| Revision as of 04:22, 25 July 2008 editMsTopeka (talk | contribs)62 edits →Sorry to bug you here: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:22, 23 January 2025 edit undoTamzin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators69,690 edits →Question about wheel: all about whether there's new informationTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header|search=no|archives=no}} | |||
| {{talkheader}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk" | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages Help Project|class=NA|importance=top}} | |||
| |- | |||
| }} | |||
| |<big>'''NOTE:''' This talk page is '''not''' the place to post questions for administrators. For questions, go to ].</big> | |||
| {{Policy talk}} | |||
| |} | |||
| {{Tmbox | |||
| {{Template:Notable Citation|''Stvilia, B. et al. ''''. University of Illinois U-C.}} | |||
| |text = '''NOTE:''' This talk page is '''not''' the place to post questions for administrators. | |||
| * For general questions, go to ]. | |||
| * For administrator specific questions, go to ]. | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Tmbox|text ='''NOTE:''' This talk page is '''not''' the place to request access to administrator ]. For requests for adminship, see ].}} | |||
| {{Notable Citation|''Stvilia, B. et al. ''''. University of Illinois U-C.}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{Talk archive navigation}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| |counter = 24 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(30d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archives|bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=30}} | |||
| {{Archivebox|search=yes| | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="270px" | |||
| ;] | |||
| |- | |||
| * Archive ] {{Middot}} ] {{Middot}} ] {{Middot}} ] {{Middot}} * ] | |||
| !align="center"|]<br/>] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ---- | |||
| }} | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| *]: Sep 2002 - Jul 2003 | |||
| *]: Jul 2003 - Dec 2005 | |||
| *]: Jan 2005 - Oct 2006 | |||
| *]: Oct 2006 - Jul 2007 | |||
| |} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == New feature == | |||
| == RFC: Resysoppings after five years with no administrative actions == | |||
| I think an excellent new feature in Misplaced Pages would be an "admin timeout" feature for all admins. The idea is simple: for a period of time, on a regular basis, administrators should have their administrative privileges turned off. Maybe a certain number of days a week. That way, they would remember what it means to be a min-admin user. It would be simple to rotate through the administrator userbase and always ensure that some percentage of them have their administrator features blocked. Of course, they could still make content contributions, but they would be a lot more thoughtful about wheel wars, etc.--] 01:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{closed rfc top|1=There is '''consensus for Option 2'''. Although Cryptic's proposal also received some support, there is no clear consensus for it. —] (]) 14:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I personally disagree. I think I understand what you are talking about. I heard that Misplaced Pages needs more admins than less. Perhaps it may be a good idea just to keep their administrative tools. I am not sure about taking away admin tools of admins that do not engage in wheel wars or use the tools profusely. I am not an admin; please pardon me if my voice will not be recognized. — ''''']''''' <sup>'''(]/])'''</sup> 02:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * This change has now been implemented. —] (]) 14:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| In ], should the policy regarding {{tpq|Over five years since administrative tools were last used}} for restoration of adminship apply to: | |||
| :They can "remember what it's like" by just logging out or using a different account. What is the point of preventing people from doing productive administrative tasks because of the rare actions of a miniscule number of admins? If an admin causes problems, he can be desysopped. This proposal does not happen to be listed on ], but it is one. —]→] • 02:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Option 1: Only those former administrators desysopped for inactivity | |||
| *Option 2: All former administrators | |||
| ] (]) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Background=== | |||
| At ], ] pointed out that the rule allowing automatic resysopping at BN only within five years of the most recent administative action only applies to admins who were desysopped for inactivity, not those who resigned the bit or who lost it for other reasons. The ] clarifying when we start counting the 5 years from resulted in a reversion of ] that applied the 5 year rule to all desysopped editors, despite not discussing that. Indeed my reading of the 2022 comments suggests most commenters anticipated it continuing to apply to all editors. Accordingly, I think we should get explicit consensus for one or the other. ] (]) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Survey (five year rule)=== | |||
| == Dynaflow == | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. I believe that all former admins should be required to pass RFA (or an admin election or any other equivalent process) if it has been more than 5 years since their last admin action, and per my comments above. ] (]) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *As the person who started it, it was not my intent to change that part of the policy with that RfC. Best, ] (]) 22:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Procedurally, I don't think that there has ever been a consensus to apply this to all ex-admins, but I don't have any objection to making that policy now. This should probably be better-advertised, though, as it would affect quite a few former admins like me who remain active and might respect a right of resysop at any point in the future. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Please feel free to advertise this wherever you think is relevant. The goal is to establish what the consensus is now, not what the consensus was at some point previously. ] (]) 23:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I think that the motivation for requiring an administrative action within the past five years isn't affected by whether or not the admin in question requested removal of their privileges in the interim. Thus I agree with modifying the policy so the five-year requirement applies equally, regardless of why administrative privileges were removed. ] (]) 05:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *It's clear that prior consensus was option 1, but I think changing to option 2 would be logical. OTOH, we could always use more admins and someone requesting resysop after five years may still be a net positive. Perhaps it's better to stick with '''option 1''' and leave the rest to 'crat discretion? ] </span>]] 06:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''': not convinced there's a strong enough reason to treat these two groups differently. (It's always seemed kind of crazy to me that {{noping|Andre Engels|label1=someone who resigned twenty years ago}} is still technically eligible for resysop.) ] (]) 08:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *It makes little sense to treat the two groups of ex-admins differently, especially with the 100/5 rule. An admin who goes to ] and resigns the day before they would be desysopped is doing the honourable thing, but that isn't really a reason to treat them better (indefinitely) than the ex-admin who was on vacation the day before the desysop. Agree with Tamzin that this should probably be advertised better before we lock out some good people, though. —] (]) 09:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Support Cryptic's version''', superior to Option 2 and to the status quo. —] (]) 19:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *My thought would be that we should treat someone who resigned the bit the same as we'd treat someone with the same profile who hadn't resigned the bit. So if they would have been desysopped at some point anyway, then apply the rules for a resysop. But on the other hand, if that editor actually wouldn't ever have been desysopped anyway but for their decision to resign, I'm hesitant to treat them more harshly than someone who simply kept the bit and didn't use it. It's good for the security of the project if editors who don't need adminship for a period of time give it up on a technical level and I don't think we should change the rules to deincentivise that. — ] (]) 09:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I feel mixed on this. On the one hand, should an admin who's active within the community and gives up their tools be allowed to pick them back up at any time? I somewhat feel like, yes, but I also recognize that going 5 years without the tools and then picking them back up can be something that people would not be a fan of. ] (]) 13:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' Thanks for the ping. No reason to treat both groups differently. ] (]) 16:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2''' ] ] 17:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' - it just makes sense. --] 17:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. We should apply the same standard that is already in place for former admins who have no edits in the past two years: "regardless of the reason for removal, the editor will need to request reinstatement through the WP:RFA process". --] (]) 18:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm going to go against the grain and make things gratuitously complicated. Leave the existing 5-year rule as-is for admins dropped for inactivity; measure it from the date of resignation for the rest. (Equivalently, treat resignation as an admin action.) This disincentivizes making a pro-forma deletion the day you resign, treats admins who usually use tools that don't leave logs (like viewdeleted or editing protected or MediaWiki: pages) the same as those who use ones that do, and matches up with the total inactivity rules. —] 18:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I actually like this suggestion best so far.Basically we pretend that inactive admins resigned when they stopped using the tools. —] (]) 18:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' per above. Only option that makes sense -] 10:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''2''' and to be clear, this should be evaluated at the time of the request. This was always a messy timing issue that has caused contention. — ] <sup>]</sup> 10:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2: All former administrators'''. I'm on a see-saw regarding adding a clause that it should count from resignation, but it does make cleaner and clearer sense to make it a strict rule that it's five years since last tool use. ] (]) 16:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Support Cryptic's version, with Option 2 as a second choice. If you haven't been an admin for that long, you should probably make sure you still have community support. ] (]) 16:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2'''. This is a no-brainer for me - as I see if, it makes no difference on the voluntary nature of your desysop, if you haven't used the tools for 5 years, you cannot be considered up to date with what's going on Misplaced Pages and any culture shifts in that time period. Running through RfA should be required. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 16:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Option 2 or Cryptic's idea, either is equally fine with me. In the olden days, like 2010-2015ish, I'm pretty sure it worked similarly to option 2 anyway (except it was like 2 or 3 years? Am I misremembering?) --] (]) 22:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:You might be thinking of the total inactivity rule, which says anyone without any edits for two years (and was previously zero edits over three years). <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 00:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' as reducing ] while making more sense. Fewer "if"s to keep track of. <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 00:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' Agreed with Toadspike that the prior consensus probably was Option 1, but as HouseBlaster notes, this minimizes ] by eliminating an exception to the rule with a common-sense judgement that those who voluntarily desysop and go ≥5yrs without admin activity can no longer stake an automatic claim to continued community support ] ( ] ) 08:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Option 2'''.] (]) 15:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Cryptic's rule''' or '''Option 2''' both fine. Per Extraordinary Writ and Cryptic. ] (]) 21:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' - a lot has changed on enwiki in 5 years and so have policies, so I think it would be wise to ensure that someone regaining the tools is up to date on all of them and not just default-grandfathered in because they were able to wield them many years ago. ] (]) 16:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''': Should apply equally to all ex-admins. Five years is a long time for any admin, and also applying it equally to every ex-admin would reduce bureacratic hassel (e.g. resigning under dubious conditions?).--] (]) 05:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Cryptic's rule''' I agree that we need to have some measure of consistency, and I especially like Crpytic's idea of effectively counting voluntary resignation in itself as an admin action. ] (]) 03:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Discussion (five year rule)=== | |||
