Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 3

Protect to Unprotected and Unprotect to Protected
The contents of MediaWiki:Unprotect will be changed from "Unprotect" to "Protected" and MediaWiki:Protect from "Protect" to "Unprotected" as per discussion in Village pump (proposals). A copy of the conversation has been posted at MediaWiki talk:Unprotect for posterity. &mdash; Ambush Commander (Talk) 19:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"This should be no big deal," according to Jimmy Wales
This statement was first put on this page in February 2003. It seems no one really knows where it comes from. Besides - can anyone adequately describe exactly what it means? Currently, it is up to anyone to interpret "adminship should bo no big deal" anyway they like. I replaced the sentence with something hopefully more describing. Now - did I get the meaning of the quote right, or... // Habj 23:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Half-measures are the curse of this age.
Someone deleted the userbox template without deleting. Really, if one is to go, both should go. This is the kind of decision that makes me draw the conclusion that Wikipedia is hopelessly biased in favor of "consciousness-raising" and political correctness. I put that box up to indicate my language preference, not to advertise my political beliefs. If it is unacceptable, that's fine with me as long as the other one goes too. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I second this, Brian. You're absolutely correct. We're not the only ones. - Richardcavell 12:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

modification regarding Administrator's level
I changed it so it said that administrators had more power than bots, since it looks like they do here: User_access_levels --Minipie8 22:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"not even to reverse a mistake of your own making"
This was added by BenAveling on February 24. I just wonder, why should we not do so? I easily understand that we should not use rollback on other people's good-faith but misguided edits, because reverting without explanation is rude and discourteous. But If I see an admin using rollback on their own edits, then I immeditately assume that it is a mistake they want to take back quickly, and it is not rude and discourteous to anyone but him- or herself. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with that. I've used rollback on my own errors. The only reason I could see to not use it would be if the MediaWiki software were recording how often the rollback feature is being used to do some sort of statistical analysis. If that's the case, then admins using it on their own edits would skew the results.  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The written rule is quite clear, without or without my addition: rollback is only for fighting vandalism. The question is, is there an unwritten rule that overrides the written rule?  If so, we should fix that: reverse my change and make the exception(s) explicit.
 * That said, I do believe that the rule as written is correct: rollback is for fighing vandalism. It is not there for the convenience of priveledged users, even if the person being rolled back might not mind being rolled back.  Regards, Ben Aveling 12:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I prefer the explanation at Revert. There is no "rule" as such against using rollback on non vandalism edits, but it may be considered a breach of WP:CIVIL. Originally I think rollback was only intended for vandalism, but times have changed. I use it when on RC patrol for reverting good-faith newbie tests, but I always leave a message on the user's talk. As for rolling back your own edits, if it saves time and doesn't really need an explanation then I don't see the problem. the wub "?!"  16:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have used rollback on my own edits numerous times. So far, I have not complained about it.   Friday (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So I guess the middle ground is that one should be really careful when using the rollback against other editors when reverting good faith but mistaken edits. May send a very powerful message that the boys with the big guns find it below their dignity to explain their reversions, and we don't want editors, especially newbie editors, to think that way. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There are too many policies and rules, they change too often, and they are not always intuitive to find. If the rollback is to only be used for reverting vandalism, then please change its edit summary to reflect this. Until then, people will continue to use it for any reason they see fit. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What are they?
I was looking through the listusers special page and found two odd user types: "boardvote" and "checkuser". I'm a new user, so I don't know all of the wiki terms. - 8  2 Something


 * AFAIK boardvote was used for administering the Board of Trustees elections. Special voting pages were used which only certain people (i.e. those in the "boardvote" group) could edit. Checkuser is described here. the wub "?!"  17:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not mark administrators like featured articles?
Now that we have the procedure of marking the best articles through the featured article template, I would like to propose that we also mark the user pages of our best users, i.e. administrators, by using the admin mop image through a new template: administrator. I've even set out the code for that:

Suggestions or comments are welcome. The one problem I can think of right now is whether to have the image of size 14px (as in the FA template), or 20px (as in my user page), because of the white space behind the image.-- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 11:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Admins are not necessarily 'our best users' (that's not a dig at admins, that's a recognition that we have some excellent non-admins, who are also amongst the best). That doesn't mean I object to having a template for this. Might be best to have it optional like the admin userbox? Oh and the size on your userpage is ok. Petros471 14:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree. The very best editors probably don't need or want to be admins. Just zis Guy you know? 17:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I like this idea. I even have one on my userpage now. Huzzah! —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * doesn't seem all that necessary, but it can't do any harm and it does sound like fun! i'm putting it on my userpage now.--Alhutch 16:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Even though the FA star template was unnecessary (IMO), it was still passed. It's just to help in easy reference to know at-a-glance if the user is an admin.-- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|)  16:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally like drawing attention to admin status. It's fine as a choice, but not as a requirement. I don't want people to automatically assume I know what I'm talking about by virtue of having admin access- I make mistakes, just like anybody, and I want them to be pointed out to me when I do. I also don't want newbies to think they're not allowed to disagree. I think we should de-emphasize the difference between "admins" and "normal users", not emphasize it. We're all just editors, when it comes down to it. Friday (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In the interests of transparency I would like to have some authoritative way to identify admins, whether it's a category, a list, a userbox, or some combination of the above. Since admins have been granted special priveleges by the community, their behaviour ought to be held to a higher standard.  When a casual editor sees someone doing something "wrong", it should be possible to determine whether that person is an admin. --Saforrest 17:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Awards for "best picture", "best actor", "Best scientist", "Best Wikipedia editor" make sense to me. But "Best janitor"? Per Friday, being an admin is not something to brag about, and its just a set of tools and assumes admins are somewhat more experienced. It is hard to judge what makes one a "good admin", unlike deciding what is a good article. So, I am opposed to the idea. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily think it should be made mandatory, I would like to clarify whether or not the opposers think it should be forbidden. If not, then it can spread virally and its own success will determine its fate. I'd start with people using the admin userbox. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't think of any reason why it would be forbidden. This is just the admin userbox without the box; and that hasn't, as far as I know, been the cause of many complaints. Kirill Lok s  h in 22:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, excuse me while I steal it... Stifle (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The mop and bucket design looks fine to me. As long as it doesn't look more like a trophy. - Mailer Diablo 01:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have created the template as per this discussion since it's handy to have as a template. Pegasus1138 Talk 04:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind it existing, but it shouldn't be uniform as the featured article stars are. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I like it, and would suggest that it be used by all admins. It's not a trophy, it's a simple icon that shows whether someone has admin status or not. It's a very useful thing to know about someone. The mop icon is good because it's particularly un-trophy-like. Stevage 15:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Per Stevage; it doesn't look like a trophy. A user could easily look in the upper right corner of the page to find an admin for help; a user would have to scroll through an entire userpage to find an admin userbox, and even then, some admins don't use userboxes because they don't like them. Keep the mop icon. (^'-')^ Covington 02:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I like the idea - also, it's a pain to scroll down and see if a user is in the category of admins - but if an admin isn't already in the category and doesn't carry the admin userbox, then they're not going to add the code to make the icon appear. So admins that do will have now have ±3 indications; admins that don't will continue to have none; and time and effort will have been spent for little net benefit.


 * If it was compulsory, then adminship would become a big deal. Adminship is not a big deal. It's two extra buttons and one extra function set that the community has said it feels comfortable with an editor using. Some of our best editors don't have those buttons. Some useless people do. An extra icon would do nothing more than increase the status of admins, and that's a Bad Thing.


 * And I speak as someone who is both useless and an admin. ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 21:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That's three extra buttons! FYI this system breaks for anons, log out and view a page with a tag like this. Prodego talk  20:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Paging Admin "Heah" - deletion of entry
Hiya - message for Admin HEAH

Having trouble getting in touch because you've disabled newbies from getting in touch from your userpage, so Pls, if this is the wrong place, forgive me :-/

Noticed that you'd deleted a page (as per the below link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Vestibulodynia )

Could you please let me know why? Can't find *any* ref to it in deletion logs (looked under both the dates listed in the above link, 9 April & 20 March) so I don't know why! We want to have an entry with this condition, so if there is any prob with content let me know so I can rewrite it.

