:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

But it is abuse to claim that a member is a vandal after he removes an incorrect fact, is it not? What are you suppose to do about it? I don't know. What I do know is the admin is also a member of this site and he has not tried to contact me or let me appeal against his unjust and childish banning. He banned me despite the fact that my name was a mild violation of rules rather than a severe one. The rule is farcical as the characters in my name don't conflict with my writing in the article; you only need to click on my name to reach my profile, you don't really need an understanding of the characters in my name. Also why ban my IP when I could have easily just changed my name? Will people with Icelandic names also be banned?

Surely the administrators of the English Wikipedia can deal with the problems in the SE wiki? If not, it is farcical and really does show a problem with wikipedia.

Banning a letter common in the ancestral language of modern English (e.g. 'ð') strikes me as being rather ironic!

I do not want to sound like a moaning pest but I hate unfairness and stupid rulings especially when they directly concern me! King Óðinn The Aesir (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Admins on the English Wikipedia have no power anywhere but the English Wikipedia. Prodego talk 21:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Prodego is right. Admins on the English Wikipedia have no power on the Simple English Wikipedia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abmin abuse Pats1

I hope I am going in the right direction now, I was informed by an upper-Admin (I htink) that I may have reported somehting in the wrong area. My concern is a user: Pats1 twice threatend me with being banned without explanation. I may have been at the prompting of a user: chrisjnelson. I detected a possible familiarity with them. There was, I thought, a legitmate mistagging of trivia. There where three users who looked like they had a kind of history of being unkind. I had asked for a dispute resolution the best I knew how . . . After that occurred Pats1 came in and said I was doingsomething that was wrong --- he put in in his warning . . . and I thought it was mistaken. When I saw the second one I saw he was deadly serious. I then researched how he was supposed to handle things and what the rules were, especially with the power to block and in my view, I think he was in the wrong. I don't think I deserved that kind of meaness and what I think may have been a possible abuse of his Admin power. All I ask is to be treated fairly. I have not been perfect before, butonce I learned there are rules, I became confident this kindof abuse wouldn't occur. Maybe I was wrong to assume that. It seems Pats1 had only been a Admin for a couple of months and maybe that kind of "bullying" has worked with others, but I like to edit and I think I have some things to offer and would not want to be banned inappropriately. It is scary to think that a person who may have had a connection to chrisjnelson would just jump and threaten a ban with hardly the time to investigate. It really seemed like an abuse of his "banning power". That is my view.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I note Pats1's edit summary : "(There isn't any "dispute" here. Trivia sections, no matter what they're named ("Notes" or "Personal" or whatever) are "to be avoided" unless temporary, when they're tagged to be inserted in prose.)" seems a little erroneous: There is no policy saying they are to be removed, & this does not justify a total removal of the material. The place for this, though, Is AN/I. DGG (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
And if you check the edit history from the article (Ted Ginn, Jr.), the trivia section was never removed. That wasn't the dispute. Simply, 72.0.36.36 kept removing the trivia tag. Pats1 T/C 11:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks much.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
at the next edit the section was in fact removed, by another editor, while some ==not all== of the material was used in the article. In any case this is certainly not the place to discuss it. DGG (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block Notes

- On a banned user page you leave that "Block Note". To my point of view it is humilliating and isnt needed, instead deleting their pages would be better, users dont have to know they are blocked. Also, you must be respectful to all users, even those that deserve a ban. When an user is banned, a kind administrator becames mean with them, never listening to their reasons and unblock requests. Outworld Soldier (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recomfirmation

Seeing that the number of admins seeking recomfirmation is growing, should we add some sentences outlining the procedure for recomfirmation? I know it might be WP:CREEPy, but shouldn't we make a more concrete system of doing this? bibliomaniac15 23:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] help please

Can an admin please add {{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RobJ1981}} to User:JB196? thankyou. Kljh1986 (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please place {{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RobJ1981}} on User:Eyrian? Thankyou! Kljh1986 (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please add {{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RobJ1981}} on User:Dannycali? Thankyou! Kljh1986 (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please add {{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RobJ1981}} to User:JohnEMcClure? Thankyou! Kljh1986 (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, last one, could an admin please add {{Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RobJ1981}} to User:Burntsauce? Thankyou! Kljh1986 (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have combined the above 5 related requests. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

