Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 4

Kosovo City names
The UNMIK laws no 1999/24 of the date 12 december 1999 clearly say that the municipalities of Kosovo should be named in its official language (wich is the language of the majority) and evry other name is out of law.All the Kosovo Municipalitys are named in serbian (Wich is out of law).

http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/03albanian/A2000regs/RA2000_43.htm http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/04serbian/SC2000regs/RSC2000_43.pdf

Therefor I see it quite resonable to change the names to albanian - Bindicapriqi —Preceding comment was added at 23:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving
I recently tried to mve this page Pristina to :"Prishtinë" because that is the official name under the following UNMIK(United nations mission in kosovo) rules acording to it only albanian names are legal names for the munisipalities of kosovo. So please move this article because the current name is ilegal -

http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/03albanian/A2000regs/RA2000_43.htm http://www.unmikonline.org/regulations/unmikgazette/04serbian/SC2000regs/RSC2000_43.pdf The UN Law in Kosovo says that the only official names are the names presentet in >A< every thing else is out of Law. RREGULLORe NR. 2000/43 UNMIK/REG/2000/43 27 korrik 2000 Mbi numrin, emrat dhe kufinjtë e komunave --- Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm, Në pajtim me autorizimin e tij të dhënë me rezolutën 1244 (1999) të datës 10 qershor 1999 të Këshillit të Sigurimit të Kombeve të Bashkuara, Duke marrë parasysh Rregulloren nr. 1999/1 të datës 25 korrik 1999, të ndryshuar, të Misionit të Administratës së Përkohshme të Kombeve të Bashkuara në Kosovë (UNMIK) mbi autorizimin e Administratës së Përkohshme në Kosovë dhe Rregulloren Nr. 1999/24 të datës 12 dhjetor 1999 të UNMIK-ut mbi ligjin në fuqi në Kosovë, Me qëllim të qartësimit të numrit, emrave, shtrirja dhe kufinjve të komunave para mbajtjes së zgjedhjeve komunale në Kosovë, Shpall sa vijon: Neni 1 Numri dhe emrat e komunave Kosova ka tridhjetë komuna ashtu siç figurojnë në Tabelën ‘A’ të kësaj rregulloreje. Komunikimi zyrtar nuk përmban asnjë emër për ndonjë komunë i cili nuk figuron në Tabelën ‘A’ të kësaj rregulloreje, përveç që në ato komuna ku komunitetet etnike a gjuhësore joshqiptare dhe joserbe përbëjnë një pjesë substanciale, emrat e komunave jepen edhe në gjuhët e atyre komuniteteve. Neni 2 Shtrirja dhe kufinjtë e komunave Shtrirja e çdo komune dhe kufinjtë e tyre skicohen nga zonat e tyre përbërëse kadastrale. Zonat kadastrale të cilat përbëjnë çdo komunë figurojnë në Tabelën ‘B’ të kësaj rregulloreje. Neni 3 Zbatimi Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm mund të lëshojë direktiva administrative në lidhje me zbatimin e kësaj rregulloreje. Neni 4 Ligji i zbatueshëm Kjo rregullore mbulon çdo dispozitë në ligjin e zbatueshëm e cila nuk është në përputhje me të. Neni 5 Hyrja në fuqi Kjo rregullore hyn në fuqi më 27 korrik 2000. Bernard Kouchner Përfaqësuesi Special i Sekretarit të Përgjithshëm The UN Law in Kosovo says that the only oficele name are the names presentit in >A< every thinks als is out of Law. This is for serbian language.

UREDBA BR. 2000/43 UNMIK/URED/2000/43 27. jul 2000. godine O BROJU, IMENIMA I GRANICAMA OP[TINA Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara, Shodno ovla{}ewu koje mu je dato Rezolucijom Saveta bezbednosti Ujediwenih nacija 1244 (1999) od 10. juna 1999. godine, Na osnovu Uredbe br. 1999/1 od 25. jula 1999. godine Privremene administrativne misije Ujediwenih nacija na Kosovu (UNMIK), sa izmenama i dopunama, o ovla{}ewima Privremene uprave na Kosovu i na osnovu Uredbe UNMIK-a br. 2000/24 od 12. decembra 2000. godine o zakonu koji je u primeni na Kosovu, (hier is oficele user) U ciqu razja{wavawa broja, imena, oblasti i granica op{tina pre odr`avawa op{tinskih izbora na Kosovu, Ovim objavquje slede}e: Clan 1 BROJ I IMENA OPSTINA 1.1 Kosovo ima trideset opstina kao sto je dato u Tabeli A u dodatku ovoj Uredbi. 1.2 Zvani~na komunikacija ne mo`e da sadrzi bilo koje ime za opstinu koje nije naziv odredjen u Tabeli A ove Uredbe, osim u onim opstinama gde etni~ke i jezi~ke zajednice, koje nisu srpske i albanske ~ine znatan deo stanovni{tva, gde se imena op{tina daju i na jezicima tih zajednica. Clan 2 PODRU^JA I GRANICE OP[TINA Podru~je svake op{tine i wene granice su ocrtane wenim sastavnim katastarskim zonama. Katastarske zone koje ~ine svaku op{tinu su odre|ene u Tabeli B prilo`enoj u dodatku ovoj Uredbi. Clan 3 PRIMENA Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara mo`e da donese administrativno uputstvo u vezi sa primenom ove Uredbe. Clan 4 ZAKON KOJI JE U PRIMENI Ova Uredba zamewuje svaku odredbu zakona koji je u primeni a koja nije saglasna sa wom. Clan 5 STUPAWE NA SNAGU Ova Uredba stupa na snagu 27. jula 2000. godine. Bernar Ku{ner Specijalni predstavnik Generalnog sekretara tabel of contens >A<

TABLE ‘A’ (alb) (left names are official names) Emrat e komunave (alb.)IMENA OPSTINA (serb) Albanski Srpski
 * 01 Deçan \Decani
 * 02 Gjakovë \Djakovica
 * 03 Gllogovc \Glogovac
 * 04 Gjilan \Gnilane
 * 05 Dragash \Dragas
 * 06 Istog \Istok
 * 07 Kaçanik \Kacanik
 * 08 Klinë\ Klina
 * 09 Fushë Kosovë\ Kosovo Polje
 * 10 Kamenicë \Kamenica
 * 11 Mitrovicë \Kosovska Mitrovica
 * '12 Leposaviq \Leposavic
 * 13 Lipjan \Lipqan
 * 14 Novobërdë \Novo Brdo
 * 15 Obiliq \Obilic
 * 16 Rahovec\ Orahovac
 * 17 Pejë\ Pec
 * 18 Podujevë\ Podujevo
 * 19 Prishtinë \Pristina
 * 20 Prizren \Prizren
 * 21 Skenderaj\ Srbica
 * 22 Shtime\ Stimqe
 * 23 Shtërpcë\ Strpce
 * 24 Suharekë\ Suva Reka
 * 25 Ferizaj \Urosevac
 * 26 Viti \Vitina
 * 27 Vushtrri\ Vucitrn
 * '28 Zubin Potok \Zubin Potok
 * 29 Zveçan\ Zvecan
 * 30 Malishevë\ Malisevo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bindicapriqi (talk • contribs) 23:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Westside
I recently wrote an article on a comic strip comic strip called "Westside". No sooner than I had finished it, it was tagged with a "speedy deletion" thing on the grounds that I was primarily saying that Westside was bad and the characters were stupid. Apparently there was some sort of misunderstanding or something and my article, which I worked on for a very long time, was deleted. I posted several messages on the talk page explaining why my page should not be deleted and as far as I know (it was late at night and i went to bed soon afterwards) they were ignored. I am not, I repeat NOT trying to insult Westside, its characters, or its creators. I simply tried to make an article that Westside's readers could be pointed to for more information, as I should hope is the goal of your site, and any good encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.196.67 (talk)


 * It had to have been deleted because you wrote it, please have someone else remake the article for you, thanks.--xgmx (T | C | W | P | T)
 * This is not the place for this discussion. xgmx, that comment was out of order. Dont make personal attacks. Jake the Editor Man  ( talk  ) 23:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of English
"Everybody will think you are lame". Should a better phrase be used instead?