Thanks v. :o)

Lvpsg 20:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The link you gave has the reason - it was a copyright violation. Wikipedia can't have articles that are directly copied from other sites without the text being specifically released under an appropriate license.  If you want to rewrite the article in your own words, that should be absolutely fine. --Tango 16:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm feeling really unwelcomed by admins.
Let's see. So far today - Someone speedied my article. An admin blocked me for an inappropiate username User:People=Shit immediately afterwards, preventing me from contesting the deletion, and blocking my IP so I couldn't create a new account to do it with either. After much grief, I got my IP unblocked and created a new account, but of course by this time the article (and associated images) was long gone. So, naively I guess, I decided to follow the advice left on my previous user talk page by an admin and list the article at deletion review. Shortly after I listed it, another admin removed the listing and accused me of trolling. Now one's left an attack on my new user talk page. I'm seriously considering just giving up, I'm getting attacked left, right and centre by the admins here. Killerman 18:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The article on * was appropriately speedied. While Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, we do not have an article on everyone. Thus, some standards of notability are applied. * has not been the focus of any particular media attention because of his alleged crime, and there does not appear to be anything in the article you created which asserts his notability for any other purpose. You may wish to see Notability (people) for more information on notability standards for biographies on Wikipedia. As to your original username being blocked, it was done so appropriately as well. Please see Username for the policy regarding this. Your IP may have been blocked in connection with an unrelated incident. Friday's comment on your new talk page isn't an attack. I would have worded things differently, but it is not an attack. If you have other questions, please feel free to ask. --Durin 15:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

We should change this
It says Admins can hide vandalism from Recent changes. that sounds bad. I Lov  E Plankton 04:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It does sound politically incorrect. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  19:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to the Administrators
This wikipedian is now so hooked on Wikipedia, and you all keep the playing ground level so we can play ball and make the magic happen. This is what I wanted the web to be in 1993. My brain says thanks from the bottom of my heart and the ends of my tired fingers! Sorry for clogging the Talk:Administrators page. Alan Canon 18:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Scientizzle is deleting pages with no prior warning
 Autocratic Censorship Should Not Be Allowed

The wikipedia user User:Scientizzle has immediately deleted pages I have published 4 times now and refers to them as jokes when in fact they are factual occurrences and issues which I believe are of due note for publication. I do not understand why wikipedia allows for the immediate deletion of writings due to the interpretation of one individual. The realm of human knowledge cannot be limited to the whimsy of a single man. --Cs weaver 22:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ummm...I am not an admin, so I haven't deleted anything. I've only tagged speedy deletion candidates with appropriate tags--if the articles were subsequently deleted, it was because they were unencyclopedic in the opinion of an administrator as well.  I have prod tagged another article, too: First Church of the Almighty Buck and Discount Furniture Warehouse in Del Rio Texas.  I also attempted to explain my actions to Cs weaver at User talk:Cs weaver as clearly as possible with all civility. Thanks. -- Scientizzle 23:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oversight
Does anyone know what the heck oversight does, I see its on the permissions list but I have no idea what permissions it grants / should we list those permissions here -- Tawker 07:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oversight is the revision removal permission; it allows a user with the permission to remove a given revision from a page's history without having to delete the entire page. It also hides the revision from everyone; nobody can view the revision, not even individuals with the permission. Removed revisions can only be restored by direct database modification by a developer. It is intended for the removal of personal information, and perhaps certain material under the WP:OFFICE policy. Further information can be found on Hiding revisions, on WP:ANI, and on WT:RFA. Essjay  (  Talk  •  Connect  )  07:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Vladimir Rebikov
There are 2 identical artiicles Vladimir Rebikov and Vladimir Rebikoff. I tried to move Vladimir Rebikoff into Vladimir Rebikov but had no success. Vladimir Rebikov is better spelling of this name. Could you help? (Meladina 00:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