To Whom It May concern,

I have applied for Administratorship [3] but have recieved no reply in relation to this request. Can someone please help? Apollo1986 9:43, 20 January 2008

[edit] Refactor of page

I've done some refactoring of this page. Summary of edits:

  1. Moved the detailed list of tools to a sub-page (Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools). This is to allow the main WP:ADMIN page to focus more on adminship itself, not the technical features in the software. In the current communal mood, admins are under more requirements to act appropriately and the like; admin policy will benefit from focussing on the admin role rather than a detailed list of every tool. The latter is noted in summary and details linked instead.
  2. Grouped the sections on adminship itself (as opposed to tools, misuse, greivances etc) in one main section for ease of flow.
  3. Added a subsection under "adminship" covering admin conduct (as distinct from issues about handling of misconduct). Whilst we don't have huge policies and norms on this, we do generally expect good conduct and (in admin matters) fairness, communication and thoughtfulness, and it's no bad thing to say so.
  4. Added a section specifically on misuse of tools, which clarifies some areas there has been confusion on (or attempted gaming by warriors) in a few cases.
  5. Added "exceptional circumstances" to clarify the very few cases where we do want users to be able to repeat an admin action if needed and not necessarily be slammed for it, such as BLP and privacy.
(Some wordings relevant to tool misuse have stood at WT:WHEEL for 2 weeks to confirm they are broadly acceptable, and found favor there. [4].)

FT2 (Talk | email) 14:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good edits. (1 == 2)Until 15:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm liking the the new edits. Oysterguitarist 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Excellent FT2 - they look great, it helps to improve the readability, and understanding of the page. All in all, it's far more informative. Ryan Postlethwaite ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ 01:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Great work! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Administrators need a job description and a mission

OK. If you're an administrator, you're not a Wikipedia editor with "access to technical features that help with maintenance." You're a manager. If you're actually qualified, then you're a leader. Managers plan, organize, lead, and control. I've heard administrators call themselves "janitors." Janitors aren't qualified to block people or delete pages. Here are some essential qualities of a manager:

  1. Human skills. Blocking someone is not an effective way to get things done. People should actually want to do what you ask of them because they should admire and like you. You also need to know how to communicate what needs to be done clearly.
  2. Technical skills. Administrators instruct other users and use more tools, so they need to know how everything works.
  3. Motivation to manage. You should actually care whether you are an administrator or not. If you no longer edit on Wikipedia, you should no longer be an administrator. If you stop showing up to work, then you shouldn't be a manager, either.
  4. Conceptual skills. You need to be smart to solve new problems as they arise.

So, there should be something similar to this in one of our policy pages. Right now, I don't have a clear sense of the qualities needed in an administrator. That way, voting will appear to be more fair. It will also be more fair.--Admitmeets (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Except administrators aren't really supposed to do those things, those are things that any experienced user should do, and most of those happen to be admins. Adminship is not a a title of authority, it is purely functional. Or at least, it is supposed to be. Prodego talk 00:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of those things actually have to be done by administrators, bureacrats, and trustees. If you're an administrator, then you're deciding what pages people can edit (protection), who can edit (blocking), and what they can see (deletion). That's management through authority. In order to have these powers, you should be qualified to manage. You should have each of the four qualities I stated above. Users give input, just like low-level employees in well-run organizations give their input. But the final decisions usually have to be made by users with special powers.--Admitmeets (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Administrators can't decide those things, they are merely functionaries. If you don't like the janitor analogy, you could also view admin's as police (though this is not as accurate), enforcing the policies, and bound to the policies that allow them to enforce, just as police can't just arrest whomever they wish. Prodego talk 00:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Managers also have to follow rules. They make judgments of whether rules apply and what remedy is necessary. They often do this in groups and with input from employees. Even presidents have to answer to investors. Whatever you want to call them, administrators need the four qualities I listed above to do their jobs properly.--Admitmeets (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that I should add a section to the article specifying what qualities are needed in an administrator:

In order to administer Wikipedia, you must be qualified. Your job is important. You decide what pages people can see (through deletion), who can edit (though blocking), and what they can edit (through protection). The following are the minimum qualifications that administrators should have:

  1. Human skills. You should not have to block users to get things done. People should actually want to do what you ask of them because they should admire and like you. You also need to know how to communicate what needs to happen clearly.
  2. Technical skills. Administrators instruct other users and use more tools, so they need to know how everything works.
  3. Motivation to administer. You should actually care whether you are an administrator or not. If you no longer edit on Wikipedia, you should no longer be an administrator.
  4. Conceptual skills. You need to have very good judgement. You should also be able to solve new problems as they arise.
--Admitmeets (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but don't quite agree that this is how the community sees it. The shading (or "feel") of it all, counts, and this captures the wrong shading of an admin's role.

Admins do not have authority in the sense you imagine. They can draw a line based on policies and norms and judgement, and enforce that line with the tools, they often have good insight and suggestions to users, and they should be good at gaining others' co-operation and working with people. But they do not, ever, act as "managers" to people in the business sense. They implement policies which the community in broad has agreed upon. Thus for example:

  • They do not "decide what people see". An admin who deletes a page can only do so under circumstances the community has decided pages should be deleted, and in accordance with that communal decision, pretty much. They implement this, they do not decide it. Likewise they implement a standard of editorship and use of blocking and protection which has already gained consensus via a discussion in which admins have absolutely no special authority of any kind.
  • They do not need to know how "everything works". They need to know enough not to misuse what they touch, and to conduct themselves well. The emphasis is on "Not making mistakes" not on "doing it all". Users do things, admins just handle the few exceptions where for practical reasons we don't let every new user do so. Even very experienced admins, including those elected to higher positions than admin, don't know how "everything" works usually.
  • Admins are users the community trusts to operate the tools. If they don't edit a year, the communal view is, what's that got to do with trust, for if/when they do? There is hence no obligation on any admin to "do" any specific role. Just to act responsibly in whatever (if anything) they do act upon.
  • Admins should gain broad respect, but frankly no user is obligated to respect or listen to them (it's not a requirement of editing), and many will not. Blocking is not merely a tool used due to failure to know how to talk to people.

Hope these brief thoughts help. High sstandards are needed, but the above is mostly founded upon a misconception of what it is, that admins actually do. Mostly admins are:

  1. users the community has decided based on experience that it trusts...
  2. and who act to a consistently good standard on general conduct as editors...
  3. who are allowed to act as custodians of those tools that for pragmatic reasons need to be restricted in their access (due to the presence of many people on the internet who would use them for purposes that don't help the project)...
  4. and who are trusted to only use them to enact a decision within the standards that the community has decided, and not otherwise.

FT2 (Talk | email) 10:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

FT2, I like very much the way you've worded it, except for : " If they don't edit a year, the communal view is, what's that got to do with trust, for if/when they do? There is hence no obligation on any admin to "do" any specific role. Just to act responsibly in whatever (if anything) they do act upon." If they don't edit for a year how can anyone know if they either remember the rules , much less keep up to date with the changes? That they don;t use the tools might not be significant, if the editing can demonstrate they still know about policy and are acting responsibly. DGG (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
True, although rules change far less than principles, one might get seriously out of date with tool use. But still, the most one can say is "ensure you are aware of any norms others will expect you to keep, once RFA'ed, especially if taking a long break." One wouldn't desysop for it, the thrust of the above question. A valid point? FT2 (Talk | email) 10:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Status of project page Wikipedia:Administrators