Objection to Bias.
Objection! OHnoitsJamie has declared that by informing the public of a company which has operated for 3 years and is the most successful Internet advertising company in Australia, that this information is spam. This is simply not the case and I demand an immediate review of this matter. Commission Monster is a legitimate company and does not in any way endorse or condone spam and as you have a very well detailed page relating to the affairs of Commission Junction, a Chinese owned and American operated company, you must by right also be obligated to cover Australia and the Oceana region. Please review this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glen@commissionmonster.com.au (talk • contribs) 10 August 2006 00:04 UTC.

OBJECTION: The Herschel Grynszpan article has been subject to extreme bias by a writer who refuses to take additional references and criticisms of the presentation seriously. If sources are not reliable, why should someone at Wikipedia have the right to keep using them and to prevent changes in the article? i am really disappointed in Wikipedia. oldcitycat 01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Administrator support
Is there a support system in place for administrators? If not, is anyone interested in creating one? My priorities are changing now with adminship, and I'm not sure how to get my bearings on what I want to do/should do on Wikipedia now. I doubt I'm the only one. A program might prevent admin burnout as well as abuse. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 22:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The support system is asking others for help or advice or bringing things up on Administrator's noticeboard. A formal elaborate system could be appropriate for new users who have no idea what is going on, but for more experienced users what may appropriate is: some essays with advice, and a policy that asking for help is always welcome. —Centrx→talk &bull; 07:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Fang Aili
"Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion."

Fang Aili used this as her only criterion for a speedy deletion of my stub on The Tuna Helpers, which I had planned to expand. She seems to be rather rampant about speedy delete, as one can see on her talk page. I think she needs to be warned about speedy deleting and encouraged to mark pages as candidates for deletion instead, since she clearly has overstepped the rules. I think the article I wrote did make a claim for notability, even if it did not satisfy the guidlines; therefore, she had no right to speedy delete the article. --06:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Articles need to be cited in reliable secondary sources. —Centrx→talk &bull; 07:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It was only a stub so far! Most stubs don't have secondary sources. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If it was deleted for notability-related reasons, you should get some secondary sources together. If there aren't secondary sources, then it does not warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. This is especially important for articles involving living persons. No one doubts that there are secondary sources for stubs on Elementary amenable group or Ant-hill. This is a new article, and there are such doubts for it. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That failing to satisfy notability guidelines is not a speedy deletion criterion is something grossly ignored by the Wikipedia admin community, and this violation of Wikipedia policy is actually embraced by most admins. The immature hall-monitor complex demonstrated to me by most admins, such as calling any negative evaluation of a person whatsoever a "personal attack" is a clear indication that the infrastructure of Wikipedia should not be taken seriously and therefore neither the content that arises from it.

question
Are Bureaucrats are at a higher level than Administrators, or are Bureaucrats and Administrators merely different, but without one being higher or lower than the other? 38.100.34.2 22:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In principle, there is no hierarchy here. Administrators are merely different from established users; well-reasoned opinions given by anyone hold greater weight than any technical position. Now, bureaucrats are certainly highly trusted members of the community who each have a certain amount of personal authority, but administrators also are experienced, trusted users who individually are each more or less reasonable, more or less trusted, and more or less knowledgeable, but this does not mean that bureaucrats simply over-ride administrators or that administrators over-ride editors. In terms of technical powers, bureaucrats have a small set of additional tools for facilitating the functioning of the encyclopedia; see Bureaucrats. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

List
Is there a list anywhere of who are currently administrators? Simply south 23:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Lists of administrators may be found at List of administrators or through Special:Listusers. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Merges
Regards the merge propsal What adminship is not...


 * Oppose I see What Wikipedia is not also has its own page, so I don't see why this issue shouldn't have its own page especially since this is a topic of interest that users need to know more about so as to not to be intimidated by the presence of sysops in articles they contribute to. frummer 01:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Regards the merge propsal What administrators do...


 * Comment depending on how this article evolved, its a simple english version of administrators. frummer 01:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this is not a vote, so your bolded declarations are not meaningful and even if it were a vote would be premature. There is no corrolary to What Wikipedia is not, that is, there is no policy page about "What Wikipedia is". If there were such a policy page, that exactly defined the properties and functions of Wikipedia, then WP:NOT would likely warrant merging into it. It is probably better over-all, though, to describe Wikipedia by what it is not rather than rigidly defining what Wikipedia is in a single page, beyond "it is an encyclopedia". For Administrators however, there is such a positive page, Administrators. It may be reasonable to confine it only to a straightforward technical description, and What adminship is not may not be formal enough to be a guideline. What administrators do looks to be rather redundant, and anything that is not clear in Administrators can be changed to have a simple introductory explanation. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * phew, ok. Its not a vote. RE your comments I think there is a need for What adminship is not even though I dont know where it came from, quite simply due to the issue of general users being intimidated by the presence of sysops in articles they contribute to. Simple as that. frummer 01:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with merging What administrators do. But I think What adminship is not should be kept separately. That one is a nice essay but would be just distracting at Administrators. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the three pages are mostly redundant and belong together.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, What administrators do was originally an essay that advocated against the WP:1FA idea and to some extent the arguments expressed at Campaign for less bull more writing. However, the language was toned down to such an extent this may not be very apparent. Essentiallly, What administrators do argues that you should support candidates in WP:RFA if they want to clear backlogs, even if they don't have a lot of article writing experience. This is a legitimate view for an essay, but is substantially different to Administrators. Regarding What adminship is not, I would support a genuine merge, if that was possible, but strongly oppose deleting this valuable essay on the pretence that it has been merged into Administrators. The concept that admins haven't been promoted is very significant and would have to be stated prominently, in my opinion... Addhoc 11:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that wasn't clear. My point is that what administrators do should be explained in the page on administrators. If What administrators do has some other puprose than to explain what admins do (e.g. to argue for or against certain voting patterns on RFA) then its name is incorrect and should be changed.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, What administrators do was originally entitled Administrators are not here to build the encyclopedia, which is clearly somewhat different. At one stage the essay was deemed too controversial for project space. In the first instance, I would suggest expanding Administrators and then pushing the essays to MfD if you believe that's required, otherwise just slap historical tags on them... Addhoc 14:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why can't what admins are not have its own page like what wikipedia is not?! frummer 20:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should we not attempt to clean up redundant pages?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm neutral on the what admins do merge, but I'm against the WP:ANOT merge: I think it's useful to be able to point to that specifically in discussions, rather than having to dig it up in another page every time you want to refer to it. Also, we're discussing merging and redirecting, not deleting outright, right?  I think deleting could be confusing or annoying for folks that didn't get the memo that the page they used to visit was merged. delldot | talk 22:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This hasn't been touched in almost a month, should we remove the merge tags? delldot | talk 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I oppose merging this article with any other one. Standing alone, it reads more forcefully than if it were a section of another article. YechielMan 04:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