| Anybody know what happened to Dynaflow and his RfA? --] 14:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Notifying those who participated in the 2022 RFC: {{ping|Primefac|Barkeep49|Floquenbeam|Tamzin|Just Step Sideways|Isaacl|SilkTork|UninvitedCompany|Coretheapple|Worm That Turned|Kusma|Bilorv|Jc37}} ] (]) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *A variant of this failed to pass at ]. —] 23:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I tend to think that if you haven't used the tools in five years, you ought to go through either RFA or the election rather than just having it handed back. I'd imagine most former admins who resigned while not under a cloud could pass either pretty easily. Realistically, such users already have not been an admin for five years. Or... just thought of this, we now have Re-RFA as a result of recall, where standards are a little more lax for passing, that might be the way to go. ] ] 23:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I agree with both thoughts. But if they could easily pass, wouldn't it be better to save community time and just resysop them directly? ] </span>]] 06:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::But what about the ones who would not pass? ] (]) 08:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Discussion added to ] for visibility as it involves a policy change. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I'll cop to this ambiguity being basically my fault as I was the one who proposed this rule in the first place. At the time it was exceedingly difficult to make any changes to the admin activity policy and I believe I phrased it this way out of caution, deliberately aiming as low as possible. ] ] 21:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I resigned as an administrator 10 years ago because I was switching careers and moved back to NYC, so I was going through an inordinate amount of stress. I would like to be able to get the extra tools if needed. ] (]) | |||
| * If this change is going to be made, is it going to be retroactive, or only apply to five years of inactivity going forward? At the very least, people like {{U|Bearian}} should be notified that a potential change is going to affect their status. ] (]) 05:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:That's probably worth discussion as a separate question, with notifications to those affected (former admins who resigned, whose last logged action was ~four or more years ago, and who have edited within the last two years) and all those who have commented above. It's worth noting though that previous changes to the activity policy have implicitly applied retroactively without (as far as I spotted) notifications to those affected (], ], ], ]). ] (]) 05:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Notifications were sent out after the 2012 change—see . I don't think they've been used recently, though. ] (]) 06:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::As we mature as a site, we need to be more intentional about the growing body of people affected by changes: If proposed changes are going to be retroactive--which is clearly the community's right--then the affected persons need to be notified and invited to participate or exercise their current privileges, if desired, before any modification is effective. This is a bit of a sore subject for me, as I was disenfranchised from Arbcom elections a few years back by a change in activity calculations I was unaware of until it had become effective. ] (]) 07:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Grandfathering would be almost pointless, as it would mean anyone with 5+ years of non-adminship would effectively get ''another'' five years before they were ineligible. I would be perfectly fine with giving a delayed implementation and/or an MMS sent out to the affected former admins, but not starting the clock fresh. ] (]) 13:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::What seems to have happened in 2012 was that those affected were sent a mass message just under a month before the change was implemented. Assuming this RFC is closed in early December, then implementing the change on 1 February 2025 would give people plenty of time to request the tools back if they are still engaged with the project. ] (]) 14:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{closed rfc bottom}} | |||
| ==Discussion at ]== | |||
| == No big deal == | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] 21:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] --> ] 21:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Notification of RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation == | |||
| I think that Jimbo's "no big deal" quote should be removed. It has nothing to do with reality. It is hypocrisy. If you denied Jimbo and his friends all access except regular user access, it would be a big deal to him. It is very easy for the "haves" to be smug.--] 16:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| There is an RfC on seeking tools via a voluntary RfA after resignation at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)|RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation}}. ] (]/]) 21:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it should just be made clear that, while it is ''far'' from being true, it's a desirable ideal. ] 19:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Question about wheel == | |||
| ::It isn't a big deal. Everyone has to follow policy, we can just implement the few commands that are not safe to give to everyone. (] ? (]) 17:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] links here when it says "Unblocking will almost never be acceptable when it would constitute wheel warring" but this page states "When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a decision by consensus." It's unclear to me if WHEELing would involve an initial unblock without consensus/consulting the original blocking admin or if this only becomes relevant if a third admin comes by and reverses the unblock. Because if it's the latter meaning, the link here from unblocking doesn't really make sense. ] ] 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Since almost everyone in WP does consider it a big deal, the advice while it may be very much needed is a little ironic. My reaction when I first saw that line, was that it isnt a big deal--to him. Perhaps it needs some context.''']''' (]) 18:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :My understanding is that the first block and the first unblock are allowed. Then anything after that, without a corresponding discussion to get consensus, is wheel warring. That first unblock can sometimes be unpopular and go against the guidance of checking with the blocking admin, but I think it's allowed under policy and is not wheel warring. –] <small>(])</small> 14:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For some, adminship is a big deal. However, there are users who consider adminship to be a "no big deal". ] (]) 05:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If A blocks, B unblocks, C reblocks, and D reunblocks, all without discussion, then C and D are wheel warring as they reinstated a previous administrative action without clear discussion to establish a consensus view. The first reversal is allowed by the community as it desires quick reversals of problematic actions, but the reversal should be followed by discussion. In theory, if the community enacted an editing restriction enforced by a block until a given condition was met (for simplicity, let's say a partial block), and A unblocked, B reblocked, and C reunblocked, without discussion, then C would be wheel warring. ] (]) 23:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: On the other hand, if A's block happened in 2018 while B, C, and D all acted this week, I'd say only D is wheel warring even if A's original block was done without a prior discussion. At some point (and I'm not going to try to define when exactly that point is) the original block becomes a ''status quo'' and B's unblock can be seen as a fresh action rather than a reversal of the prior action. ]] 13:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To the IP who posted this: Touche, however, you have to remember that Jimbo is the founder, a member of the board of Trustees, and the former chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation. Unlike administrators who use their powers to stop vandals, delete articles, and carry out other maintenance tasks, Jimbo actually holds a high position of authority. Removing Jimbo's powers would be removing his right to excersize his authority as founder and member of the board of trustees, which yes, is a big deal for him. Adminship is no big deal, holding a high position of authority in Wikimedia is. --]<sup>]</sup> 03:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the main question in such a case is whether the third/etc. action is based on new information or not. | |||
| ::::::. ]] 18:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::* A blocks. 3 years later, B says "that was a bad block" and unblocks. C reblocks. C has wheel-warred; B may or may not have violated ]. | |||
| :::* A blocks. 3 years later, B accepts an unblock request. C disagrees with the acceptance and reblocks. D unblocks. This would be a serious RAAA violation by C, but not a wheel war, because the first mover for the current set of information is B. D, however, has wheel-warred. | |||
| == Move suggeston for "Other access types" == | |||
| :::* A blocks. 3 years later, B accepts an unblock request. The user then vandalizes and C blocks them. This violates neither WHEEL nor RAAA. D then unblocks, violating RAAA but not WHEEL. E then reblocks. It's E who's violated WHEEL, because they're the third mover for the current set of information. | |||
| :::<span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 13:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I propose moving ] to ]. I think it's more relevant on that page.--] - ] 17:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The best example is ], which was a straight block / unblock / reblock case, where the final admin to reblock was desysopped for cause. (Oh, it also stemmed from <s>{{u|Malleus Fatuorum}}</s> {{u|Eric Corbett}} , which used to be a good way to reduce the world supply of popcorn....) ] ] ] 12:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Wording== | |||
| Hi all, I don't mean to be picky but in the 'Reverting' sub-section (1.4) it reads, "...and it is not nice to omit that (either by rolling back, or by leaving the summary field blank)." - Does anyone feel that "not nice" is terribly vague? "...not considered polite" or "...not considered correct etiquette" - would be my suggestions for a replacement. But oh well, it could be me just being picky :-) ]] 09:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Done, . —]→] • 04:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Merci :-) ]] 20:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == "REDIRECT"ed term not hit or posted by Google== | |||
| "REDIRECT"ed term is not posted by search engine by such as Google, why ? | |||
| If frequently used "term A" has the page or article in Misplaced Pages, and "term B" is redirect to "term A", | |||
| why "term B" is not posted by search engine like Google. | |||
| "Term A" is well posted by most search engine, Google too. | |||
| I am talking on the case of Japanese[REDACTED] terms and Japanese Google's case, but Iguess this might be apply to US-English edition for both Misplaced Pages and Google.--] 10:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :] has no control over what ] does. But let's try an example and see how Google handles ]. Picking a completely random page from the last question I tried to answer: ] is a redirect to ]. Search Misplaced Pages with Google for both titles: | |||
| :* - this does not find the redirect page. | |||
| :* - this finds the ]. | |||
| :So, if this random example is representative, it looks like Google does not index redirect pages on Misplaced Pages (I would lean toward that conclusion because I have searched Misplaced Pages with Google probably hundreds of times, and come to think of it I cannot recall a redirect page appearing in the search results). Since Google is Google and not Misplaced Pages, you may not be able to find out why Google works this way. Misplaced Pages documents nearly everything it does (actually, nearly everything ''we do'') in ], whereas Google documents hardly anything (I hate to say it, but even ] is probably more informative). If you want to know why something is the way it is on Misplaced Pages, you can probably find out (just ask us); but if you want to know why something is the way it is on Google, you probably have to get hired by Google first, and work your way up high enough in the company to have access to that particular information. There does seem to be a , but I have never actually seen it. --] 05:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your response, ]. Yes, Google and Misplaced Pages is different "animals", and no relative control each other. I appreciate your check on example ]. Now it is realized that both edition of animals behave the same way. If article ] does not say any thing about ] , ] is may not posted by Google, it is sad isn't it ? Now we got the homework, why and how to solve the simple but serious(?) phenomenon/trouble. Do you think can I wait Misplaced Pages headquarter or ] solve this problem, or ] talk with Google? --] 16:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Copied from ]7 October 10, 7.12 "REDIRECT"ed term not hit or posted by Google --] 21:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Confirmed ''REDIRECT-ed" term is hit by "Japanese Yahoo" search site, but not by Google and EXCITE site. | |||