I won't create anymore new pages if "Kungfuadam" persists
I am a historian who takes much pride in his work. I will not accept it being deleted by some "know-it-all," who enjoys deleting articles soon after they are first created. I was working with the descendants of Edward Capehart O'Kelley, the man who shot Bob Ford (Jesse James) in 1892. I was not given a chance to complete the page when "Kungfuadam" deleted my page without any debate, even after I explained what I was doing. I do not have time to play games with this man. Whoever is in charge must stop him. If not, then please inform me and I will go elsewhere! Soapy 05:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is what was sent to my personal discussion page:

Edward Capehart O'Kelley was speedy-deleted by User:Kungfuadam. If you have not yet talked to him/her, I recommend leaving a polite note on the admin's requesting clarification. Looking at the deleted content, I understand why the tag was added but looking at the page history, this does seem to have been carried out a bit precipitously. We've been fighting a fairly persistent vandal lately and your stub may have just gotten caught in the crossfire.

If talking to the deleting admin doesn't answer your questions, you have the option to petition for a review of the deletion decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Rossami (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

(copy of what I wrote there) Edward Capehart O'Kelley (edit|talk|links|history|watch) was deleted by Kungfuadam (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). You are correct that it shouldn't have been speedy deleted, as it had the template, and has 2 existing article references. The Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion explicitly states: "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, please consider whether an article could be improved or reduced to a stub. Also, please note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation." You are incorrect as to the place to complain. That should have been Wikipedia:Deletion review. Unfortunately these days, just re-posting the same article again is sometimes considered a form of vandalism, so complain first, and during the review the old article will be undeleted so everybody can see it. --William Allen Simpson 03:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC) And to follow up, don't give up quite yet.... --William Allen Simpson 03:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeff_Soapy_Smith" Soapy 05:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition: I looked over "Kungfuadam's" deletion record and it seems I am not the only one complaining. He is known for quick deletions. looking at your criteria it should have been a week before deletion, not minutes!! Soapy 05:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Unjustified deletion of the derogatory term "Chinese Pig"
I shall appreciate if anyone could assist in the unjustified administrator deletion of the racist term "Chinese Pig". The article provides valuable information on a the slur. It is particularly useful for Chinese students who are racially abused and needs information about the term.

The administrator claims that the term needs to be extensively referenced, but the fact is that the term is already sufficiently referenced by credible sources. Other similar articles like "Nigger" and "Coolie" are in Wikipedia.

Please be kind to help me revert the carefully written article. The assistance rendered would be appreciated.

(Sorry about the standard of my English because it is my second language and I am from Hong Kong.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chinese_Pig --Chungkwok 03:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion campaign
User:HOTR is currently engaged in deleting people on the UK Conservative Right who have biographies. I suggest it is a politically motivated exercise. For instance, how could anyone say that Sam Swerling, one of England's leading law lecturers, and well-known political activist and writer, was not notable. Yet his bio article has vanished. Something needs to be done here. 81.129.155.181 22:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Homsar?
On the HRWiki there is a user called Homsar. He is a sysop on this wiki, but I CAN'T FiND HiM!!! WHERE IS HE??? I NEED TO ADD HIM TO MY FRIENDS LIST!!! -- Homfrog Tell me a story! Contribulations 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin Stalking
I have been online for over 10 years 'playing' all through the ether. In that time I have never had my ip blocked once though I have come across all types in some programs. I have never been targeted online for anyhting apart from a couple of gentle 'boots' from one galah who wasnt viscious or kept it up night after night after night after night. In the last couple of weeks here my ip has been blocked several times when I objected to admin vandalism of stuff I had posted where meaning etc were changed making what I put up a heap of lies. I have made a lot of contributions to wik. I did make some errors as I had no idea what I was doing to start. They were not intentional. I cite most posts immediately, with references on the way in next couple of days re those I dont have the reference immediately to hand. (I have an arm injury so can't pull my cardboard box other filing cabinet off the top of the cupboard to get a couple of things out.) Since I have been on wik I have been continuously stalked by an admin who has been very rude, keeps vandalising stuff I put up, seems to be very fixated on following me around the ether and trying to control my every moove. Of course I told that admin to get lost. I am a former professional stalking/violence worker so have seen how it happens and where it ends up, and dont have regard for that sort of rot. I have never seen it to the extent that I have seen it happen on wik. I will tell any stalker to get lost. Its behaviour that isnt needed anywhere and if I am targeted to the point I am continuously being harassed and my health affected then it needs to stop. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? IS IT ALWAYS LIKE THIS? I was going to put a heap of valuable stuff up but given how here is then its best to steer clear of the palce for the sake of my personal wellbeing.