&bot=1
adding &bot=1 to URL used to access a user's contributions, Don't work in new version? Zahiri 19:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A Question
I am relatively new to the site (with an account that is), one thing I have not got my head around is this: How exactly do users become administrators on Wikipedia? Are there pre-requisites one must follow, how many admins are even currently active on Wiki? Any answers would be much appreciated. --Arsenous Commodore 06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The official process is to file a request for adminship, and the community looks at your contributions and discusses whether they think you're ready to be an admin (i.e. will use the tools responsibly). People with about 75% of the community's support for adminship usually pass and are promoted by bureaucrats. There are no official standards for who gets supported as an admin, but different people have different standards for what they will support in their request for adminship.  Usually it's a good number of edits, (many people say at least 2000, but some say you should have at least 5000), a long time on the project (usually ~6 months to a year), a familiarity with policy, and no serious breaches of policy like violations of WP:CIVIL or WP:BITE.  You can read Guide to requests for adminship for more info.  Hope this helps.  Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. delldot | talk 21:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops, forgot to answer your other question: a list of active, semiactive, and inactive admins can be found here. delldot | talk 22:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Rollback button
I suggest that everyone recieves a rollback button. It is extremely difficult for me to control vandalism while I patrol, because I have to do this cloverleaf action to revert a page. What harm could it do? Joecool94 - Bane of Vandals 20:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See WP:ROLL... Addhoc 20:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And WP:PEREN...  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Annoying
Can people be blocked from editing for being annoying? Because if they can man do I have a person needing to be blocked.--Emokid200618 03:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, no, not just for that. You can read blocking policy for info on what people can be blocked for.  Perhaps, though, you should go through the steps of dispute resolution instead.  delldot | talk 18:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would, but I've read his talk page, there's no midway with this guy, either he's right or he annoys you till you give up and he wins.--Emokid200618 02:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you weren't trying to argue fanart as real or disregarding things several editors have told you, it wouldn't be a problem. Vague complaints won't change that fact. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about you, but sometimes you can be a little aggravating.--Emokid200618 18:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Admin Culture
That failing to satisfy notability guidelines is not a speedy deletion criterion is something grossly ignored by the Wikipedia admin community, and this violation of Wikipedia policy is actually embraced by most admins. The immature hall-monitor complex demonstrated to me by most admins, such as calling any negative evaluation of a person whatsoever a "personal attack" is a clear indication that the infrastructure of Wikipedia should not be taken seriously and therefore neither the content that arises from it.

The resources required to express this opinion here imply that I represent, though perhaps not relatively, a vast demographic. To the misfortune of the project, this demographic includes experts on significant academic topics that are presently neglected by Wikipedia. That admin culture would persist in spite of this indicates that admins value their ability to affect the project more than the project itself. How unfortunate.

In consideration of the quote in the "Trivial matter" section, I think Jimbo would be particularly disappointed to see a readout of the common admin's dopamine levels when they mark an article that someone obviously spent a lot of time on with an AfD. 69.142.140.177 12:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Any user can nominate an article for AfD, and Wikipedia articles must at least be verifiable in reliable sources, which are usually trivially easy to find for any notable topic, and for any "significant academic topic". Regarding personal attacks, could you provide some example? —Centrx→talk &bull; 16:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear anonymous user, a lot of time may be spent into an article, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. As we are one of the most frequently visited sites on the web and anyone, even anonymous editors, can edit anything (and creating an article is also possible for anyone as creating an account costs 5 sec), there are hundreds of non-encyclopaedic articles created every day. The Article for Deletion-process takes five days. If every one of these ±1000 unencyclopaedic articles a day would get listed there, reviewed, and eventually deleted after five days, we wouldn't be able to keep up any more. I hope that you can understand how hard it is for us to keep the wiki regulated. Also see What Wikipedia is not, and the guide to writing your first article. Salaskan 13:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin powers
Would it be fair to infer from this project page that the only difference between admins and non-admins is capabilities? And yet according to Deletion process, there are certain additional social restrictions on behaviour, specifically on closing deletion debates (which non-admins are capable of doing in the "keep" case). Is this appropriate? &mdash;Ashley Y 05:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. Similarly, copyvio says "Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue," which may be taken to mean that only an administrator has the right to remove the tag if it's determined that the page is not a copyvio.  I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts on this.  delldot | talk 06:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The problematic guidelines are generally of the form "only administrators should do X, because non-admins are more likely to get it wrong", while the implication of this project page and WP:IAR is that if a non-admin does X and gets it right, they won't be reverted. Far better to mention what things non-admins are incapable of, and impress upon everyone best practice for doing X if non-admins are capable of it. &mdash;Ashley Y 06:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In many cases where actions are limited to administrators, what is really being said is that a trusted user should be the one who takes the action; this really shouldn't come as much of a surprise, because jobs like protecting the Foundation from legal liability (copyvios) or judging community consensus (AFD) are tasks that require a certain level of trust in one's abilities. There are plenty of users who are not administrators but who do qualify as trusted, but it's fairly difficult to set out exactly who these people are. By default, all administrators are trusted users (there are those who would argue exceptions to this rule, but the standard is that users who can't be trusted shouldn't be administrators), so it's often the case that "administrator" gets subbed for "trusted;" once again, this isn't intended to say that all non-administrators can't be trusted, but rather, that "trusted user" is much harder to define (and much easier to wikilawyer around; you can't really wikilawyer around whether or not you have a sysop flag). In practice in most cases, if a job is reserved to administrators but doesn't require administrator access to accomplish, and a trusted non-admin (once again, something we can't really define easily) carries it out, it shouldn't be reverted just because they aren't an admin. There will, however, likely be a lot more controversy surrounding a non-admin carrying out these jobs, as others may question whether the user is in fact a trusted user. Essjay   ( Talk )  10:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is fine, but the "trusted user" is a new concept you're introducing, one that's not mentioned in the policies and guidelines. &mdash;Ashley Y 18:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Animal Face-off
Hello, some vandals keep on vandalizing the Animal Face-Off article? Can someone please do something? Radical3
 * Suggest you consider requesting semi protection at Requests for page protection... Addhoc 18:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

deletion
I recieved an email about deleting the page titled Ithna Ashariya. Ithna Ashariya is also known as twelvers and Imami. I didn't want to duplicate information already on Wikipedia, so I simply left links. If this is still not acceptable, I will add more to the page. Please let me know.

Sfantana 15:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like the page was deleted by User:Kungfuadam and User:Jimfbleak because it had very little content, not enough to provide context for the article. You can see the speedy deletion criteria for a better understanding of which articles get deleted this way.  In this case you may want to consider making a redirect to an existing article, if the meaning is the same.  Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. delldot | talk 18:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"move protected"
Maybe this is minor enough that I should have just been bold, but I figured I'd stay on the safe side. I'd like to suggest a change under Administrators: "Can move move protected pages" to "Can move pages that are protected against moves." I think it will be less confusing and unclear this way (since people sometimes miss double words when reading, this could be taken to mean "can move protected pages"). Any objections to the change? delldot | talk 18:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'd just make it. Although "move protected" should've been hyphenated in the original to avoid that kind of confusion. Trebor 18:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, done. Thanks, delldot | talk 21:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

being and having toys
I've 2 semi-unrelated question: 1) Does one become an administrator somehow automatically, or is 1 voted in? 2) How cin I git me 1 them doohickeys on ma page sais This user is a:/ This user does: and what not (gots all them purty colors an all)?Thaddeus Slamp 00:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In answer to your first question, administrators are voted on at WP:RFA, and if they pass (> 80% support usually) they are made into an admin by a Bureaucrat.