| Anybody can check with Yahoo English site and other search site ?--] 10:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::since one of our uses of redirects is to provide indexing access to material merged into articles, this is relevant and needs following up. The way to have google notice something is to post about it on slashdot--not that they will acknowledge, but they do read it. ''']''' (]) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Admin's anthem== | |||
| :-) `']] 21:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Impersonating admins== | |||
| Could someone please direct me to the policies or procedures to consult and follow regarding editors who identify themselves as adminstrators? Thanks. ] (]) 06:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You can review whether the user is an administrator or not through the ] and ]. If the user is indeed impersonating one and is not, you are not misunderstanding him, and he is using that to sustain opinions or judgment, he could be blocked for ]. If you think it is indeed happening (I like to assume there is always the chance of misunderstanding, which is the "least evil" in this case), please post a note at the ]. -- ] (]) 02:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Corruption in the Simple English wiki. == | |||
| I was banned by administrator ] for having an unacceptable name (the one I use here, e.g. King Óðinn The Aesir). This user didn't give me a warning and I suspect that my IP was banned due to the fact that ] (a supposed admin) sent me a tirade of accusations because I correcte the article on Norse Mythology. I pointed out that what I did was acceptable and he didn't reply. | |||
| When I signed up using my user name I tried to send a message saying that I had added a list of Norse days of the week to the article but couldn't. Also my complaint to Comet was deleted so he could safe face after incorrectly labelling me as a vandal. | |||
| I say the simple English wiki is corrupt. Barliner and Comet are not fit to be admins; they are immature and uncivil. | |||
| ] (]) 18:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The Simple English[REDACTED] has an (understandable, given their being in simple english) policy which does not allow non-latin characters in usernames. It's not abuse for them to enforce this. Besides, what are we supposed to do about it here? -] <small>]</small> 01:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| But it is abuse to claim that a member is a vandal after he removes an incorrect fact, is it not? What are you suppose to do about it? I don't know. What I do know is the admin is also a member of this site and he has not tried to contact me or let me appeal against his unjust and childish banning. He banned me despite the fact that my name was a mild violation of rules rather than a severe one. The rule is farcical as the characters in my name don't conflict with my writing in the article; you only need to click on my name to reach my profile, you don't really need an understanding of the characters in my name. Also why ban my IP when I could have easily just changed my name? Will people with Icelandic names also be banned? | |||
| Surely the administrators of the English Misplaced Pages can deal with the problems in the SE wiki? If not, it is farcical and really does show a problem with wikipedia. | |||
| Banning a letter common in the ancestral language of modern English (e.g. 'ð') strikes me as being rather ironic! | |||
| I do not want to sound like a moaning pest but I hate unfairness and stupid rulings especially when they directly concern me! ] (]) 21:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Admins on the English Misplaced Pages have no power anywhere but the English Misplaced Pages. <span>] <sup>]</sup></span> 21:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is right. Admins on the English Misplaced Pages have no power on the Simple English Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Abmin abuse Pats1 == | |||
| I hope I am going in the right direction now, I was informed by an upper-Admin (I htink) that I may have reported somehting in the wrong area. My concern is a ] twice threatend me with being banned without explanation. I may have been at the prompting of a ]. I detected a possible familiarity with them. There was, I thought, a legitmate mistagging of trivia. There where three users who looked like they had a kind of history of being unkind. I had asked for a dispute resolution the best I knew how . . . After that occurred Pats1 came in and said I was doingsomething that was wrong --- he put in in his warning . . . and I thought it was mistaken. When I saw the second one I saw he was deadly serious. I then researched how he was supposed to handle things and what the rules were, especially with the power to block and in my view, I think he was in the wrong. I don't think I deserved that kind of meaness and what I think may have been a possible abuse of his Admin power. All I ask is to be treated fairly. I have not been perfect before, butonce I learned there are rules, I became confident this kindof abuse wouldn't occur. Maybe I was wrong to assume that. It seems Pats1 had only been a Admin for a couple of months and maybe that kind of "bullying" has worked with others, but I like to edit and I think I have some things to offer and would not want to be banned inappropriately. It is scary to think that a person who may have had a connection to chrisjnelson would just jump and threaten a ban with hardly the time to investigate. It really seemed like an abuse of his "banning power". That is my view.] (]) 04:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I note Pats1's edit summary : "(There isn't any "dispute" here. Trivia sections, no matter what they're named ("Notes" or "Personal" or whatever) are "to be avoided" unless temporary, when they're tagged to be inserted in prose.)" seems a little erroneous: There is no policy saying they are to be removed, & this does not justify a total removal of the material. The place for this, though, Is AN/I. ''']''' (]) 05:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::And if you check the edit history from the article (]), the trivia section was never removed. That wasn't the dispute. Simply, 72.0.36.36 kept removing the trivia ''tag''. ] ]/] 11:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay, thanks much.] (]) 05:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::at the next edit the section was in fact removed, by another editor, while some ==not all== of the material was used in the article. In any case this is certainly not the place to discuss it. ''']''' (]) 16:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Block Notes== | |||
| - On a banned user page you leave that "Block Note". To my point of view it is humilliating and isnt needed, instead deleting their pages would be better, users dont have to know they are blocked. Also, you must be respectful to all users, even those that deserve a ban. When an user is banned, a kind administrator becames mean with them, never listening to their reasons and unblock requests. ] (]) 05:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Recomfirmation == | |||
| Seeing that the number of admins seeking recomfirmation is growing, should we add some sentences outlining the procedure for recomfirmation? I know it might be ]y, but shouldn't we make a more concrete system of doing this? ''''']]]''''' 23:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == help please == | |||
| Can an admin please add {{tl|Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/RobJ1981}} to ]? thankyou. ] (]) 09:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Could an admin please place {{tl|Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/RobJ1981}} on ]? Thankyou! ] (]) 09:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Could an admin please add {{tl|Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/RobJ1981}} on ]? Thankyou! ] (]) 09:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Could an admin please add {{tl|Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/RobJ1981}} to ]? Thankyou! ] (]) 09:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| OK, last one, could an admin please add {{tl|Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/RobJ1981}} to ]? Thankyou! ] (]) 09:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>I have combined the above 5 related requests. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 16:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| To Whom It May concern, | |||
| I have applied for Administratorship but have recieved no reply in relation to this request. Can someone please help? ] 9:43, 20 January 2008 | |||
| == Refactor of page == | |||
| I've done some refactoring of this page. Summary of edits: | |||
| # Moved the detailed list of tools to a sub-page (]). This is to allow the main ] page to focus more on adminship itself, not the technical features in the software. In the current communal mood, admins are under more requirements to act appropriately and the like; admin policy will benefit from focussing on the admin ''role'' rather than a detailed list of every ''tool''. The latter is noted in summary and details linked instead. | |||
| # Grouped the sections on adminship itself (as opposed to tools, misuse, greivances etc) in one main section for ease of flow. | |||
| # Added a subsection under "adminship" covering admin conduct (as distinct from issues about handling of misconduct). Whilst we don't have huge policies and norms on this, we do generally expect good conduct and (in admin matters) fairness, communication and thoughtfulness, and it's no bad thing to say so. | |||
| # Added a section specifically on misuse of tools, which clarifies some areas there has been confusion on (or attempted gaming by warriors) in a few cases. | |||
| # Added "exceptional circumstances" to clarify the very few cases where we ''do'' want users to be able to repeat an admin action if needed and not necessarily be slammed for it, such as BLP and privacy. | |||
| ::(Some wordings relevant to tool misuse have stood at ] for 2 weeks to confirm they are broadly acceptable, and found favor there. .) | |||
| ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 14:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Good edits. ] 15:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm liking the the new edits. ]] 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Excellent FT2 - they look great, it helps to improve the readability, and understanding of the page. All in all, it's far more informative. ] 01:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Great work! ] (]) 09:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Administrators need a job description and a mission == | |||
| OK. If you're an administrator, you're not a ''Misplaced Pages'' editor with "access to technical features that help with maintenance." ''You're a manager''. If you're actually qualified, then you're a ''leader''. Managers plan, organize, lead, and control. I've heard administrators call themselves "janitors." Janitors aren't qualified to block people or delete pages. Here are some essential qualities of a manager: | |||
| #'''Human skills.''' Blocking someone is not an effective way to get things done. People should actually want to do what you ask of them because they should admire and like you. You also need to know how to communicate what needs to be done clearly. | |||
| #'''Technical skills.''' Administrators instruct other users and use more tools, so they need to know how everything works. | |||
| #'''Motivation to manage.''' You should actually care whether you are an administrator or not. If you no longer edit on ''Misplaced Pages,'' you should no longer be an administrator. If you stop showing up to work, then you shouldn't be a manager, either. | |||
| #'''Conceptual skills.''' You need to be smart to solve new problems as they arise. | |||
| So, there should be something similar to this in one of our policy pages. Right now, I don't have a clear sense of the qualities needed in an administrator. That way, voting will appear to be more fair. It will also be more fair.--] (]) 23:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Except administrators aren't really supposed to do those things, those are things that any experienced user should do, and most of those happen to be admins. Adminship is not a a title of authority, it is purely functional. Or at least, it is supposed to be. <span>] <sup>]</sup></span> 00:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Most of those things actually have to be done by administrators, bureacrats, and trustees. If you're an administrator, then you're deciding what pages people can edit (protection), who can edit (blocking), and what they can see (deletion). That's management through authority. In order to have these powers, you should be qualified to manage. You should have each of the four qualities I stated above. Users give input, just like low-level employees in well-run organizations give their input. But the final decisions usually have to be made by users with special powers.--] (]) 00:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Administrators can't decide those things, they are merely functionaries. If you don't like the janitor analogy, you could also view admin's as police (though this is not as accurate), enforcing the policies, and bound to the policies that allow them to enforce, just as police can't just arrest whomever they wish. <span>] <sup>]</sup></span> 00:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Managers also have to follow rules. They make judgments of whether rules apply and what remedy is necessary. They often do this in groups and with input from employees. Even presidents have to answer to investors. Whatever you want to call them, administrators need the four qualities I listed above to do their jobs properly.--] (]) 00:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| -------------------------------- | |||