Is the project page Wikipedia:Administrators a {{policy}} or {{guideline}}? If so, shouldn't that be spelled out by inclusion of the appropriate template? If not, why not? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems a fair candidate for policy tag to me. "Basics and main framework of adminship" is more than just a minor thing. Unaware of anything there that doesn't have consensus and strong buy-in.
FT2 (Talk | email) 10:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - I'd support a policy tag. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I am surprised it is not a policy, I always thought it was. Should an admin ignore the advice here, it would not turn out well. (1 == 2)Until 18:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, given there's no objections here - and I personally support this move, I've tagged it as policy. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hm.. I never would've thought to tag this page as policy, now that it is tagged, I'm wondering as to whether it's necessary. By doing this, we're saying that the no big deal clause is policy-mandated, for example. This has been disputed for years, so even just by that I'm a little iffy about the tag. I'd support ending this to the community at large for an opinion. Wizardman 18:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
$0.02, not too fussed about the fate of a single quote. Single points like that can be discussed on any policy page too. Especially one that is simply a well-known cite from earlier days, that just states "this is an oft-quoted comment", which is accurate. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually it can be clarified better, and would benefit. Take a look. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I endorse the "enshrinement" as policy, and especially appreciate the appropriate reframing of the "no big deal" quote in a way that reflects reality more closely. — Coren (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I would endorse it as well. Cbrown1023 talk 22:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would also agree with the tagging of this page as a policy. I also think the recent edits have a useful improvement in updating and clarifying the administrator title and how it should be perceived. Will (aka Wimt) 02:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request layout change on editing buttons

Hi, thanks for explaining the problem you are having. I have moved your request to our Village Pump "technical" discussion forum. Please watch that discussion for questions that you can answer. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
see Bugzilla #13065 --Namazu-tron (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

How does one know when one has won an adminship request? Does one have to have 50 per cent of votes or...? --Camaeron (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A bureaucrat decides if consensus has been reached. The imaginary limit varies, but it is usually higher than 70% (there are exceptions, of course). Note that judgment is not bound to the number of votes, but their content. A single oppose opinion with a really valid reason (like "The user is a sockpuppet of a banned user") could bring a seemly perfect RfA down. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion Reasons List

When deleting a page, you have a list of CSD criteria to choose from in a drop-down menu. This menu also has the usual non-csd reasons - AFD close, PROD, etc. However, I notice that the Portal criteria (CSD P1 and P2) are not listed. Not a big deal - how many portals get deleted as speedy, anyway? But, for completeness' sake, where would I request that they be added? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? In the first combo, under the Other section, there is P1 (Portal on a topic that would be speedy deleted as an article). P2 isn't there, though. To request changes in that kind of stuff, try Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-Saxon link

The anglo saxon version is at ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bewitend --JamesR1701E (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] help on hi.wikipedia

Greetings friends of wikipedia.

I have poor knowledge of English and Hindi Langauge and I write with poor knowledge.

Administrators of Hindi Wikipedia have grossly misused tools of Administratators. Namely one Rajiv Mass, Purnima Varman and Manish Vashishtha. One Rajiv Mass has created dammy Account of Ravi jain to harass and misuse.

I request here to translet what I have written in Hindi and same to be informed to all what these Administrators have done. I know that Administratator Rajiv Mass was doing this type of activites for last 3-4 months.

I signed as vkvora. vkvora2001 (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. You may want to contact a few (not all) users found at Category:Wikipedians in India to translate the message. You could also post a question at meta:Metapub. The English Wikipedia can do very little for you, you should contact Meta instead. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Use on Hindi Wikipedia

Category:Wikipedians in India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics

All most all and at least three confirmed have grossly missused their Administratators Tools on Hindi Wikipedia. Their Names are Rajiv Mass, Purnima Varman and Manish Vashishtha. Not only that Administratator Rajiv Mass has opened dummy account in name of Ravi Jain and miss used to harass other members of Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, English wikipedia. I have complained in poor English to English Wikipedia Administratators and one has advised me to write here. Those who know Hindi very well should visit Hindi wikipedia to solve the problem and this fact should be brought to all Administratators of world. I signed as vkvora. vkvora2001 (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Percentage

Is there a reason that on Special:Statistics the percentage of user accounts with Administrator rights is not shown? On most wikis, it is shown in parentheses beside the number of Administrators or somewhere similar. I was just curious. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Dont know the reason but its only 0.02%. Im sure you figured that out already. Im sure someone can add it on, its a special page so i dont know who can edit that if anyone, maybe only Jimbo Wales, who knows. I dont know, i seriously dont know. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Desysopping