When? Is it after you've been involved for some particular amount of time? Does a user know when they are being considered?Thaddeus Slamp 15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not understand your second question, could you rephrase it please? Prodego talk  01:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You might be after Userboxes. Harryboyles 12:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I was after userboxes. I phrased it that way to express how out to sea I thought I was regarding the subject, and really thought that the best way to express such. I figured them out enough to get every userbox I wanted. I still need to learn how to modify existing ones and create my own, though.Thaddeus Slamp 15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "> 80% support usually"? I think you haven't been looking at RFA lately. At present it's "> 70% usually but also possible with less than that in some cases".  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is? I missed the memo on that one...I was under the impression the community was still tarring and feathering anyone who even mistakenly suggested a promotion under 75%. Essjay   ( Talk )  13:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Check - this - out. Yes, it causes community outcry, but since the 'crats aren't accountable to the community (nor, apparently, to the arbcom, per a recent case), they can simply ignore that.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There have been 189 promotions since that RFA, which was over six months ago. There have been at least that many that have not been promoted, all according to the established standard. You & I are both well aware that there have been hard feelings related to Sean's RFA, but to state that the standard has been altered by that single RFA is misleading, especially when you're answering a new user who has no idea of the politics wrapped up in such a statement. The standard is, and has been for well over a year, 80% for promotion, 75%-79% at the discretion of the bureaucrat, 74% and lower no promotion, barring extenuating circumstances; bureaucrats have always had discretion in making promotions, and there will always be exceptions. It does not change the fact that the 99.9% of RFAs that are not controversial make the rule, not the 0.01% of exceptions. Essjay   ( Talk )  14:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I made three links, not one, and the latest of those happened just a few weeks ago. I don't have statistics handy about how many RFAs pass below 75%, but three out of 190 is 1,6%, not 0,01%, so it happens at least a hundred times more often than you claim it does. Note that I am not stating that this is a problem; I am only stating that RFAs can and do pass under 75%. Obviously most admin nominations are not controversial; the point is that those that are, are decided by whichever crat gets there first, and this is accountable to neither the community nor the arbcom.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware that we were going to be pedantic about it, but if we are, it's 1.6%, not 1,6%. Now, leaving the silliness of "I know what you're saying but want to make a point at your expense" behind, my point remains: There are very infrequent exceptions to the rule, but that does not change the rule. The standard is as I set out above. As for the accountability of bureaucrats, we are accountable to the community, and to the Arbitration Committee; that the AC has not chosen to remove anyone's rights since Ed Poor was asked to step down does not mean they do not have the authority to do so. If I suddenly decided to begin promoting users who had unanimous opposition on RFA, I would quickly lose my status. That some have disagreed with particular expressions of bureaucrat judgment (which, by the way, were supported by just as many users) does not make for an argument that the bureaucrat staff is unaccountable. Essjay   ( Talk )  14:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about a crat going totally insane (obviously he'd be demoted post haste), but more subtle cases of unfairness or double standards. The ArbCom decided here that they will not look into improper RFA closings, so it would seem that crats are not accountable to the ArbCom. And how exactly are 'crats accountable to the community? The community can say what they like, and a 'crat can decide to step down on grounds of that, but can also decide to ignore any and all of it. That's not accountability.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

(de-indenting before we end up with one-word-per-line) If the standard for accountability is "Any bureaucrat decision with which some people object is cause for immediate de-bureaucratting" then no, we are not accountable. If, however, the standard is the same as it is for administrative and editorial actions, then we are quite accountable to the community. In case I've left you wondering, the standard of accountability for administrative and editorial actions is "Those who demonstrate a pattern of bad judgment and abuse of the priviledges granted to them will lose those priviledges." We don't ban editors for one controverisal revert, we don't de-admin administrators for one controversial AFD closure, and we don't de-bureaucrat bureaucrats for one controversial RFA closure. I guarantee that when someone can demonstrate a pattern of repeated bad judgement in the use of bureaucrat rights, the Arbitration Committee will act to de-bureaucrat that individual. That there are only 24 bureaucrats, only 10 of whom are remotely active in using thier bureaucrat rights, and that all of them are sensible, well-respected individuals makes it highly unlikely that such a case will ever happen. It does not mean, however, that if they actually did something that warranted de-bureaucratting it would not happen, and that is what accountability means: If you actually do something for which you should be held accountable, you will be. It does not mean providing for vigilante de-bureaucratting of anyone who makes a call that generates disagreement. "No bureaucrat has actually done anything to deserve being kicked out" does not equate to "The bureaucrats are not accountable." Essjay  ( Talk )  15:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again with the straw men. Nowhere am I suggesting anything even remotely resembling "Any bureaucrat decision with which some people object is cause for immediate de-bureaucratting". You appear to be jumping to the conclusion that I might be part of that old lynch mob; let me assure you that I'm not. My point is that (1) there is no mechanism to appeal bureaucrat action, and (2) there is no mechanism by which the community could remove bureaucrat rights. Thus crats are not accountable to the community (for that matter, neither are admins, although there are mechanisms to appeal admin actions).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who descends to ad hominem when they run out of valid arguments. I will leave it to others to decide whether I know what I'm talking about or not. Essjay   ( Talk )  15:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A bit late, but: I said usually. If I recall, <75 nearly always fail | 75-80 Bureaucrat digression | >80 nearly always pass. Prodego talk  02:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, Essjay, will you look at the sheer hyperbole for a minute? The dialogue goes roughly like this:
 * R: adminship standards are no longer >80%
 * E: O RLY?
 * R: YA RLY. Three links.
 * E: That one link was six months ago. There are no promotions under 75%, except when exceptions are made. Most nominations are not controversial. Bunch of statistics.
 * R: Your statistics are incorrect. Also, you missed two of my three links, one of which was a few weeks ago. I know most noms aren't controversial, but there's no accountability if they are.
 * E: Statistics are pedantry. Crats are accountable, and if one goes insane he'd be stripped of rights.
 * R: I'm not talking about insane, I'm talking about less obvious cases. Crats aren't accountable to the community, since they can simply ignore what the community says.
 * E: You appear to mean that any bureaucrat decision with which some people object is cause for immediate de-bureaucratting.
 * R: No, I never said that. There is no way to overturn a crat decision, and no way for the community to hold crats accountable.
 * E: You have insulted me and I'm going to ignore you.
 * It would really help if you'd look at what I'm actually saying, rather than at what you assume I'm saying.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you mean that at 75-80 bureaucrats wander off-topic, I suspect the word you wanted was "discretion". -- Ben &ensp; TALK/HIST 10:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Change of section title
I have changed "A trivial thing" to "Not a big deal". Trivial implies not necessary, or not hard. That's not the case with adminship, it can be very difficult (we deal with all sorts of hard to get along with people in as reasonable fashion as we can). It is, however, not a big deal. It may seem the same, but it's subtly different. Enough for me to change the title anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Works for me. -- nae'blis 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If an admin engages in vandalism
WP:VAND says Vandalism includes, "Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism."

So when an admin is engaged in this what should be done?

with the summary saying, "(rv; its not great but its better than the alternative...)" and nothing in the talk pages. The admin: William_M._Connolley. -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No good faith edit is vandalism. This is a good faith removal of OR by synthesis. In addition to being good faith, it's also the right action. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How is "the right action" not discussing the changes at all in the Talk pages? He did not claim OR so assuming that is not proper.  He reverted (see Do's of Reverting), essentially deleting most of the article offering only "better than [it was before] ".