| I think that I should add a section to the article specifying what qualities are needed in an administrator: | |||
| <blockquote>In order to administer ''Misplaced Pages,'' you must be qualified. Your job is important. You decide what pages people can see (through deletion), who can edit (though blocking), and what they can edit (through protection). The following are the minimum qualifications that administrators should have: | |||
| #'''Human skills.''' You should not have to block users to get things done. People should actually want to do what you ask of them because they should admire and like you. You also need to know how to communicate what needs to happen clearly. | |||
| #'''Technical skills.''' Administrators instruct other users and use more tools, so they need to know how everything works. | |||
| #'''Motivation to administer.''' You should actually care whether you are an administrator or not. If you no longer edit on ''Misplaced Pages,'' you should no longer be an administrator. | |||
| #'''Conceptual skills.''' You need to have very good judgement. You should also be able to solve new problems as they arise. </blockquote><div align="right">--] (]) 01:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)</div> | |||
| ---- | |||
| I see where you're coming from, but don't quite agree that this is how the community sees it. The ''shading'' (or "feel") of it all, counts, and this captures the wrong shading of an admin's role. | |||
| Admins do not have authority in the sense you imagine. They can draw a line based on policies and norms and judgement, and enforce that line with the tools, they often have good insight and suggestions to users, and they should be good at gaining others' co-operation and working with people. But they do not, ever, act as "managers" to people in the business sense. They implement policies which the community in broad has agreed upon. Thus for example: | |||
| :* They do not "decide what people see". An admin who deletes a page can only do so under circumstances the community has decided pages should be deleted, and in accordance with that communal decision, pretty much. They implement this, they do not decide it. Likewise they implement a standard of editorship and use of blocking and protection which has already gained consensus via a discussion in which admins have absolutely no special authority of any kind. | |||
| :* They do not need to know how "everything works". They need to know enough not to misuse what they touch, and to conduct themselves well. The emphasis is on "Not making mistakes" not on "doing it all". ''Users'' do things, admins just handle the few exceptions where for practical reasons we don't let every new user do so. Even very experienced admins, including those elected to higher positions than admin, don't know how "everything" works usually. | |||
| :* Admins are users the community trusts to operate the tools. If they don't edit a year, the communal view is, what's that got to do with trust, for if/when they do? There is hence no obligation on any admin to "do" any specific role. Just to act responsibly in whatever (if anything) they do act upon. | |||
| :* Admins should gain broad respect, but frankly no user is obligated to respect or listen to them (it's not a requirement of editing), and many will not. Blocking is not merely a tool used due to failure to know how to talk to people. | |||
| Hope these brief thoughts help. High sstandards are needed, but the above is mostly founded upon a misconception of what it is, that admins actually ''do''. Mostly admins are: | |||
| # users the community has decided based on experience that it trusts... | |||
| # and who act to a consistently good standard on general conduct as editors... | |||
| # who are allowed to act as custodians of those tools that for pragmatic reasons need to be restricted in their access (due to the presence of many people on the internet who would use them for purposes that don't help the project)... | |||
| # and who are trusted to only use them to enact a decision within the standards that the community has decided, and not otherwise. | |||
| ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 10:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::FT2, I like very much the way you've worded it, except for : " If they don't edit a year, the communal view is, what's that got to do with trust, for if/when they do? There is hence no obligation on any admin to "do" any specific role. Just to act responsibly in whatever (if anything) they do act upon." If they don't edit for a year how can anyone know if they either remember the rules , much less keep up to date with the changes? That they don;t use the tools might not be significant, if the editing can demonstrate they still know about policy and are acting responsibly. ''']''' (]) 01:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: True, although rules change far less than principles, one might get seriously out of date with tool use. But still, the most one can say is ''"ensure you are aware of any norms others will expect you to keep, once RFA'ed, especially if taking a long break."'' One wouldn't desysop for it, the thrust of the above question. A valid point? ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 10:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Status of project page ] == | |||
| Is the project page ] a {{tl|policy}} or {{tl|guideline}}? If so, shouldn't that be spelled out by inclusion of the appropriate template? If not, why not? Thanks! — ] (]|]) 06:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Seems a fair candidate for policy tag to me. "Basics and main framework of adminship" is more than just a minor thing. Unaware of anything there that doesn't have consensus and strong buy-in. | |||
| :] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 10:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed - I'd support a policy tag. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 13:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Indeed, I am surprised it is not a policy, I always thought it was. Should an admin ignore the advice here, it would not turn out well. ] 18:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, given there's no objections here - and I personally support this move, I've tagged it as policy. ] 15:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hm.. I never would've thought to tag this page as policy, now that it is tagged, I'm wondering as to whether it's necessary. By doing this, we're saying that the no big deal clause is policy-mandated, for example. This has been disputed for years, so even just by that I'm a little iffy about the tag. I'd support ending this to the community at large for an opinion. ] 18:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: $0.02, not too fussed about the fate of a single quote. Single points like that can be discussed on any policy page too. Especially one that is simply a well-known cite from earlier days, that just states "this is an oft-quoted comment", which is accurate. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 19:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: (edit conflict) Actually it can be clarified better, and would benefit. Take a look. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 23:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I endorse the "enshrinement" as policy, and especially appreciate the appropriate reframing of the "no big deal" quote in a way that reflects reality more closely. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I would endorse it as well. ''']''' '''<small>]</small>''' 22:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, I would also agree with the tagging of this page as a policy. I also think the recent edits have a useful improvement in updating and clarifying the administrator title and how it should be perceived. ] <small><font color="red">(aka ])</font></small> 02:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Request layout change on editing buttons == | |||
| {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 1px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | Request layout change on editing buttons | |||
| |- | |||
| | Hi, Sysop. | |||
| This is serious problem and its request. I describe current condition and change request or solution here. | |||
| On Misplaced Pages, the final course of article edit or new article creation, user handles fill in "'''Edit summary'''", three button of "'''Save page'''", " '''Show preview'''" and "'''Show changes'''". | |||
| Current lay out of these are '''Edit summary frame''' and '''three buttons''', Edit summary comes first, then Save page, and Show Preview and Show changes are following. | |||
| My request herein is based on many number of Japanese language oriented users and please understand that I am representing those users. | |||
| I now put the REQUEST here, Edit summary, as is now, then CHANGE REQUEST IS put "Show Preview" in first, then "Save Page" then "Show Changes". | |||
| '''Simply relocate "Save Page" and Show Preview" button layout or order'''. | |||
| Now, I describe the reason of request. | |||
| As far as when user place ] in Edit Summary frame with or without fill-in the frame, and press ] as delimiter of fill-in sentence or Press Enter key with mistake or erroneously, Enter key proceeds to save page as Misplaced Pages is designated. | |||
| If "Show Preview" then "Save Page" button is lay out as requested, pressing Enter key proceeds show preview, so that | |||
| erroneous saving page is avoided. | |||
| English language and most other language oriented users may not feel current layout of buttons is not inconvenient, because Enter Key is used as a delimiter of Edit Summary single line sentence, and erroneous pressing of Enter is his own mistake. | |||
| Now, I must describe how Japanese language is editing on computer by keyboard. There is a subprogram called ], some time called front end processor for program and in between keyboard and program, Misplaced Pages is as well. | |||
| Even for editing Japanese user is writing English like ] ] or ], the conditions is the exactly the same to English language oriented user, including erroneous Enter Key pressing. | |||
| Japanese language editing, however, uses ] facility and use of IME is mandatory to make Japanese language with mixture of ], ], ], ] and Numeral and symbols letters. | |||
| To create ] in sentence, types word(s) or a sentence with ] or ] as first step, then press Enter Key to delimits and converts to Kanji. The chances of pressing Enter key in usual Japanese language sentences is too many times. In course of Japanese sentence making, pressing Enter key is quite frequently mistakenly pressed. Mistakenly pressed Enter Key, however, does not create serious problem, it is well able to recover as normal procedure. | |||
| Misplaced Pages, however, fill-in "Edit Summary" frame with Japanese Language and mistakenly press Enter key goes to "Save Page", and this is serious that erroneously edit the article or discussion pages. | |||
| According to the article of ], Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Indic characters uses IME and probably facing the same erroneous save page is occurred. | |||
| These language user who use IME facility have much much more chance of erroneous pressing of Enter key than English or other language user. | |||
| For clarity, note that pressing Enter Key with IME is not sentence delimiter, but it is converting order of ] or Chinese, Korean and Indic characters, and chances of pressing Enter Key within single sentence is depends on the how many number of Kanji like none-Alphabet letter is embedded. | |||
| Not only for Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Indic characters user,''' but also English and other language user, Erroneous press of Enter Key''' within a frame of Edit summary is a problem to erroneously "save page"of article or discussion. | |||
| To change lay out of button of "Save page" and "Show Preview" location only for Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Indic characters or language oriented Misplaced Pages edition seems not practical, and this request might apply to '''ALL LANGUAGE EDITION as BIG Changes.''' | |||
| If possible, "Save page" with '''orange colored''', and "Show preview" with '''green colored''' is more noticeable for all user to avoid erroneous operation. | |||
| If large notice or warning sentence is proceeding for such BIG CHANGE and possibility colored, none of Misplaced Pages user is confused with such sudden changes. | |||
| I am described above for Misplaced Pages, but this request apply to all sites of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.(Commons, Wikinews, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikiversity and Meta-Wiki), and relating site such as '''MediaWiki ''' sites and ALL language editions. | |||