I would be delighted if somebody reviewed either my admin actions or my contributions to the wikipedia - with reference to articles this anon user has also edited. I will take the issues to WP:AN/I for review by other admins. In the mean time I have blocked the user again for ongoing personal attacks.--A Y Arktos\talk 09:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Now for that admin to find I put the above there that admin had to stalk me again as I had to log off, then come back to be able to post. Fair enough if those admins watching some wik articles do keep an eye on them but this post here shows that where I go all over wik is beign minutely watched. There is no need for that. The admin knows I am not a hoon vandel as such so no need for 24/7 watching and stalking. To post the above post, I came here first after logging back on to the Internet, cut and pasted the already written note above, then I went to the site where the admin was vandalising stuff I had put up (this has now stopped after I sadly had to remove most of the post in dispute - it contained important content). It seems that from me going to that article after here, my new ip has been reg and picked up on then tracked back to here to see what else I had posted under that ip log on number. This is totally ridiculous. Its also stalking. Its that that is uncalled for and highly irregular. CUT IT OUT! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.169 (talk • contribs).
 * As this rant was your first edit from this Ip, it is hard to examine your contributions and provide any meaningful feedback. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Inverse relationship?
The page says:


 * The amount of begging related to being made an administrator is inversely related to how long it will take to become one. 

Really? The more you beg, the sooner your are sysoped? Looks like an unsuccessful attempt to describe it "mathematically"... Arbitrary username 17:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, that was my pathetic attempt to address Wikipedia_talk:Administrators above. Reworded again. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User deleting text
I request an investigation into the activities of the user Tototom. He has systematically deleted texts that are well sourced, and have taken a long time to write. The user's vandalism mainly consists of changing text that talk "bad" of (or do not advertise enough) the Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and other dictators of Iran.

He is especially active on Military of Iran and Iranian military industry. An example of his vandalism Military of Iran.

I wrote almost 99% on both those pages, and on more pages... so it is annoying if the user keeps deleting stuff. The user is also active under the nickname Databot using proxies.

- ArmanJan
 * This looks like more of a content dispute than a simple vandalism issue (which would be reported on Wikipedia:Requests for investigation]])... please see Resolving disputes for some ways to go about resolving this. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 11:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rollback
Previously, rollback advice was to generally use only for vandalism - now its written as a non-optional rule. When did that happen? Was there discussion I missed? KillerChihuahua?!? 00:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the current wording "Do not use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism; please use manual rollback with an appropriate edit summary." It focuses on the problem with rollback, not that it's quick but that it gives no meaningful edit summary.  I've maybe twice abused it, I must admit.  -  brenneman  {L} 00:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If the rollback should only be used for vandalism, then its very neutral edit summary should be changed to state that vandalism is being reverted. Until then, it remains a neutral and usable means of swift undo. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please help
Please protected arcicle: Rapcore. User:Egr / 85.18.14.4 is vandal. Some users reverted edits by User:Egr / 85.18.14.4. This is snap principles 3RR (many times)!!! Though many warning this user not to cut. Please protected arcicle and block users and this IP. LUCPOL 20:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * En.Wikipedia is have blind administrators? Please protected page.

Request for Policy Clarification
Following a speedy deletion I discussed the matter with the administrator concerned and take issue with his views.