 * I guess I still do not have an answer. If an Admin is deleting text in ways that are able to be qualified as Vandalism (blanking or deleting a majority of articles) then what should be done?  Even if someone thinks the above example is somehow justified it is not an isolated incident from the admin in the example or even is it an isolated admin.  The question is a general question. --  Tony of Race to the Right 18:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You have been given an answer, which is that most people would not consider William Connolley's edit to be vandalism. It may or may not be a good edit (I'd need to check everyone's sources to have an opinion on that) but on what I've seen so far, this is purely a content dispute and the fact that William is an admin is irrelevant, and I don't see what you hope to gain by discussing this matter here?  Regards, Ben Aveling 22:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me start over (this time without a specific example) so I know how to proceed (and not with the example above). When an administrator is violating policies (i.e. Vandalism, 3RR, etc) what, where and how is this dealt with? I'm not looking for a ruling on the example above (though the input was appreciated), I want to know the correct process in dealing with situations that are more cut. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mnyakko (talk • contribs).
 * And another question (I know this is not the place but here is the example, so I'll try...) I did not mean to post that unsigned...I just timed out.  Would it be wrong for me to replace the templated information with what s/b my signature (leaving the original timestamp, of course)? --  Tony of Race to the Right 00:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Admins have no special prerogative to decide what is or isn't good content for wikipedia. You are free to revert the article back to your version just as the admin is free to revert it again.  Everyone must be sure not to violate the three-revert rule although admins in content disputes have been known to interpret this rule in their own favor, and/or employ meatpuppets to punish other editors.  As *editors*, admins enjoy no special rights on wikipedia. Wjhonson 01:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Except that you should not be simply reverting at all, and if an admin or any other established user removes text you should be examining the reason why they made that edit and discuss it on the talk page rather than simply reverting back and forth. Your comment just encourages edit warring without addressing the actual issue at all, and also ignores the fact that some admins and other users for that matter are, in removing bodies of text, removing libel or unsourced statements about living persons, for example; those should not be reverted at all. This is not some procedural game about revert privileges or immunity. —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And yours encourages users to cowtow to abusive admins. If the abusive admin has made no comment on the talk page, then there is no reason why any user should assume the removal was valid any more than there is reason to assume the the restoral was invalid.  And you ignore the fact that some admins engage in the very behaviour that they block others for doing.  That's a major problem in wikipedia and isn't likely to be solved here. Wjhonson 06:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, if an admin is actually abusive, you bring it up with Arbcom. Otherwise, it would appear you are just waving at phantoms and ignoring the fact that text is often removed for extremely good reason. You should not be blindly restoring text removed by any established user, nor should you be edit warring with anyone. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Page moves?
Where is the correct Sysop page to go to request a page move reverse. I remember reading that only a Sysop can do a move correctly, so the related links and talk pages stay connected, when both pages already exist. The page that needs moving is discussed here. --Sadi Carnot 22:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:RM KillerChihuahua?!? 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --Sadi Carnot 22:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Skewed Administrator Priorities?
THIS obviously doesn't apply to ALL adminstrators, but rather a tight-knit group of administrators that watch, edit, and constantly revert most changes (however minor) to many Jewish-themed articles. I'm not here to name names, but if one looks at the edit histories of this tight-knit group of administrators almost ALL of their edits are in relation to Jewish-themed articles, somewhere in the range of 75-90%, with some of them close to 100% exclusive editing of Jewish-themed articles.

Now, I understand that certain administrators have certain pet articles or favorite groups of articles usually focused on a single theme that they most like to edit/patrol, but what does it say about the priorities of these powerful administrators that spend 75-90% of their time editing Jewish-themed articles to the exclusion of all other articles, eventually abandoning the rest of Wikipedia for their own set of articles yet still retaining all of the privileges and powers of an administrator with broad powers over the entire project (even though they rarely if ever edit non-Jewish themed articles or even care about them, as stated)? So, I ask: once these administrators get locked in to this cycle of editing only their particular set of pet articles and ignoring the other 99.99% of Wikipedia (even though they are supposed to be the police or 'guardians' of the entire project), are they still looking out for the entire project or just their special sub-set of articles? What admins. are doing the 'grunt work' and looking after the well-being of the entire project while this set of narrow editing administrators ignore the rest of Wikipedia in favor of their special articles and pet projects? These are a few questions I'd like answered...thanks for any replies. --WassermannNYC 04:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The cabal is not required to answer ANY questions. So, nothing to see here, keep moving. Thanks --Tom 14:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I like to call them "administraitors" because of their betrayal of the spirit and cause of the entire project and their increasingly blatant and ridiculous attempts at keeping valid, well sourced, and highly relevant information out of 'their' closely guarded Jewish-themed articles. No group (much less individual) is even able to question the motivations of these people anymore because of their adminisTRAITOR status; this increasingly undermines the credibility the entire project and thus I seek to keep a close eye on these individuals lest Wikipedia becomes so skewed that it is rendered worthless. --WassermannNYC 09:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Settle down, please! There are certain admins who do like to try to throw their weight around but just treat them like any other user. The secret of Wikipedia is that you can do anything you want, as long as you get consensus for it. &mdash;Ashley Y 09:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC) (not an admin)
 * Is their idea of "consensus" ganging up on the people and articles that they do not approve of, vote-stacking, and censoring valid and well-sourced information? --WassermannNYC 09:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have encountered the same in many other topics. It is frustrating.  Perhaps a regular review of admins (or a revote excluding the votes of those who previously voted for the admin) would be a good policy to consider adding. --  Tony of Race to the Right 17:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sentence change
I turned "In a nutshell, administrators are volunteers who originally joined Wikipedia for free at an earlier date." into "Administrators are editors that have volunteered to undertake additional responsibilities." Seems more concise. Teke ( talk ) 05:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've finalized my revision with "Administrators are editors that undertake additional responsibilities on a voluntary basis. They are not paid employees who work for the Wikimedia Foundation." Teke ( talk ) 07:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

im new but ready
I wont to be a admin. on this site! I would be honored to work on wikipedia! so can i?--Mr.Taka 15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you request adminship at WP:RFA, and then are discussed. However, editors like to see a strong contribution record before someone becomes an admin, so that it is known that they can be trusted. It is highly unlikely that you would pass RfA now, so I suggest you hang around and edit awhile. Learn the policies, learn where things are. Administrators don't have much more power then the regular user anyway. Prodego  talk  23:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * People keep saying that (not much power) but the few they get are easily abused and are quite powerful in the effects on regular users. --  Tony of Race to the Right 18:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sysop/Anon conflict
Could you please explain why IP addresses can't become administrators? 68.111.92.229 02:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not possible on a technical level to do it, Mediawiki does not allow it. It doesn't allow it, because IPs change, so it is probable that at some point control of a 'sysop IP' will switch hands, to someone else. Prodego  talk  02:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why has adminship become a big deal?
Jimbo's suggested liberal approach to granting adminship is not followed. Is it explained somewhere why this is so?