| Your consideration of above request will be highly appreciated and thank you in advance and if you need more talks on this subject, I welcome discussion with you as presenting some great number of Japanese language oriented user. Thank you again.--] (]) 11:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| PS:</br>I know about Japanese and English only. Misplaced Pages is multi-language encyclopedia and user does use all most any language. | |||
| IME or IME like front end process sub program used on Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Indic characters, but it is assumable that IME like function is used on some number of language on computer keyboard to create its own letters or words. Enter key may have specific function on each IME like other than sentence delimiter. | |||
| In such context, Enter key in Edit Summary for save page should be avoided. To safer way is relocate the position of save page button and show preview button. Please do not think about only English language or English alike language editing. --] (]) 01:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| :Hi, thanks for explaining the problem you are having. I have moved your request to our ]. Please watch that discussion for questions that you can answer. ] (]) 01:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :see --] (]) 04:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Adminship== | |||
| How does one know when one has won an adminship request? Does one have to have 50 per cent of votes or...? --] (]) 21:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :A bureaucrat decides if ] has been reached. The imaginary limit varies, but it is usually higher than 70% (there are exceptions, of course). Note that judgment is not bound to the number of votes, but their content. A single oppose opinion with a really valid reason (like "The user is a sockpuppet of a banned user") could bring a seemly perfect RfA down. -- ] (]) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Deletion Reasons List== | |||
| When deleting a page, you have a list of CSD criteria to choose from in a drop-down menu. This menu also has the usual non-csd reasons - AFD close, PROD, etc. However, I notice that the Portal criteria (] and P2) are not listed. Not a big deal - how many portals get deleted as speedy, anyway? But, for completeness' sake, where would I request that they be added? ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 13:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you sure? In the first combo, under the ''Other'' section, there is P1 (''Portal on a topic that would be speedy deleted as an article''). P2 isn't there, though. To request changes in that kind of stuff, try ]. -- ] (]) 02:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Anglo-Saxon link== | |||
| The anglo saxon version is at ang.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Bewitend --] (]) 07:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} -- ] (]) 00:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == help on hi.wikipedia == | |||
| Greetings friends of wikipedia. | |||
| I have poor knowledge of English and Hindi Langauge and I write with poor knowledge. | |||
| Administrators of Hindi Misplaced Pages have grossly misused tools of Administratators. Namely one Rajiv Mass, Purnima Varman and Manish Vashishtha. One Rajiv Mass has created dammy Account of Ravi jain to harass and misuse. | |||
| I request here to translet what I have written in Hindi and same to be informed to all what these Administrators have done. I know that Administratator Rajiv Mass was doing this type of activites for last 3-4 months. | |||
| I signed as vkvora. ] (]) 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi there. You may want to contact a few (not all) users found at ] to translate the message. You could also post a question at ]. The English Misplaced Pages can do very little for you, you should contact Meta instead. -- ] (]) 00:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Miss Use on Hindi Misplaced Pages=== | |||
| ] | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics | |||
| All most all and at least three confirmed have grossly missused their Administratators Tools on Hindi Misplaced Pages. Their Names are Rajiv Mass, Purnima Varman and Manish Vashishtha. Not only that Administratator Rajiv Mass has opened dummy account in name of Ravi Jain and miss used to harass other members of Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, English wikipedia. I have complained in poor English to English Misplaced Pages Administratators and one has advised me to write here. Those who know Hindi very well should visit Hindi[REDACTED] to solve the problem and this fact should be brought to all Administratators of world. I signed as vkvora. ] (]) 02:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Percentage == | |||
| Is there a reason that on ] the percentage of user accounts with Administrator rights is not shown? On most wikis, it is shown in parentheses beside the number of Administrators or somewhere similar. I was just curious. ] (]) 19:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Dont know the reason but its only 0.02%. Im sure you figured that out already. Im sure someone can add it on, its a special page so i dont know who can edit that if anyone, maybe only Jimbo Wales, who knows. I dont know, i seriously dont know. ] (]) 13:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Desysopping == | |||
| I know it's not common practice to take away the tools from admins who simply disappear, but I think it should be. Unless an admin has a good reason for disappearing for an extended period, I don't think they should be able to just ditch Misplaced Pages and be kept in the ranks of admins. I know of numerous examples of sysops who left many months ago and nothing was done. ''']''' '']'' 04:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I believe that this has been proposed and rejected several times (see ] and ]). Are you suggesting that adminship should be removed as a punishment for "ditching Misplaced Pages" or is there another reason? ] (]) 19:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Every account with tools is another target for someone seeking to compromise an admin account, so - in theory - removing the tools from inactive accounts could serve to remove "soft targets" from a potential vandal's reach. By soft targets, I mean accounts where the accountholder would not notice a compromised account (being gone). That's a little thin, though. In my mind, so long as the tools are not being misused, having them assigned to an inactive user does no harm. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 20:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::That was my primary concern, but I've been informed by ] that Misplaced Pages has taken some steps to protect itself from this. In general, I'm in favor of desysopping admins who have not edited for months, but I see there is no consensus for this. I feel that being an admin means you have a responsibility to the community. ''']''' '']'' 20:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh, absolutely - and some admins request removal of the tools before retiring for good. Some don't. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 21:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Giving up your tools is the responsible thing to do. Unfortunately, most people are not responsible. I must commend ] for doing what he did recently. If you don't know, check out his talk page. ''']''' '']'' 21:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Ragib is continously changing the core article of ]. He Purposely adding Bengali term on their main page . please someone can handle on this issue since he is admin in wiki. It is hard to control on his activity against the Rohingya most oppressed people in the world.--] (]) 02:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Sparta == | |||
| To Whoever can answer me. | |||
| I received a notice that i was blocked from making edits because someone found that one of my edits was Vandalism. i for one believe that this is wrong and i would like to see what "act of vandalism" this was. the alleged vandalism was done on the Sparta page. if you could please send me an email with what i typed that was allegedly vandalism that would help me greatly. i have edited many of wikipedias articles in the past and not once was i ever accused of vandalism. my email address is not1for.stupidity@yahoo.com | |||
| Karen Pleacher | |||
| ] (]) 06:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Those edits are from October and it was only a 24 hour block. ''']''' '']'' 06:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for telling me '''when'''''Italic text'' those edits took place but that didnt answer my question. my question was '''what'''''Italic text'' was it that was said. and i could care less how long the block was, it was that i was accused of something i didnt do. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| *It appears that you make your edits as a non-logged in user, and your Internet provider gives you a dynamic ]. In other words, your IP address may be different each time you log in -- it was 4.23.225.147 on April 6, and 205.130.17.162 on June 3. There was a block placed on ], but it was not directed at Karen Pleacher. It was directed at that IP address, whoever was using it, to make the October 2007 edits which can be found at ]. (You can click on the word "diff" on that page to see each edit made by that anonymous user.) Whoever had 4.23.225.147 in October 2007 (or at least for a 20-minute period on October 11) used it to replace the lead to ] with a comment containing profanity; vandalize ] by replacing a list of famous electrical engineers with people such as Adolf Hitler, George Steinbrenner, and John F. Kennedy; and alter somebody's signature on a talk page by adding the words "is not actually a person". The only connection to you is that months later, you happened to get assigned the 4.23.225.147 address temporarily, and thus you saw the warnings that had been issued to the IP address. --] ] 00:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Can I ask a Q== | |||
| Hi. I've heard you can get a colourful signature. can someone tell me how to? | |||
| Thanks. Im Out. ] (]) 21:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Vandalism== | |||
| Can admin personnel please watch the IP address 72.95.40.211? | |||
| Also, is it ever possible for there to be a REPORT link (on the profile of registered users and more importantly, on user contributions of unregistered ones) to report misbehaving editors? ] (]) 01:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :responded on user talk – ] <small>(])</small> 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Two Qs === | |||
| Okay. I have two questions. One: Can you log into a IP adress again, such as when you get on[REDACTED] and ure not logged in? | |||
| 2: Am i a admin? I've been in[REDACTED] for 3 or more years now. | |||
| --] (]) 21:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Responded on user talk. ] (]) 22:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin Coaching == | |||
| Hello. I am currently on the waiting list for a admin coach. And we desperatly need coaches there are 36 wikipedians waiting for a admin coach. thankyou for your time. <font color="Red" face="Arial Black" size="2"> S.T.H. <Sup>( ]/]/] )</Sup> </font> 00:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC) :) | |||
| == My Page "Jazz Judgemental" was deleted why? == | |||
| I'm sorry If I somehow posted something innaproppriate, but I don't understand what I've done wrong...I was stating facts about a very important and real person...and would like to at least know what I could do to keep my page open. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Confused about WP:NBD == | |||
| There's a comment on a page I've been watching and discussing. It's a name dispute, and one of the pages has the edit comment: "(perhaps this page needing to be deleted will reinforce the fact that a move is an admin action...)" Bit of a wheel war going on with some other mastodons involved. | |||
| There is a bit of a disagreement on what consensus exists or does not exist for the move. When it comes to evaluating the presence or absence of consensus (outside of a formal arbitration or other defined process), do admins have any particular additional weight to their comments? My understanding is no, but I would like to be clear.] (]) 04:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == matchbox Magazine == | |||
| Can you please change the title of this entry to Matchbox <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == New global userright == | |||
| Over at Meta ] there is a proposal for a new global user right that would give the administrative anti-vandal tools to users from Meta, to be used on all WMF wikis for anti vandal purposes. The proposal defines: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| ;Permission usage | |||
| The Anti-vandal fighter should deal '''only''' with projects which do not have enough active administrators in a particular time frame. | |||
| * If some wiki doesn't have any administrators at all, the AVfs should take care of that project all of the time. | |||
| * If some wiki doesn't have administrators just in some parts of the day (like the night hours in a specific time zone), they should take care of that wiki during the unmonitored times. | |||