The administrator claims to speedy delete about 60 articles a day and maintains that it is unnecessary (unproductive of his time) to make any communication with the authors concerned. While I agree that this is appropriate in the case of hoax material/vandalism, I think that obviously genuine authors who fall short in some of the deletion criteria at least deserve a short note to explain to them what has happened. Based on the administrator's own figures this would only apply to half a dozen cases a day and not take more than a few minutes.

I think that this a minimum level of courtesy that newbie editors deserve (it is most likely to occur to newbies who are unfamiliar with the criteria).

Apart from leaving a very sour taste in the mouth, having ones work disappear like this also leaves one feeling bewildered since one can find no trace of it - the administrator argued that all the relevant information was available in the deletion log, but I think he forgets how large and confusing a place Wikipedia can be for the newbie - I finally found out what had happened to my article after making a post at the Village Pump.

I would be grateful to hear some authoritative views on the matter.

(I have left out specific details because I don't want to make this personal (the administrator feels that I have abused him enough already) ) Rentwa 01:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that in ANY case except pure vandalism/author request, the deleting admin leave a note on the creator/substantial author's user talk page, but I may be alone in that... -- nae'blis 02:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It depends on my mood. I sometimes communicate with the creators of articles I speedy, but I'm not terribly consistant about it, and it's subjective.  If the article makes no attempt to be encyclopedic ("My cat is phat" or "Mr. jameson is a crappy shop teacher") then I probably issue a welcome + finger wagging.  If it's the first edit they've ever made and it's woeful but good faith ("Smash brothers is an x-box game, it has a really good soundtrack") I'll give welcome + WP:SOFTWARE.  If they've got more than ninety contributions and I'm busy, I just delete it and reckon that they will figure it out. -  brenneman  {L} 00:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Further to that (having just logged out and tried it) if you put the title of a deleted article into the search bar you get the "no article" message but the article appears as blue right below that. When you click it, it says "may have been deleted" and links to the deletion log.  Thus making me slightly more confident that anyone but the very nobbiest noob will be able to figure out if I deleted his page.  So, yes it's good to leave a message, but no it's not a hanging offence not to. -  brenneman  {L} 00:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what all experienced wikipedians forget is how large and complicated WP is, and how mysterious are its ways. I was (still am) a noob and honestly had no idea what had happened. I looked at deletion pages but still couldn't work out what had happened. I did put the title into the search and (as I recall) got the 'no such article'. I don't remember seeing a blue link - but I was probably too confused by that stage to proceed calmly and rationally.

I think therefore that Admins should assume assume noobs to be extremely nobby and give them a helping hand if the work appears genuine.

I tend to agree with you on experienced editors - they'll know what's happened, although with what you refer to as unencyclopedic entries I'd tend to be harsher - they too are likely to know what's happened.

The Admin and I are on much better terms now, at least :) . Rentwa 11:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Administrators are not required to have a sense of humor.
Some joker made an edit, for which they predicted that they would be blocked, because "Wikipedia Administrators do not have a sense of humor." I tried to work it into the text, trying to address is that fact that vandalism is not a joke. That is, Wikipedia Administrators are not required to have a sense of humor, at least where deliberate vandalism is concerned. In the end, I prefered the original text, and I backed out my changes. Just FYI in case you wondered. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Right to vanish
I am an admin who thinks its time to leave WP (addiction issues). I see here Meta:Right to vanish that I can delete my user page and talk pages in an attempt to "vanish." It seems odd that I can remove all record of my discussion history (except for Admins who can view/restore). Is that true. Can I just *POOF* delete my pages and disappear? (follow up, can I get a permanent block on my account if I'm concerned about wikiaddition?). 24.29.141.11 23:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