Presumably there have been conscious decision made on this - I would hope it's not just instruction creep; but at the same time, the current approach of making adminship a "big deal" seems quite contrary to Wikipedia's general philosophy of openness. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you have to consider that when Jimbo said that, wikipedia had been a very different place. The ideal still holds - we shouldn't be making adminship a big deal, admins are still just editors. But the actual infrastructure of wikipedia has changed a lot, the community has grown exponentially. I don't think it's realistic to try and apply the standards back then to what wikipedia is now. -- `/aksha 09:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is mostly a big deal because, in the old days, RFA discussions were easy since everybody knew everybody else; whereas now, people believe they're expected to vote on candidates even if they don't know them, and so they employ arbitrary and frequently unreasonable metrics in a vain attempt to evaluate the candidate.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Its because you have a sense of POWER over the orthers! Your the "law" you,you can take control of short & long term event and make it to the way you & wiki likes it!so....VOTE FOR ME!!!--Takaomi I. Shimoi 15:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sense of POWER huh? Ironically, the page speaks of admin tools as "powers". -- `/aksha 03:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It does? That should be changed then.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * in the voice tone of Vince McMahon*Yes POWER! Knowing your one step up above the orthers! The fact that you can have the orthers BEGGING YOU TO UNBLOCK THEM FOR THERE HALF-WITTED ACTIONS! POWER!!! The American Dream is to have POWER! POWER AT LAST POWER AT LAST THANK ALL O MIGHTY WE HAVE POWER AT LAST!!! Is that it?!Kanpai!--Takaomi I. Shimoi 16:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's part of it. Where there are people there are power relationships.  Not just humans either.  It's not entirely a good thing, but it's a sensible trade off when compared to the alternative.  Regards, Ben Aveling 22:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Radiant: Thanks... the point about RFAs seems valid, though I'm surprised if that's considered the best solution.
 * Yaksha: Could you explain why exactly those standards don't apply any more, or are you saying something similar to Radiant?
 * I take it that no vote, debate or other form of consciously reasoned decision by the community has been taken on this? --Chriswaterguy talk 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm saying something similar to what Radiant elaborated on. Basically, i'm saying that "adminship is no big deal" is a good philosophy to keep in mind, but it's not really realistic anymore because wikipedia now is very different from what wikipedia was when Jimbo whales said that. Yes, let's not make adminship into a BIG thing. But trying to treat adminship now as it was treated back then just won't work. Radiant outlined one good example of how things have changed because of how big the community has become - given the size of wikipedia now, it's almost impossible to get to know every active wikipedian. -- `/aksha 08:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Part of the answer may lie in psychology: people naturally think in terms of authority, and have trouble trusting their own judgement when they are part of something bigger than themselves. You know, it could simply be the name, which sounds rather "powerful" -- if the title were something like "User-blocker-article-deleter-arbitration-person", people might not think of it to the extent its reached. As it is, though, it's inevitable that many will assume the office is something equivalent to their elected representatives (and not in the proper sense of mere "civil servants"), or confuse them with beaurocrats and/or developers, thinking they are entrusting them with ultra-sensative Wikipedia powers. $$\sim$$ Lenoxus " * " 17:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The name might be a problem (as "administrator" implies authority in the context of most websites and computer networks), but it's really more the fact that administrators do have real power. When you give some users power and privilege of any kind that others do not have, it's inevitable that others will want it, and will work hard in order to achieve it. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; in fact, I find (for myself, and for others) that the desire to become an admin is a motivating factor to contribute regularly and constructively to Wikipedia. Obviously some users don't want to be admins, just like many people in RL don't want to be political leaders or company directors. But Wikipedia, as a community of human beings, is inevitably going to function according to the psychological needs of human beings - and one of those is the desire for power and status. It's quite impossible that adminship could ever not be a status symbol. To assume otherwise is to deny human nature. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  17:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are also people actively trying to damage Wikipedia who would love to have administrator tools. —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Very true - that's why we have such a tough RfA process, to eliminate the possibility that a potential vandal or troll could slip through. And that's partly why RfA is so harsh to inexperienced users; someone has to demonstrate a vast amount of good, constructive work before the community is inclined to trust them with the tools. It's annoying for those of us who want to be admins, but that's the way it is. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  11:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia Guardians:
Please refrain from deleting the neversouth page. I don't know how to use MySpace and this is the closest that I will ever get to understanding technology. Thanks!
 * Sorry, I couldn't help myself. The point is, this is not Myspace, and never will be. If it's any consolation, I don't know how to use MySpace either. Bubba hotep 20:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, try the MySpace help system for whatever your issues are. Also, the article Social network service lists other services you can try, since you're clearly open to them. $$\sim$$ Lenoxus " * " 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Riya Book.png
The image was going through a replaceable fair use dispute, which have not closed yet. I, the unloader, have made have made considerable arguments to validate its fair use, and have made changes to the article that uses the image to conform to Wikipedia principles. It uses a plain fair use license tag, with elaborate rationales, provided with readily verifiable external links (not a logo, promotional, book cover, album art, screen shot or any such specific fair use tag). How did it become an image with a clearly invalid fair use tag; or it is an image that fails some part of the fair use criteria? The fair use dispute was about the first fair use criterion, not a clearly invalid fair use tag. Surely there must be mistake here. Aditya Kabir 13:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"No big deal" section is out-dated
In my opinion, the "no big deal" section should be removed. It may have been accurate in 2003, but I think that this is no longer the case. Indeed, recent ArbCom statements affirm that a higher standard of conduct is expected of administrators. --Elonka 19:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would consider that a fundamental part of the policy, which should never be removed. Adminship is no big deal, it is should be given to everyone who has both the knowledge and the standard of conduct (simple policy following) to use a few extra abilities. Prodego  talk  19:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They must be trustworthy because they have through admin tools great and in some cases irreversible power. —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Policies are changed by consensus - as far as I can tell, there has been no consensus (or even attempt at consensus?) to change the "no big deal" principle as articulated by Jimbo in 2003. This page reflects policy, but current practice does not follow policy. This is not good, IMO. --Chriswaterguy talk 13:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Often, consensus is reflected in current practice, and policy pages are "best practice" written down. The quote is from a different age. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A Diagram or Explaination of Wikipedia's fail-safes?
I'm looking for one, specifically for a research project I'm doing on Wikipedia, but since it is due later today (likely before I get a reply) I would appreciate a link or several links to something like this, including a break down of what automated fail-safes are in place and where users are in respective levels (i.e. User, Editor/Contrib, Admin, DB Admin, etc). If one doesn't exist, I can start a page with one, but I need info first.--P4wn4g3 09:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I found one here. Doesn't explain the automatic processes like I was hoping, but its good.


 * I am not really sure what you mean by "automated fail-safes", but anyway:
 * Normal edits: Any edit can be reverted by anyone. An editor can be blocked by an admin.
 * Admin: Essentially all admin actions can be reverted by any admin. An admin can be desysopped in emergency situations by stewards or a server admin ("developer").
 * Server admin: There is no sure way to prevent a server admin dedicated to doing something bad; this is true of any computer, network, site, etc. But these are especially trusted persons whose identities in the real world are well-known and are legally accountable, and there are backups of the database elsewhere.
 * —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Merely a technical matter
"'It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.' (Jimbo Wales)"