| Local projects must be respected. Even though their permissions are global, anti-vandal fighters are not allowed to use their rights on any project with a substantial community of active administrators (e.g. ]) without explicitly asking the community, even for such minor things as using rollback. Anti-vandal fighters not respecting this rule will lose their privileges '''immediately'''. | |||
| If there are enough active AVfs and stewards around, AVf should prefer not to act at their home project, unless they are admins there. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| so I'd like to start a centralized discussion on how our Admin policy should reflect this change. | |||
| *Do we want to say such global vandal fighters may never use their global rights at en.wiki unless the right has already been granted locally? | |||
| *Do we want to adapt a time zone policy when many en.wiki admins are asleep as a time they may help? | |||
| *Do we want to require they "register" with our crats to notify us they intend to act here? | |||
| *Who will be our point people for reporting local abuses of this privilege to Meta? .etc ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't really think we have such a shortage of admins that we need people less familiar with our policies to handle the job. Don't take me wrong, I am not fighting for any privilege for en.wiki, but I am worried about accountability for the actions of people having these rights. How should we resolve disputes when they are involved? I think this is a great userright for smaller projects where the community is not big enough to handle the spam and grawp wannabies (I'm pretty sure ] is much more knowledgeable than me to talk about what the small wiki monitoring team does) but our project, with the amazing amount of bureaucracy we have, is a much less friendly place for inexperienced users. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think this is an innovation that might be handy for wikis with small communities or few admins. English Misplaced Pages really doesn't need this level of assistance from meta, and many other projects might benefit from it far more. I would be opposed to implementing this global user-right on en.wp (or, to be more technically correct, opposed to allowing any use of this global right on English Misplaced Pages). Anyone who wants to be a vandal whacker with admin tools on the English Misplaced Pages should be pointed to ]. <strong style="color:#000">]] * ]</strong> 23:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :We've got a boat-load of admins, and there's almost always at least 2 or 3 online at all times of the day. This is something for the Star Wars wiki, or the Yu-Gi-Oh wiki. Misplaced Pages is huge enough to not need this.--]]] ] 23:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If anything, vandalism is one of the things administrators seem to be able to handle here without much fuss. That ] backlogs are cleared easily is indicative of such. There's really no need for such users on en.wiki, and it would be much better for smaller wikis to utilize the aid from this. | |||
| :On the issue of whether we welcome this assistance from meta, I agree with Avruch. We don't have any such shortage and anyone that really wants to do so can try at ] to get the tools to do so. <font face="Verdana">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></font> 23:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed, great for smaller wikis, I don't think we need or want it here. It sounds like a real quagmire in the area of accountability. ] 00:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmm. "The Anti-vandal fighter should deal '''only''' with projects which do not have enough active administrators in a particular time frame." It seems pretty obvious to me that en.wikip does not fit in that criteria, so any user who uses his "Anti-vandal fighter"-rights at the english Misplaced Pages should be reported to the appropriate places at meta. --]|] 00:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm with most everyone above: seems like this'll be great for the small wikis, but not useful and potentially problematic here. Is there any way an individual project can just turn this off? ] <small>]</small> 01:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is pretty clear in the proposal, en.wp is given as an example where the AVF tools should not be used without consent of the local community, which will certainly resume to RFA on en. We're by far the biggest community, and worldwide, so we don't need AVFs, but other wikis do. Also, this is for WMF wikis, not for Wikia. Though we should follow this matter, the recent "globalisation" has already posed some problems over here and policy is not always respected. Fortunately, we have a strong influence on meta. It's geopolitics. And I'm talking like a politician... <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">]]</span></strong> 01:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The proposal definitely makes it clear that enwiki is not in need of help from global admins, but we could certainly add a little bit to this page making it explicit that one must have admin rights here to take admin actions.--] (]) 01:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That was what my thought was, to make it clear that things like timezone don't matter at en.wiki, you must have passed RFA or gone to RFR before you can use those tools here. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Perhaps a table at meta could keep track of wikis that have discussed locally and decided to opt out, if there's more than a handful that do so? – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 02:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm a fan of Luna's proposal, and as a GMT +9 admin I'm (hopefully) proof that time zones don't matter as much ;) Incidentally, I've added this discussion to the ]. --]-]] 05:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::One note about opting out: There is no sense for larger projects (let's say with more than 20-30 admins) to opt-out because they are not affected by AVfs (AVf who act at such project will lose their rights immediately); which means that such projects will never opt-in. Smaller projects can't opt out because the main purpose of this role is to give to the stewards helpers in fight against vandals; or, if stewards have to keep eye on smaller project, such project will be under AVfs maintenance, too. --] (]) 10:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * (<tt>]</tt>) We can give them ] as a group, though... ]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 05:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *: Of course, whatever a particular community decides in the sense of ''giving'' rights to them -- is ok. But, this is your decision, not a global policy's matter. --] (]) 10:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| As a proposer, I think that it is clear that AVfs mustn't use their rights (without asking) not only at en.wp, but at a lot of other projects. Projects with ~50.000 articles usually have enough admins to cover all parts of the day. --] (]) 06:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :About reporting abuses: Yes, you should have some amount of contributors who will keep eye on abusing those rights. --] (]) 10:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| What's wrong with using global rollback here to revert vandalism/spam, etc? — ''']''' '']'' 12:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :They could just ask for rollback like everyone else, I am sure if they showed their anti-vandal work on other wiki's that we would gladly give it to them. ] 16:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Basically, we don't need vandal-fighters here from meta. They should save their energy for small wikis where they are actually needed, and we can save our energy by not having to bother with bureaucratic questions of how much permission they really have here. As a practical matter, if not technically, we should just "opt out" of this whole system. ] (]) 01:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Again, en.wp is not in the system, except in a technical sense. Permissions usage here without community approval will lead to permissions removal. --] (]) 11:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::...and indefinite blocking until the tools are removed and they promise never to do such again, should they get the tools back at a later date. ] (]) 23:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| That sounds a little silly to me... For Rollback, at least. I can understand why we don't want global admins muscling in here (since use of admin tools is subject to quite a bit of local policy, quirks, etc), but why not rollback? ] ], and it'd be useful for, for instance, spam cleanup. Personally, I work on the spam blacklist on meta, and, once I've decided that a link needs to be reverted, I don't even look at what project I'm on before clicking 'rollback'. It is a little silly to require people like me to go and ask 700 different local communities for rollback if I can ask one at meta. — ''']''' '']'' 01:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :]. ] (]) 01:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Strongly supporting that proposed policy, exactly what I was thinking. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Age == | |||
| If there is an age limit to being an admin, what is it? I know there's a limit on other wikis. ] (]) 19:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :No. ''']''' '']'' 19:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::There has been admins as young as 12 before, so yeah, their is no age limit...--<span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:medium;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]]</span> 00:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is no age limit. Anyone who makes good contributions can become an admin. ] (]) 05:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, we'd prefer if you are under 18, you not tell us your age, for your own protection. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. That said, if an editor can edit in a mature and reasonable fashion, their calendar age is unlikely to be an issue. I've seen admins who I thought were in their 20's turn out to be teenagers - and vice-versa. It's all about how users comport themselves around the project. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 13:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Ok. ] (]) 16:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Sysop == | |||
| To use the term sysop as being another name for administrator is a bit missing leading. Sysop relates to a series of functions that are commonly used by administrators but are also used by other classes of users. Example would be page protection which is a sysop function that can be done by several other classes of users as well including a new class of users that my possibly be called global sysops. That discussion is going on at http://meta.wikimedia.org/Talk:Anti-vandal_fighter I was thinking that adding a note that sysop can also refer to some of the functions of other classes of users might be help full. ] <sup>(])</sup> 14:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Note the term makesysop as taken from ] | |||
| :Make users into Administrators or Bureaucrats (makesysop) | |||
| an example of one of the others uses of the term sysop. ] <sup>(])</sup> 14:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Policy? == | |||
| Is this policy or not? A discussion above by a small number of people seems to have decided that it is, & it's so tagged, but it's not listed at ]. ] (]) 14:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah it is policy, ] must have been overlooked when the change was made. I've now updated the page to reflect this. ] 14:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Admin by culture or language category request== | |||
| Can you admins make a list or category for Admins by their cultural sphere or the languages they know?. I needed an admin to oversee or participate in an ongoing dispute about an Arab linguist who doesn't score very well in search engine test when searched in Latin Alphabet, but scores well in Arabic. The result was that the page got deleted. The admin I am disputing with doesn't seem to know Arabic, so I think having such a list would be useful for such situations. For the ongoing dispute (]/]). ] (]) 11:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Such lists would only be used to ], which is inappropriate, so the preferred method is to prove your case by writing the article as a ], or take the matter to ]. | |||
| :That said, I have reviewed this case and restored the article. Cheers, <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 12:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think information about language knowledge would be relevant--admins normally would know perfectly well when they are being asked inappropriately. ''']''' (]) 03:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == 51st (Highland) Division (World War I) == | |||
| Could this article be renamed 51st (Highland) Division there is no need for the World War I as its the only formation known by this name in both world wars. | |||
| The World War two Division was known as the ] | |||
| There is also a Disambiguation page that is not required | |||