I know it's not common practice to take away the tools from admins who simply disappear, but I think it should be. Unless an admin has a good reason for disappearing for an extended period, I don't think they should be able to just ditch Wikipedia and be kept in the ranks of admins. I know of numerous examples of sysops who left many months ago and nothing was done. Enigma message 04:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this has been proposed and rejected several times (see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Demote inactive admins and Wikipedia:Inactive administrators). Are you suggesting that adminship should be removed as a punishment for "ditching Wikipedia" or is there another reason? Guest9999 (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Every account with tools is another target for someone seeking to compromise an admin account, so - in theory - removing the tools from inactive accounts could serve to remove "soft targets" from a potential vandal's reach. By soft targets, I mean accounts where the accountholder would not notice a compromised account (being gone). That's a little thin, though. In my mind, so long as the tools are not being misused, having them assigned to an inactive user does no harm. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That was my primary concern, but I've been informed by User:Rick Block that Wikipedia has taken some steps to protect itself from this. In general, I'm in favor of desysopping admins who have not edited for months, but I see there is no consensus for this. I feel that being an admin means you have a responsibility to the community. Enigma message 20:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely - and some admins request removal of the tools before retiring for good. Some don't. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Giving up your tools is the responsible thing to do. Unfortunately, most people are not responsible. I must commend User:KnowledgeOfSelf for doing what he did recently. If you don't know, check out his talk page. Enigma message 21:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ragib

Ragib is continously changing the core article of Rohingya. He Purposely adding Bengali term on their main page . please someone can handle on this issue since he is admin in wiki. It is hard to control on his activity against the Rohingya most oppressed people in the world.--72.229.35.220 (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sparta

To Whoever can answer me. I received a notice that i was blocked from making edits because someone found that one of my edits was Vandalism. i for one believe that this is wrong and i would like to see what "act of vandalism" this was. the alleged vandalism was done on the Sparta page. if you could please send me an email with what i typed that was allegedly vandalism that would help me greatly. i have edited many of wikipedias articles in the past and not once was i ever accused of vandalism. my email address is not1for.stupidity@yahoo.com

Karen Pleacher 4.23.225.147 (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Those edits are from October and it was only a 24 hour block. Enigma msg 06:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for telling me whenItalic text those edits took place but that didnt answer my question. my question was whatItalic text was it that was said. and i could care less how long the block was, it was that i was accused of something i didnt do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.130.17.162 (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can I ask a Q

Hi. I've heard you can get a colourful signature. can someone tell me how to? Thanks. Im Out. '''RogueMad2''' (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Can admin personnel please watch the IP address 72.95.40.211? Also, is it ever possible for there to be a REPORT link (on the profile of registered users and more importantly, on user contributions of unregistered ones) to report misbehaving editors? Samuella99 (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

responded on user talk – Zedla (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two Qs =

Okay. I have two questions. One: Can you log into a IP adress again, such as when you get on wikipedia and ure not logged in?

2: Am i a admin? I've been in wikipedia for 3 or more years now.

--Runeselo (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Responded on user talk. GreenReaper (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Coaching

Hello. I am currently on the waiting list for a admin coach. And we desperatly need coaches there are 36 wikipedians waiting for a admin coach. thankyou for your time. S.T.H. ( P/T/C ) 00:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC) :)

[edit] My Page "Jazz Judgemental" was deleted why?

I'm sorry If I somehow posted something innaproppriate, but I don't understand what I've done wrong...I was stating facts about a very important and real person...and would like to at least know what I could do to keep my page open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XXxHelloKittyLoverxXx (talk • contribs) 04:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confused about WP:NBD

There's a comment on a page I've been watching and discussing. It's a name dispute, and one of the pages has the edit comment: "(perhaps this page needing to be deleted will reinforce the fact that a move is an admin action...)" Bit of a wheel war going on with some other mastodons involved.