What is he referring to? What is the technical matter that stops us all from having the powers given to sysops? A.Z. 06:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What he means it that admins have more access in the technical sense, but not more authority in the social sense. Friday (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How does the sentence mean that? What I understood was "the fact that the powers given to sysops are not given to everyone is merely a technical matter: if there weren't any technical issue stopping us from giving them out to everyone, then everyone would have the powers." Where did I get it wrong? A.Z. 19:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The other intrepretation makes more sense, but assuming your interpretation: giving them out to everyone would give them to every vandal who creates a sockpuppet; even in 2003 they weren't given out to everyone, and now four years later the environment is much different, as Wikipedia is now a big target for various purposes. —Centrx→talk &bull; 04:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And no-one tried to think about a system that would prevent vandals from being administrators and still let most users be? There are ways to take the admin powers away, but I think the current RfA process has way too much requirements to make someone an administrator, and is rather biased. I think this technical matter -if my interpretation is right- should be solved. Anyway, someone that knows Jimbo could ask him which one of the two interpretations he meant and what is the technical matter that prevents most of the users from becoming administrators. A.Z. 04:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can conceive of a system that prevents vandals from being administrators while letting most users be administrators, that would be great, but there is no such system unless all administrators were required to supply proof of identification to the Wikimedia Foundation. While admin powers can be taken away, there are several admin actions that are not reversible, and those become huge problems if it is easy to create admin sockpuppets. —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Which admin actions are not reversible? A.Z. 05:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Bearing in mind the recent spate of admin account hijacks, it might not be too clever to provide an enterprising vandal with a list of how to create the most mischief. See WP:BEANS. Rockpock  e  t  06:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So there are irreversible admin actions? And we, non-administrators, cannot know what they are --is that what you're saying? A.Z. 20:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are things that can be done with the additional tools that are much more difficult to restore, and can cause serious damage to the project, yes. Have you read the don't stick beans up your nose essay? It's a good reason why not to be too specific, sorry. If it helps, many admins don't know how to do these things, either. 20:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That is the only possible reason why administrators need to be trusted, and we are not allowed to know what it is! How are people supposed to decide whether someone will "abuse the tools" if they don't even know what the tools are and what the tools can do? A.Z. 20:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (de-indent) That's not what I said. The tools are automatic rollback, blocking/unblocking, viewing deleted edits, deleting/undeleting, protecting/unprotecting, and editing protected pages. There are a few unorthodox things that can be done with them that are not helpful, but they are the sort of thing you'd get desysopped for in short order. In addition, some of the 'irreversible' things are social, like deleting content maliciously or blocking for personal reasons; contributors have left the project over those sorts of 'uses of the tools'. -- nae'blis 20:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I thought there was something like "secret" tools. Well, thank you, then! You have answered my original question! A.Z. 20:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Over enthusiasm
How do I report an admin whom I feel has been "over enthusiastic" in their duties. For example, en mass deletion of images without notice and within about 2 minutes of an apparent infraction?

perfectblue 15:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The first step is to talk to the admin in question and explain the problem. —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Security
I propose adding the following statement to this policy:
 * Administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, stewards and oversighters discovered to have cryptographically weak passwords will have their privileges removed on grounds of site security.  This means that if your password can be cracked by someone running one of the many quite sophisticated open source password crackers available on the internet, we will take away your admin bit before someone "borrows" it for malicious purposes.

--Tony Sidaway 15:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea, I think this should be added immediately. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By all means. Though I don't think the bolding in the middle is necessary. &mdash;Cryptic 15:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Add it. – Steel 15:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Added. It's a description of what will happen - David Gerard 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as a bad measure, however, do bureaucrats, stewards or developers agree with the change? Otherwise, who would remove the bits? -- ReyBrujo 15:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if Jimbo's password is walesj... Luigi30 (Ta&lambda;k) 15:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a technical solution to this? Otherwise, how are we going to know whose passwords are secure and whose aren't? Howcheng 16:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. The developers run a script to crack passwords.  The ones who get cracked have weak passwords. --Tony Sidaway 16:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * short term yes longer terms there are various bits of software around the reject weak passwords.Geni 17:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, please see Security for a proposed policy. Please edit and improve. --Tony Sidaway 16:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Revoking admin rights for weak passwords --when the admin will not necessarily know it is a weak password until it has been cracked -- sounds a little over-preemptory--perhaps it should rather been suspended until the admin changes to a secure password. DGG 19:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's pre-emptive yes, but not overly so. The alternative is to let a random script kiddy play with the buttons.  If the admin doesn't know he has a weak password and this is compromising Wikipedia's security, he cannot be trusted with the tools. --Tony Sidaway 20:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What is really considered a "weak password"? &mdash; Deckiller 20:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "password". :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I remember back in the so-called "good 'ol days", you know, AOL 3.0 and earlier. My mother made my first s/n and password. It was so pathetic. Speaking of which, I've had my current AOHell screenname since 2000. It must be close to a record :) But I digress. &mdash; Deckiller 20:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, that's back when we didn't have MMORPGs. We used to have Chatroom simming. :) I led a guild of like 40 kiddies (some of whom couldn't even sim!) that "owned" a chatroom in late 1999-early 2000. We were allied with the guild that "owned" EA Star Wars Chat. I even made my own weekly newsletter (I was "General Tyler"), copied after our allied guild :) I used to brag about it. I digress again. &mdash; Deckiller 20:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, though. the sanction should be designed to correct the situation, not punish. DGG 23:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm all for an emergency de-sysopping for any potentially compromised admin account, but I don't see why it would need to be a permanent effect. Remove the mop, make sure they realize the reason why and have addressed it, then give it back. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 23:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, this can turn into a huge problem if any more admins are compromised. Four is too many as is. Darthgriz98 23:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Four admin accounts with really poor security. Four liabilities.  We can do without such liabilities.  --Tony Sidaway 23:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to strongly disagree with a punitive de-sysop for having a weak password. Joyous! | Talk 01:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Since all of the accounts to be hacked so far are active/semi-active admins, it may be a deliberate attempt to cut our numbers. Don't fall into the trap, Tony. -- nae'blis 20:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, possible. But again, these were liabilities and in my opinion we're better off without them. --Tony Sidaway 20:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The current text at WP:Security is suitably non-draconian. DGG 04:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not even weak passwords anymore, User:KnowledgeOfSelf was hacked this morning, he claims he had a stronger mixed number and letter password. This is extremely discomforting. Darthgriz98 15:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently that case is enough of an outlier for us not to get to worried about it. --Tony Sidaway 20:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

0.03%
According to Wikipedia's statistics we only have 0.03% of the wikipedian community that are administrators. I don't know if that includes all the user accounts that are socks, but assuming half of the accounts on wikipedia are socks that still only leaves us with 0.06%. According to wiktionary they have 0.14% sysops. Given my belief that wiktionary is running a little smoother, perhaps we should take to this model. Hence, I propose we should increase our the amount of sysops in the next year by 100%. We would need to recruit approx 1,200. --CyclePat2 18:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * hmmmm, is someone wanting to be an administrator!? :-) I fully support promoting more administrators, the problem is getting them through RfA, people need to be nommed and people need to be trusted by the community. You might wish to discuss this at WT:RFA.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that's not 0.03% of the "Wikipedia community", that's 0.03% of all registered user accounts, which includes millions of vandal, throwaway, and non-editing accounts. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there are over 3m registered accounts. It would be nice to have statistics of active users and active administrators, which are more accurate. I agree, though, that more administrators would be welcomed, there are over 30,000 images that need to be verified and deleted right now. -- ReyBrujo 20:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As of September 2006, Wikipedia had 43000 "active" editors (5+ edits per month), of which 4330 were "very active" (100+ edits per month). In September '06, we had about 1050 admins, of whom just above 800 were active (see Image:En-admin-vs-article-growth.png). Thus, the figure 0.03% underestimates the admin-editors ratio by a factor of about 60. Realistically, admins comprise 1.9% of the "active" Wikipedia community. I still think that's a lower percentage than would be desirable, but that's a different matter. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5 edits per month is pretty low. You could probably cover all the needs of 1000 people with 5 edits per month with only 1 administrator. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 100 edits per month is about 3 edits a day, which is not "very active" but "slightly/reasonably active" in my opinion. If 800 of 4330 "reasonably active" editors are admins, this is about 18%, which is not too low. Personally I think that 25% or so would be a better percentage, but there's no real problem at the moment. Salaskan 13:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The users who make very few edits are generally the vandals, who are the ones requiring most of the admin effort. Of the regular users, a few troublesome ones take most of the remaining work. Admins have very little involvement with 90% of the active people, which is just as it should be.  DGG 01:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with falsely claiming to be an admin?
I mean, it's never good to lie, of course. But why is lying about being an admin worse than anything else? -Amarkov moo! 22:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because when someone lies about that, it's usually either to intimidate in some way by means of implied authority. "I'm an admin, stop adding that or I will block you".  &mdash;dgies tc 23:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Someone lying about being an admin is not understanding the basics of adminship: that it is just a bit in the database, not a big thing, and would probably only use it to pull rank between less experienced users. It would be like a similar situation we had relatively recently, where a user did say he was something he wasn't. -- ReyBrujo 05:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is lying, and that's not something an admin should do. Admins should be trusted members of the community. Salaskan 13:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User page protection
I think it'd be a good idea if the user page of an administrator would automatically be fully protected when the user gets promoted to admin status. An admin can edit fully protected pages and thus doesn't experience any harm from that measure, whilst vandals wouldn't have the opportunity to vandalise that page any more (especially vandals who get blocked or otherwise warned by the admin in question). What about this idea? Salaskan 14:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not an administrator, but I don't think this idea presents downsides. Chensiyuan 14:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not much point. Any page that is vandalized can be reverted easily, and userpages are exceedingly low-impact compared to templates, articles, and categories. Mine's been vandalized a few times (once?) since I became an admin, and usually other people revert it before I ever notice. This seems like a solution in search of a problem; if a particular admin's userpage is being targeted for vandalism/retribution, then it does usually get protected, or the offending editor blocked. --nae'blis 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC) (not logged in at present)