| The WW2 division also had (World War II) in brackets after its name which I moved to the above , but I am unable to move the WWI formation andit suggest an admin is contacted to complete the move. ] (]) 14:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This is not the correct forum, the best thing to do is suggest it on the talk page of the article, or go to ]. It might be a good idea to seek a small consensus before the move is performed. ] 14:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Administrator conduct == | |||
| I think it should be made clear in this article that administrators should not administer in a POV manner; such as rebuking or blocking problematic editors who have a certain POV while ignoring problematic editors with a different POV (for example, those who share the administrator's POV). They should also not participate in . --] (]) 19:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : This is covered somewhat at ], and further instructions are at ]. --]]] 20:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:DEAL == | |||
| Bringing ] back up, Jimbo has made a to reflect that it's becoming a big deal. | |||
| {{blockquote|:It's a bigger deal than it used to be. That has some good points and some bad points. |--] (]) 00:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| He made his quote when there was a few thousand users and a few thousand articles. We've got {{NUMBEROFUSERS}} users and {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles now. I believe it's time the quote be removed. ]] 18:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that in this instance, the thing that has has changed about the project is that Jimbo has moved to be out of step with the beating heart of the community that is building the encyclopedia, and that the community has equally moved away from him, consciously and unconsciously. The project is simply too big and too diverse anymore for Jimbo to be the most powerful force in defining the character of any particular aspect of it, including adminship. In other words, just because Jimbo has an opinion on something, doesn't make it so. I would personally argue that 1500+ admins means that passing RFA is ''less'' of a big deal than on a little or mid-size wiki, where one rogue admin or crat can more seriously cause harm and abuse power. Also important to note is that whether or not adminship factually is a big deal right now, it remains true that it shouldn't be so. It's still a healthy ideal. ]] 21:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Limits to length of administrators' "terms"? == | |||
| I note that there have been proposals in the past that, for instance, inactive admins could lose their administrator status. Given that[REDACTED] is a comparatively new institution, we haven't yet had much cause to deal with matter of term lengths, but it might not be a bad idea to establish something along those lines. Maybe something like a reconfirmation vote after four years of being an admin might be advisable. In this instance, I choose four years as being the length of the term of the US President, although two years, six years, and in fact any other period would probably be just as acceptable. At the reconfirmation vote, they might be required to get a significantly smaller percentage of the vote, but requiring such would make it less likely for admins to begin to act badly, knowing that they would inevitably face reconfirmation, and also help to remove inactive admins in a comparatively noncontroversial way. Opinions? ] (]) 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a perennial proposal, and I'm not sure that it will achieve consensus this time around either. I do want to note, though, that four years is quite a long time on the internet. How many people who became an administrator in July 2004 are still active?--] (]) 17:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :There is already a mechanism for desysopping which works well, without a horse race. In fact, many admins who have acted rightly--not badly--will face substantial opposition for re-confirmation,because they did the hard but necessary jobs that people disagree with. Also, there is no problem with inactive admins. —]→] • 17:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == RFC on adminbots == | |||
| A RFC on adminbots has been opened, ]. --]<sup>]</sup><font color="green">'''/'''</font><sub>]</sub> 20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Policy rewording== | |||
| I have made a modification in policy under administrator conduct. We should not "expect" good conduct but we must "require" it. This will put Misplaced Pages in the highest moral esteem. In practice, it will make no big difference. It will just make WP seem to hold the highest ideals not just encourage them. Misplaced Pages is now so big that we must need to act right as compared with facebook or myspace. ] (]) 15:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :In that vein, . —]→] • 17:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == I find Raul654's behaviour objectionable == | |||
| It seems to me that individuals like Raul654 should not use their position or status within the Misplaced Pages bureaucracy to override Misplaced Pages community policy on original research <ref>Raul654: "The current article title is lousy"</ref>, or community rejection of ]. I would appreciate if someone reminded user Raul654 of this--] (]) ♠<font color="#BB0000">♥</font><font color="#BB0000">♦</font>♣ 05:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :What are you talking about? As far as I can tell, Raul merely participated in a discussion, and "voted" in a straw poll. He did not even move the article or initiate the straw poll--not that doing either would warrant some sort of formal complaint here. Any editor is free to draw upon his tacit knowledge when discussing an article--he may be wrong, but such an argument is not original research--; and while it may be wise to ignore or abrogate straw polls at every opportunity, anyone is free to comment in them. —]→] • 15:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The above was posted and . ] (]) 23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Follow up can be found: . ] (]) 23:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Sorry to bug you here == | |||
| I need a task for[REDACTED] work that requires no typing, no searching, and many many hours of thought. ] (]) 04:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:22, 23 January 2025
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrators page. |
|
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
 | NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post questions for administrators.
|
| NOTE: This talk page is not the place to request access to administrator user rights. For requests for adminship, see WP:RfA. |
 | This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Stvilia, B. et al. Information Quality Discussions in Misplaced Pages. University of Illinois U-C. |
 Archives |
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
|
Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
RFC: Resysoppings after five years with no administrative actions
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- This change has now been implemented. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
In Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Restoration of adminship, should the policy regarding Over five years since administrative tools were last used
for restoration of adminship apply to:
- Option 1: Only those former administrators desysopped for inactivity
- Option 2: All former administrators
Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Background
At Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Resysop request (Fathoms Below), Tamzin pointed out that the rule allowing automatic resysopping at BN only within five years of the most recent administative action only applies to admins who were desysopped for inactivity, not those who resigned the bit or who lost it for other reasons. The 2022 RFC clarifying when we start counting the 5 years from resulted in a reversion of a 2018 change that applied the 5 year rule to all desysopped editors, despite not discussing that. Indeed my reading of the 2022 comments suggests most commenters anticipated it continuing to apply to all editors. Accordingly, I think we should get explicit consensus for one or the other. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Survey (five year rule)
- Option 2. I believe that all former admins should be required to pass RFA (or an admin election or any other equivalent process) if it has been more than 5 years since their last admin action, and per my comments above. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- As the person who started it, it was not my intent to change that part of the policy with that RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Procedurally, I don't think that there has ever been a consensus to apply this to all ex-admins, but I don't have any objection to making that policy now. This should probably be better-advertised, though, as it would affect quite a few former admins like me who remain active and might respect a right of resysop at any point in the future. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 23:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please feel free to advertise this wherever you think is relevant. The goal is to establish what the consensus is now, not what the consensus was at some point previously. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think that the motivation for requiring an administrative action within the past five years isn't affected by whether or not the admin in question requested removal of their privileges in the interim. Thus I agree with modifying the policy so the five-year requirement applies equally, regardless of why administrative privileges were removed. isaacl (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's clear that prior consensus was option 1, but I think changing to option 2 would be logical. OTOH, we could always use more admins and someone requesting resysop after five years may still be a net positive. Perhaps it's better to stick with option 1 and leave the rest to 'crat discretion? Toadspike 06:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2: not convinced there's a strong enough reason to treat these two groups differently. (It's always seemed kind of crazy to me that someone who resigned twenty years ago is still technically eligible for resysop.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- It makes little sense to treat the two groups of ex-admins differently, especially with the 100/5 rule. An admin who goes to WP:BN and resigns the day before they would be desysopped is doing the honourable thing, but that isn't really a reason to treat them better (indefinitely) than the ex-admin who was on vacation the day before the desysop. Agree with Tamzin that this should probably be advertised better before we lock out some good people, though. —Kusma (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cryptic's version, superior to Option 2 and to the status quo. —Kusma (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- My thought would be that we should treat someone who resigned the bit the same as we'd treat someone with the same profile who hadn't resigned the bit. So if they would have been desysopped at some point anyway, then apply the rules for a resysop. But on the other hand, if that editor actually wouldn't ever have been desysopped anyway but for their decision to resign, I'm hesitant to treat them more harshly than someone who simply kept the bit and didn't use it. It's good for the security of the project if editors who don't need adminship for a period of time give it up on a technical level and I don't think we should change the rules to deincentivise that. — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- I feel mixed on this. On the one hand, should an admin who's active within the community and gives up their tools be allowed to pick them back up at any time? I somewhat feel like, yes, but I also recognize that going 5 years without the tools and then picking them back up can be something that people would not be a fan of. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 Thanks for the ping. No reason to treat both groups differently. Coretheapple (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 * Pppery * it has begun... 17:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 - it just makes sense. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2. We should apply the same standard that is already in place for former admins who have no edits in the past two years: "regardless of the reason for removal, the editor will need to request reinstatement through the WP:RFA process". --RL0919 (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm going to go against the grain and make things gratuitously complicated. Leave the existing 5-year rule as-is for admins dropped for inactivity; measure it from the date of resignation for the rest. (Equivalently, treat resignation as an admin action.) This disincentivizes making a pro-forma deletion the day you resign, treats admins who usually use tools that don't leave logs (like viewdeleted or editing protected or MediaWiki: pages) the same as those who use ones that do, and matches up with the total inactivity rules. —Cryptic 18:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- I actually like this suggestion best so far.Basically we pretend that inactive admins resigned when they stopped using the tools. —Kusma (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 per above. Only option that makes sense -Fastily 10:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- 2 and to be clear, this should be evaluated at the time of the request. This was always a messy timing issue that has caused contention. — xaosflux 10:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2: All former administrators. I'm on a see-saw regarding adding a clause that it should count from resignation, but it does make cleaner and clearer sense to make it a strict rule that it's five years since last tool use. SilkTork (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Cryptic's version, with Option 2 as a second choice. If you haven't been an admin for that long, you should probably make sure you still have community support. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2. This is a no-brainer for me - as I see if, it makes no difference on the voluntary nature of your desysop, if you haven't used the tools for 5 years, you cannot be considered up to date with what's going on Misplaced Pages and any culture shifts in that time period. Running through RfA should be required. Worm(talk) 16:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 or Cryptic's idea, either is equally fine with me. In the olden days, like 2010-2015ish, I'm pretty sure it worked similarly to option 2 anyway (except it was like 2 or 3 years? Am I misremembering?) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- You might be thinking of the total inactivity rule, which says anyone without any edits for two years (and was previously zero edits over three years). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 as reducing WP:CREEP while making more sense. Fewer "if"s to keep track of. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 Agreed with Toadspike that the prior consensus probably was Option 1, but as HouseBlaster notes, this minimizes WP:CREEP by eliminating an exception to the rule with a common-sense judgement that those who voluntarily desysop and go ≥5yrs without admin activity can no longer stake an automatic claim to continued community support ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 08:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Cryptic's rule or Option 2 both fine. Per Extraordinary Writ and Cryptic. Ajpolino (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 - a lot has changed on enwiki in 5 years and so have policies, so I think it would be wise to ensure that someone regaining the tools is up to date on all of them and not just default-grandfathered in because they were able to wield them many years ago. Raladic (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2: Should apply equally to all ex-admins. Five years is a long time for any admin, and also applying it equally to every ex-admin would reduce bureacratic hassel (e.g. resigning under dubious conditions?).--Takipoint123 (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Cryptic's rule I agree that we need to have some measure of consistency, and I especially like Crpytic's idea of effectively counting voluntary resignation in itself as an admin action. Jackattack1597 (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Discussion (five year rule)
- Notifying those who participated in the 2022 RFC: @Primefac, Barkeep49, Floquenbeam, Tamzin, Just Step Sideways, Isaacl, SilkTork, UninvitedCompany, Coretheapple, Worm That Turned, Kusma, Bilorv, and Jc37: Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- A variant of this failed to pass at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2)#Statement 5 by Pharaoh of the Wizards. —Cryptic 23:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I tend to think that if you haven't used the tools in five years, you ought to go through either RFA or the election rather than just having it handed back. I'd imagine most former admins who resigned while not under a cloud could pass either pretty easily. Realistically, such users already have not been an admin for five years. Or... just thought of this, we now have Re-RFA as a result of recall, where standards are a little more lax for passing, that might be the way to go. Just Step Sideways 23:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with both thoughts. But if they could easily pass, wouldn't it be better to save community time and just resysop them directly? Toadspike 06:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- But what about the ones who would not pass? Thryduulf (talk) 08:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with both thoughts. But if they could easily pass, wouldn't it be better to save community time and just resysop them directly? Toadspike 06:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion added to WP:CD for visibility as it involves a policy change. cyberdog958 07:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'll cop to this ambiguity being basically my fault as I was the one who proposed this rule in the first place. At the time it was exceedingly difficult to make any changes to the admin activity policy and I believe I phrased it this way out of caution, deliberately aiming as low as possible. Just Step Sideways 21:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- I resigned as an administrator 10 years ago because I was switching careers and moved back to NYC, so I was going through an inordinate amount of stress. I would like to be able to get the extra tools if needed. Bearian (talk)
- If this change is going to be made, is it going to be retroactive, or only apply to five years of inactivity going forward? At the very least, people like Bearian should be notified that a potential change is going to affect their status. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's probably worth discussion as a separate question, with notifications to those affected (former admins who resigned, whose last logged action was ~four or more years ago, and who have edited within the last two years) and all those who have commented above. It's worth noting though that previous changes to the activity policy have implicitly applied retroactively without (as far as I spotted) notifications to those affected (2022, 2019, 2018, 2012). Thryduulf (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Notifications were sent out after the 2012 change—see here. I don't think they've been used recently, though. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- As we mature as a site, we need to be more intentional about the growing body of people affected by changes: If proposed changes are going to be retroactive--which is clearly the community's right--then the affected persons need to be notified and invited to participate or exercise their current privileges, if desired, before any modification is effective. This is a bit of a sore subject for me, as I was disenfranchised from Arbcom elections a few years back by a change in activity calculations I was unaware of until it had become effective. Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Grandfathering would be almost pointless, as it would mean anyone with 5+ years of non-adminship would effectively get another five years before they were ineligible. I would be perfectly fine with giving a delayed implementation and/or an MMS sent out to the affected former admins, but not starting the clock fresh. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- What seems to have happened in 2012 was that those affected were sent a mass message just under a month before the change was implemented. Assuming this RFC is closed in early December, then implementing the change on 1 February 2025 would give people plenty of time to request the tools back if they are still engaged with the project. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Grandfathering would be almost pointless, as it would mean anyone with 5+ years of non-adminship would effectively get another five years before they were ineligible. I would be perfectly fine with giving a delayed implementation and/or an MMS sent out to the affected former admins, but not starting the clock fresh. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- As we mature as a site, we need to be more intentional about the growing body of people affected by changes: If proposed changes are going to be retroactive--which is clearly the community's right--then the affected persons need to be notified and invited to participate or exercise their current privileges, if desired, before any modification is effective. This is a bit of a sore subject for me, as I was disenfranchised from Arbcom elections a few years back by a change in activity calculations I was unaware of until it had become effective. Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Notifications were sent out after the 2012 change—see here. I don't think they've been used recently, though. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's probably worth discussion as a separate question, with notifications to those affected (former admins who resigned, whose last logged action was ~four or more years ago, and who have edited within the last two years) and all those who have commented above. It's worth noting though that previous changes to the activity policy have implicitly applied retroactively without (as far as I spotted) notifications to those affected (2022, 2019, 2018, 2012). Thryduulf (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrator recall/Reworkshop
You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrator recall/Reworkshop. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC) Sincerely, Dilettante 21:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Notification of RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation
There is an RfC on seeking tools via a voluntary RfA after resignation at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Question about wheel
Misplaced Pages:Unblocking links here when it says "Unblocking will almost never be acceptable when it would constitute wheel warring" but this page states "When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a decision by consensus." It's unclear to me if WHEELing would involve an initial unblock without consensus/consulting the original blocking admin or if this only becomes relevant if a third admin comes by and reverses the unblock. Because if it's the latter meaning, the link here from unblocking doesn't really make sense. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the first block and the first unblock are allowed. Then anything after that, without a corresponding discussion to get consensus, is wheel warring. That first unblock can sometimes be unpopular and go against the guidance of checking with the blocking admin, but I think it's allowed under policy and is not wheel warring. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- If A blocks, B unblocks, C reblocks, and D reunblocks, all without discussion, then C and D are wheel warring as they reinstated a previous administrative action without clear discussion to establish a consensus view. The first reversal is allowed by the community as it desires quick reversals of problematic actions, but the reversal should be followed by discussion. In theory, if the community enacted an editing restriction enforced by a block until a given condition was met (for simplicity, let's say a partial block), and A unblocked, B reblocked, and C reunblocked, without discussion, then C would be wheel warring. isaacl (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the other hand, if A's block happened in 2018 while B, C, and D all acted this week, I'd say only D is wheel warring even if A's original block was done without a prior discussion. At some point (and I'm not going to try to define when exactly that point is) the original block becomes a status quo and B's unblock can be seen as a fresh action rather than a reversal of the prior action. Anomie⚔ 13:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the main question in such a case is whether the third/etc. action is based on new information or not.
- A blocks. 3 years later, B says "that was a bad block" and unblocks. C reblocks. C has wheel-warred; B may or may not have violated WP:RAAA.
- A blocks. 3 years later, B accepts an unblock request. C disagrees with the acceptance and reblocks. D unblocks. This would be a serious RAAA violation by C, but not a wheel war, because the first mover for the current set of information is B. D, however, has wheel-warred.
- A blocks. 3 years later, B accepts an unblock request. The user then vandalizes and C blocks them. This violates neither WHEEL nor RAAA. D then unblocks, violating RAAA but not WHEEL. E then reblocks. It's E who's violated WHEEL, because they're the third mover for the current set of information.
- -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 13:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the main question in such a case is whether the third/etc. action is based on new information or not.
- On the other hand, if A's block happened in 2018 while B, C, and D all acted this week, I'd say only D is wheel warring even if A's original block was done without a prior discussion. At some point (and I'm not going to try to define when exactly that point is) the original block becomes a status quo and B's unblock can be seen as a fresh action rather than a reversal of the prior action. Anomie⚔ 13:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- The best example is Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement, which was a straight block / unblock / reblock case, where the final admin to reblock was desysopped for cause. (Oh, it also stemmed from
Malleus FatuorumEric Corbett calling admins the "c" word, which used to be a good way to reduce the world supply of popcorn....) Ritchie333 12:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)