lifelong appointees?
I don't see anything in the article about how long an admin is an admin for after they are approved. I'm guessing it's forever, since there are so many asshole admins around, is that the case?--Paraphelion 07:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the section on Administrator abuse for current ways in which administrators can be removed from their position. There are also other discussions from time to time about additional ways to do so, but none have gained widespread traction as of yet. -- nae'blis 15:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I read some of that, but that is really not what I was asking about. But I suppose your evading the direct question means that barring special proceedures for removal, Administrators are life-long appointees.  Quite odd how this is not spelled out on this entry.--Paraphelion 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The fouth sentence of the article states "These privileges are granted indefinitely and can only be removed by high level intervention."24.20.69.240 04:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's only said that since 18 August! — sjorford++ 18:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "But a few days later Muriel, reading over the Seven Commandments to herself, noticed that there was yet another of them which the animals remembered wrong." --George Orwell, Animal Farm--Matt D 05:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

ONE THOUSAND ADMINISTRATORS!!! SALUTE YO!!!
After witnessing the probable or the likely "auspicious-cum-great Wiki-event" about the two million passing mark record figures of all the Wiki-citizens a.k.a. the Wikipedian Population in this free-online-English-Encyclopedia for marginally more than half-a-month back then (i.e. seventeen days ago to be exact), now get ready for this yet another thrilling moment (not to be missed): BEHOLD!!! --- I truly praise, commend, and greatly congratulate this English Wikipedia ONCE AGAIN for surpassing yet another "Wiki-record" with the ONE THOUSAND (or in figures: 1,000 ) mark of the Wiki-Administrators Population!!! Yet the number of this "Wiki-authorities" and not to mention "Wiki-authoritarians" from this big free encyclopedia are still growing (as stated and based on/in the Wikipedian User Statistics plus) as more Wikipedians are arriving one-by-one and who aspires to become an administrator of this huge encyclopedia are vying and competing tirelessly for their requests of their adminship promotion to be a success! WOW, what else can I say to express here, man!!? Therefore, Congratulations and Kudos to the English Wikipedia! '''Keep the numbers going and keep on upgrading the maintenance work of this Wiki-Encyclopedia to the fullest! Yaaahooooo and I REALLY SALUTE to all ''ENGLISH WIKI-ADMINISTRATORS for their consistent hardwork!!! YEAH!!!' --onWheeZierPLot 10:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. I feel like there's a party going on and I wasn't invited = | --  Netsnipe  ►  19:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC) (Admin #1001)

indefblocked admin?
I know there was one. It was back when the Wiki was young, and I found the name on a list of some sort. Now I don't remember the list or the name. Can anybody help me out? It was... Ivy... Iris... Something like that.  69.145.123.171   Yes, I'm really an IP Sunday, September 17, 2006, 04:57 ( UTC )


 * User:Isis, banned for activities unrelated to the admin tools. See here. Xoloz 15:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

admin hegemony
Centrx, what is speculative about the text you removed? The previous sentence says that standards have risen, which presumably you agree with. Is it not true that existing admins are then not required to go through any process to see if they meet the new standard - something that I think most people would expect to logically follow after a change in standards. It answers the a reasonable question one might have after reading that sentence, "Well, then do existing admins have to go through any process to see if they meet this new standard?" The only speculative part is that admins are the ones mainly responsible for raising of these standards - I admit I have not gone to much length to document this but have rather assumed it to be true based on casual browsing of discussion pages about raising of standards.

As for admins protecting their own userpages - that's negative-true? What's negative about it? I'm not arguing that the above is negative, but why can't this article contain things that are negative? Your argument is that "this page is not a list of all the negative-true things about Admins" attempts to equate my addition of one sentence to turning a medium sized article in to a list of negative-true things about Admins is a logical fallacy, particularly a strawman.