 * Bad idea. Aside from being anti-ethical to the idea of a wiki: that things should be editable in the absence of a good reason otherwise, it also raises practical problems.  What if a regular editor notices a (hopefully accidental) fair-use violation?  What if they want to leave a barnstar?  What if a userbox or category gets moved or deleted?  A (non-admin) bot usually performs a mass automated cleanup but can't if it's protected.   &mdash;dgies tc 19:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah this is a bad idea, wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Also, it sort of puts admins above regular users allowing them to have their userpage protected. However, I strongly suggest all admins having their user/user talk move protected.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  19:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Protecting the pages of admins would make the impression that admins are somehow a higher class of users, and defeats the purpose of a wiki. Sure, the average admin may get a little more vandalism on their userpage than the average user, but not so much as to warrant a protection. Sr13 16:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's needed, admins can, and do, protect their user pages. In most cases, it isn't needed. For example, my userpage has only been vandalised once since I became an admin, as far as I can remember. --Tango 19:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You guys totally convinced me. I guess it wouldn't be a too bad idea to protect the user page of any editor though, but there are no real problems right now.  Sala Skan  19:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice sig, by the way! Sr13 03:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Creepy. If an admin's own userpage needs protection, I think that person is the best judge. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In some ways vandals being able to target admins' userpages is a good thing. If vandals are wasting their time on my userpage, at least they are leaving the encylopedia alone. My userpage is viewed much less than our articles - if vandals are going to replace a page with obscenity, I'd rather it was my userpage than the main page featured article... WjBscribe 08:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for help
Hi, since I'm not too familar with :en-Wikipedia's procedures I'm posting here, hoping for some help. I'm trying to regain my initial account User:Nemissimo on the :en. It would be great if anyone could help me to access it again. Since the account is clearly stating that it is mine (interwikilink) it should be possible. I highly appreciate any help with this. Kind regards from Germany. My Userpage on the German Wikipedia --Nemissimo II 16:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin complaints?
How on Earth do we go about complaining regarding incompetant or absive admins then? Recently Spartaz unilaterally decided to overturn a perfectly valid and justified indefinite block of a persistant, abusive, disruptive sockpuppeteer. Spartaz did so without any consultation and following just a few days of apparantly contrite, spurious edits to the vandal's talk page. This is pathetic, and is just as much an abuse of privilage as blocking without reason. Pyrope 09:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Requests for comment/User conduct--Addhoc 12:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Authority
I think these information should be added to the page. A.Z. 03:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone disagrees, please post your reasons here. If anyone agrees, please post your support here. A.Z. 03:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not agree, at least with the wording. As far as closing afd's is concerned, authority implies more than we really have--we have permission to determine consensus, and that's all we have. Alternatively, we have the responsibility of determining consensus. DGG (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree as well. It is not about authority.  That makes it look like being an admin is a big thing which is is not supposed to be. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that permission to make a decision is authority, and that's why I think the information should be added to the page. But I don't agree with administrators having more authority than other users. Why not allow regular users to determine consensus as well? Allowing only administrators to do this does look like being an admin is a big thing, which is why I think they shouldn't be the only ones allowed to determine consensus, when anyone else could easily do the same job. I thought administrators where just users that had some extra tools. (I know that this page about them says that the community also expects them to do certain jobs, which would make them responsible for them as well, but I disagree with that: I think an administrator can choose to do or not to do administrator jobs as they wish, just as an editor can choose to edit or not to edit.) Anyway, adminship is supposed to just give them a mop and a bucket (and possibly that responsibility that the page talks about), but no authority. Allowing them to use the tools isn't the same as allowing them to decide when and how the tools should be used, since that's the job of the community, and administrators should just try to act according to consensus (for example, deleting only articles allowed to be deleted by the community). Allowing them to have the tools doesn't mean that the group of admins has more authority: it just means that they're trusted enough so that they won't use them to harm the encyclopedia, and so they are allowed to do the jobs that take extra tools. But determining consensus and closing deletion reviews doesn't take extra tools, it just takes normal tools that every editor has, so there's no reason for this task to be forbidden to users who are not administrators, except that they have more authority. A.Z. 04:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Non-admins are welcome to, and often do, determine consensus in non-controversial xfDs when the clear result is to keep. I doubt anyone would argue if you closed a discussion appropriately. The community asks admins to determine consensus on controversial or unclear decisions because the individual has been selected by the community for, among other things, their understanding of policy. If any editor could close any controversial xfD, then they would all be contested, re-opened and reclosed ad infinitum. Moreover, in processes where the outcome requires the use of tools (delete/undelete), there is little point asking a non-admin to close, since they do not have the requisite tools to complete the process. Asking admins to determine consensus in these non-unamimous situations is simply a matter of practicality.  Rockpock  e  t  05:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that, but it does give them more authority than other users anyway, however whatever the justification. We could write "besides access to technical features, administrators also have more authority on certain deletion reviews, due to their understanding of policy, but only for practicality".


 * Gving them more authority, in my opinion, is worse than being unpractical. I think it would be best to write on the deletion review page: "editors who understand policy well determine consensus".


 * The following argument, "if any editor could close any controversial xfD, then they would all be contested, re-opened and reclosed ad infinitum", is like saying "if any editor could revert any controversial edit, then they would all be contested, reverted again and reverted again ad infinitum". It's fear of openness, with all due respect. A.Z. 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * it's a matter of experience and trust. Any editor with sufficient experience, who wants to close debates, can apply to become an administrator, and if they have shown this experience by participation in policy discussions and XfDs, and have done so in a way that in consonant with the general feelings of people here, and are willing to assume the responsibility, will probably succeed in doing so. There is a problem with people without sufficient knowledge of what is generally acceptable doing so. There can be a problem with admins doing so also, and I think editors should be encouraged to use deletion review more, and that many more people should participate in these discussions. Frankly, I've never wanted to close debates--I would much rather argue in them. DGG (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * On your last sentence: I never intended to close a debate, I just meant to re-open an inappropriately closed debate, but Rockpocket argued that administrators should do that, not regular users. A.Z. 19:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)