There is a bit of a disagreement on what consensus exists or does not exist for the move. When it comes to evaluating the presence or absence of consensus (outside of a formal arbitration or other defined process), do admins have any particular additional weight to their comments? My understanding is no, but I would like to be clear.Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] matchbox Magazine

Can you please change the title of this entry to Matchbox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kajlouis (talk • contribs) 22:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New global userright

Over at Meta m:Anti-vandal fighter there is a proposal for a new global user right that would give the administrative anti-vandal tools to users from Meta, to be used on all WMF wikis for anti vandal purposes. The proposal defines:

Permission usage
The Anti-vandal fighter should deal only with projects which do not have enough active administrators in a particular time frame.
  • If some wiki doesn't have any administrators at all, the AVfs should take care of that project all of the time.
  • If some wiki doesn't have administrators just in some parts of the day (like the night hours in a specific time zone), they should take care of that wiki during the unmonitored times.
Local projects must be respected. Even though their permissions are global, anti-vandal fighters are not allowed to use their rights on any project with a substantial community of active administrators (e.g. the English Wikipedia) without explicitly asking the community, even for such minor things as using rollback. Anti-vandal fighters not respecting this rule will lose their privileges immediately. If there are enough active AVfs and stewards around, AVf should prefer not to act at their home project, unless they are admins there.

so I'd like to start a centralized discussion on how our Admin policy should reflect this change.

  • Do we want to say such global vandal fighters may never use their global rights at en.wiki unless the right has already been granted locally?
  • Do we want to adapt a time zone policy when many en.wiki admins are asleep as a time they may help?
  • Do we want to require they "register" with our crats to notify us they intend to act here?
  • Who will be our point people for reporting local abuses of this privilege to Meta? .etc MBisanz talk 22:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't really think we have such a shortage of admins that we need people less familiar with our policies to handle the job. Don't take me wrong, I am not fighting for any privilege for en.wiki, but I am worried about accountability for the actions of people having these rights. How should we resolve disputes when they are involved? I think this is a great userright for smaller projects where the community is not big enough to handle the spam and grawp wannabies (I'm pretty sure User:DerHexer is much more knowledgeable than me to talk about what the small wiki monitoring team does) but our project, with the amazing amount of bureaucracy we have, is a much less friendly place for inexperienced users. -- lucasbfr talk 22:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this is an innovation that might be handy for wikis with small communities or few admins. English Wikipedia really doesn't need this level of assistance from meta, and many other projects might benefit from it far more. I would be opposed to implementing this global user-right on en.wp (or, to be more technically correct, opposed to allowing any use of this global right on English Wikipedia). Anyone who wants to be a vandal whacker with admin tools on the English Wikipedia should be pointed to WP:RFA. AvruchT * ER 23:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
We've got a boat-load of admins, and there's almost always at least 2 or 3 online at all times of the day. This is something for the Star Wars wiki, or the Yu-Gi-Oh wiki. Wikipedia is huge enough to not need this.--Koji†Dude (C) 23:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
If anything, vandalism is one of the things administrators seem to be able to handle here without much fuss. That WP:AIV backlogs are cleared easily is indicative of such. There's really no need for such users on en.wiki, and it would be much better for smaller wikis to utilize the aid from this.
On the issue of whether we welcome this assistance from meta, I agree with Avruch. We don't have any such shortage and anyone that really wants to do so can try at WP:RFA to get the tools to do so. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, great for smaller wikis, I don't think we need or want it here. It sounds like a real quagmire in the area of accountability. 1 != 2 00:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. "The Anti-vandal fighter should deal only with projects which do not have enough active administrators in a particular time frame." It seems pretty obvious to me that en.wikip does not fit in that criteria, so any user who uses his "Anti-vandal fighter"-rights at the english Wikipedia should be reported to the appropriate places at meta. --Conti|✉ 00:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm with most everyone above: seems like this'll be great for the small wikis, but not useful and potentially problematic here. Is there any way an individual project can just turn this off? delldot on a public computer talk 01:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This is pretty clear in the proposal, en.wp is given as an example where the AVF tools should not be used without consent of the local community, which will certainly resume to RFA on en. We're by far the biggest community, and worldwide, so we don't need AVFs, but other wikis do. Also, this is for WMF wikis, not for Wikia. Though we should follow this matter, the recent "globalisation" has already posed some problems over here and policy is not always respected. Fortunately, we have a strong influence on meta. It's geopolitics. And I'm talking like a politician... Cenarium (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The proposal definitely makes it clear that enwiki is not in need of help from global admins, but we could certainly add a little bit to this page making it explicit that one must have admin rights here to take admin actions.--Danaman5 (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That was what my thought was, to make it clear that things like timezone don't matter at en.wiki, you must have passed RFA or gone to RFR before you can use those tools here. MBisanz talk 01:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a table at meta could keep track of wikis that have discussed locally and decided to opt out, if there's more than a handful that do so? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm a fan of Luna's proposal, and as a GMT +9 admin I'm (hopefully) proof that time zones don't matter as much ;) Incidentally, I've added this discussion to the central discussion template. --jonny-mt 05:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
One note about opting out: There is no sense for larger projects (let's say with more than 20-30 admins) to opt-out because they are not affected by AVfs (AVf who act at such project will lose their rights immediately); which means that such projects will never opt-in. Smaller projects can't opt out because the main purpose of this role is to give to the stewards helpers in fight against vandals; or, if stewards have to keep eye on smaller project, such project will be under AVfs maintenance, too. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 10:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • (\r) We can give them rollback as a group, though... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Of course, whatever a particular community decides in the sense of giving rights to them -- is ok. But, this is your decision, not a global policy's matter. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 10:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As a proposer, I think that it is clear that AVfs mustn't use their rights (without asking) not only at en.wp, but at a lot of other projects. Projects with ~50.000 articles usually have enough admins to cover all parts of the day. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 06:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