 * Note the 3 people to remove this text are admins, with the following "reasons" :


 * Jim Douglas - Removed clumsily phrased and not particularly helpful editorial commentary.
 * perhaps you could rephrase better; it's helpful for those that wish to understand admins' place within the wikipedia power structure


 * Steel359 - Really isn't worth noting
 * to the surprise of no one, you can't be bothered to mention why


 * Centrx - This is mostly speculation, but even if it were true this page is not a list of all the negative-true things about Admins, we don't need to say, e.g., that some admins protect their user pages
 * at least you bother to explain, even if it's a strawman

I don't suppose any other admins would care to weigh in with anything but a response predictable for this hegemony? --Paraphelion 18:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Paraphelion, I'm not an admin, as you can tell in an instant from glancing at my user/talk page. (I don't even *have* a user page; it's just a redirect to Talk:Jim Douglas.  And I stand by that checkin.  Here's the sentence:
 * However, administrators existing prior to this raising of standards are not subjected to any kind of formal process to see if they themselves meet the new standard, despite that many of these administrators are instrumental in raising of standards.
 * "clumsily phrased", well, that speaks for itself. ("despite that..." isn't even grammatically correct).
 * "not particularly helpful" also speaks for itself. It wouldn't occur to me to ponder whether new standards are retroactively applied...you learn as you go, adapt the standards as necessary, and move on.
 * "editorial commentary" also speaks for itself. Frankly, the sentence sounds like whining, and it has no place here.
 * -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  19:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologizes for thinking you were an admin, though really there is no way to tell from looking at your lack of user page or talk page that you are not an admin. I took no issue with the sentence being clumsily phrased as I have invited you to change it yourself.  'not particularly helpful' is your opinion and of course a valid one, as you claim you don't wonder about whether new stadards are retroactively applied, however I think that is a reasonable thing to wonder, and of course that is my opinion.  'editorial commentary' is purely your opinion and I see nothing about the sentence that is whining, it's just stating fact.  Perhaps an ugly fact, that when stated rather plainly, is so ugly that it sounds like whining.  The statement passes no judgement about whether or not this fact is good or bad.  Though by yours and Centrx's remarks it seems likely you view it as bad.--Paraphelion 19:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What are these "new standards" of which you speak? Why do you think they are initiated by admins, and not agreed to by non-admin users? How would current admins not meet these standards? You must justify why this should be included, rather than imply that it is part of some sort of weird conspiracy. —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you read this article? : "Over time, standards to getting appointed administrator have risen".  Much of the discussion about admin changes and policy changes is by people with admin priviledges.  Current admins might not meet these standards - nobody knows for sure because there is no process to see if they do when standards are raised.  What conspiracy are you talking about?--Paraphelion 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to put too fine a point on it, but it is obvious I'm not an admin. If I was, it would be clearly stated on my (nonexistent) user page.  QED.
 * Is there anything that forces you to state such a thing on your user page?--Paraphelion 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do I view it as good or bad that new standards aren't retroactively applied? No, I don't regard it as anything.  But going out of our way to point it out, in phrasing that reads to me as whining, detracts from the professionalism of the article.  That sentence grated on me (as in this doesn't belong here) when I read the article.  So I yanked it.  Anyway, that's probably enough from me. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  19:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is understood. However since I feel the sentence in question was writen in a neutral tone and describes a fact, that you interpret it as whining and that you are so opposed to the inclusion of a harmless fact into the article suggests that you indeed view the fact as negative.  To put it another way, suppose you agreed with this fact, how less whiney could you phrase it?--Paraphelion 19:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, if it had occurred to me to ponder the point, I would have assumed that new standards are not retroactively applied. And honestly, how would you propose to do so?  Let's say the new standard is (for the sake of argument) that you must have 5,000 edits on the English Wikipedia before you can be considered for being an admin.  How would you propose to retroactively apply that standard?  Fire any existing admins who have 4,700 edits?  Or who only had 3,000 edits at the moment when they became an admin?  The whole question is kind of theoretical unless you want to enumerate the standards you're talking about.  And I still assert that it doesn't belong here.  It's tangential at best, and adds nothing to the article. -- Jim Douglas (talk)  (contribs)  19:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Or if the raising of standards is a more subjective thing, and given fairly ambiguous process to be an admin (discussion and vote), one might just expect a similar process with corresponding discussions with regards to new standards.--Paraphelion 19:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

suggested further reading --Paraphelion 19:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC) -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  20:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Indian caste system
 * WP:AGF