About reporting abuses: Yes, you should have some amount of contributors who will keep eye on abusing those rights. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 10:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with using global rollback here to revert vandalism/spam, etc? — Werdna talk 12:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

They could just ask for rollback like everyone else, I am sure if they showed their anti-vandal work on other wiki's that we would gladly give it to them. 1 != 2 16:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically, we don't need vandal-fighters here from meta. They should save their energy for small wikis where they are actually needed, and we can save our energy by not having to bother with bureaucratic questions of how much permission they really have here. As a practical matter, if not technically, we should just "opt out" of this whole system. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, en.wp is not in the system, except in a technical sense. Permissions usage here without community approval will lead to permissions removal. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 11:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
...and indefinite blocking until the tools are removed and they promise never to do such again, should they get the tools back at a later date. Daniel (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds a little silly to me... For Rollback, at least. I can understand why we don't want global admins muscling in here (since use of admin tools is subject to quite a bit of local policy, quirks, etc), but why not rollback? It's not like they can't undo edits anyway, and it'd be useful for, for instance, spam cleanup. Personally, I work on the spam blacklist on meta, and, once I've decided that a link needs to be reverted, I don't even look at what project I'm on before clicking 'rollback'. It is a little silly to require people like me to go and ask 700 different local communities for rollback if I can ask one at meta. — Werdna talk 01:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Global rights usage. Daniel (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Strongly supporting that proposed policy, exactly what I was thinking. MBisanz talk 01:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Age

If there is an age limit to being an admin, what is it? I know there's a limit on other wikis. Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Enigma message 19:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There has been admins as young as 12 before, so yeah, their is no age limit...--Cometstyles 00:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no age limit. Anyone who makes good contributions can become an admin. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, we'd prefer if you are under 18, you not tell us your age, for your own protection. MBisanz talk 05:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. That said, if an editor can edit in a mature and reasonable fashion, their calendar age is unlikely to be an issue. I've seen admins who I thought were in their 20's turn out to be teenagers - and vice-versa. It's all about how users comport themselves around the project. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Imperial Star Destroyer (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sysop

To use the term sysop as being another name for administrator is a bit missing leading. Sysop relates to a series of functions that are commonly used by administrators but are also used by other classes of users. Example would be page protection which is a sysop function that can be done by several other classes of users as well including a new class of users that my possibly be called global sysops. That discussion is going on at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-vandal_fighter I was thinking that adding a note that sysop can also refer to some of the functions of other classes of users might be help full. Dbiel (Talk) 14:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Note the term makesysop as taken from Special:ListGroupRights

Make users into Administrators or Bureaucrats (makesysop)

an example of one of the others uses of the term sysop. Dbiel (Talk) 14:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Policy?

Is this policy or not? A discussion above by a small number of people seems to have decided that it is, & it's so tagged, but it's not listed at Wikipedia:List of policies. Peter jackson (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it is policy, Wikipedia:List of policies must have been overlooked when the change was made. I've now updated the page to reflect this. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)