![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Just unblocked 216.135.25.129 and 216.135.25.89 (but not 216.135.25.72), since I suppose it's unlikely that e will have the same ip address again, after it's changed... Would it be ok to also unblock all ip addresses that were blocked more than a week or so ago? كسيپ Cyp 08:28 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Not to suggest any hierarchy, but could a list be arranged according to seniority. I have no vested interest in that, having very recently been promoted to sysop status. This would just be an interesting chronicle of Wiki's growth. 172 04:23 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hi, I'm user Gutza and I can't log in any more. I'm sorry if I should've complained about this somewhere else, I found no better place to do it. I'm sure I'm typing my credentials right, I use Mozilla and it stores the credentials for all the sites I'm registered with, and I used it before to log in Wikipedia. Also, my user hasn't been deleted because trying to re-create it results in an error message saying a user with the same name already exists, or something to that effect. Does anyone know what happened? Please answer on my user's talk page so we don't load this page with this discussion. Thank you! -- 217.156.116.130 00:36, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC) :-(
Wikipedia >> iPedia or ePedia or ...
I suggest shortening the project name for easier publicity of the internet site
Tonius 2003.08.12
User:Kkawohl I have been attempting to post somewhat controversial items relating to 21st Century Spirituality and a reestablishment of Transcendentalism in the 21st Century and how it relates to religious rationality. I was called a nut-case and my postings were considered propaganda and were deleted consistently. Is religious rationality which is not based on superstitions that have survived since the Middle Ages not an item of interest? How much power is too much if administrators can base deletions on their biased religious beliefs?
User:Tim Starling "effectively has developer access" but is not labelled as a developer. Why? -- Jiang (Dated September 17, 2003)
Allow me. --
Cyan 02:10, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Oh why thank you, Cyan. As my first act as developer, I will query the database using the long-since-disabled web interface. SELECT 1!
1 |
---|
1 |
The power!!! *evil laugh* :) -- Tim Starling 02:20, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
If protection can not be used by a sysop involved in an edit war, does the same apply to the use of the rollback button? It seems it should as it is giving a sysop advantages over normal users for a reason it was not implemented. Should it only be used for reverting vandalism? Angela 17:36, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Remove Zoe, and other inactive or long gone admins? 戴眩sv 21:27, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Could inactive admin accounts pose a security hazard? -- Jiang
I have tagged the inactive sysop accounts. Feel free to double-check and correct. -- 65.92.250.32 01:40, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
PASTED by Fuzheado 02:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Where do I apply for sysop status? I'd like to help in such regards.
Kingturtle 22:48 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
Hi I was trying to fix a typo in the NLCS series someone had listed 2001 twice instead of 2002 at it said i was block for vandalism, don't know how that is vandalism but anyway some one may wnt to atleast fix the typo
Just unblocked 216.135.25.129 and 216.135.25.89 (but not 216.135.25.72), since I suppose it's unlikely that e will have the same ip address again, after it's changed... Would it be ok to also unblock all ip addresses that were blocked more than a week or so ago? كسيپ Cyp 08:28 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Not to suggest any hierarchy, but could a list be arranged according to seniority. I have no vested interest in that, having very recently been promoted to sysop status. This would just be an interesting chronicle of Wiki's growth. 172 04:23 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hi, I'm user Gutza and I can't log in any more. I'm sorry if I should've complained about this somewhere else, I found no better place to do it. I'm sure I'm typing my credentials right, I use Mozilla and it stores the credentials for all the sites I'm registered with, and I used it before to log in Wikipedia. Also, my user hasn't been deleted because trying to re-create it results in an error message saying a user with the same name already exists, or something to that effect. Does anyone know what happened? Please answer on my user's talk page so we don't load this page with this discussion. Thank you! -- 217.156.116.130 00:36, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC) :-(
Greetings
"Love-hate relationship". The topic submitted is clearly to others who voted it for deletion, does not know the important need for such topics to be discussed on this website and at least explained in a more understandable manner rather than using philosopycal or psychological terms to explain it. Worse would be another copied source to fill in the topic. If it was essay in form, it is simply because emotions on relationships are not dictionary materials like words given meaning to.
Lawyers and Psychology students finds it a better form of explanation. I respect your reasons for wanting to delete it. It inspires me to do better and level my aricles to your standards. thank you and I hope to be given a chance to contribute in a more analitical point of view till the best is achived to explain the topic well.
[aprildawn]
User:Kkawohl I have been attempting to post somewhat controversial items relating to 21st Century Spirituality and a reestablishment of Transcendentalism in the 21st Century and how it relates to religious rationality. I was called a nut-case and my postings were considered propaganda and were deleted consistently. Is religious rationality which is not based on superstitions that have survived since the Middle Ages not an item of interest? How much power is too much if administrators can base deletions on their biased religious beliefs?
The above posting was made in haste & I sincerely apologize.
User:Tim Starling "effectively has developer access" but is not labelled as a developer. Why? -- Jiang
Allow me. -- Cyan 02:10, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Oh why thank you, Cyan. As my first act as developer, I will query the database using the long-since-disabled web interface. SELECT 1!
1 |
---|
1 |
The power!!! *evil laugh* :) -- Tim Starling 02:20, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
If protection can not be used by a sysop involved in an edit war, does the same apply to the use of the rollback button? It seems it should as it is giving a sysop advantages over normal users for a reason it was not implemented. Should it only be used for reverting vandalism? Angela 17:36, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Remove Zoe, and other inactive or long gone admins? 戴眩sv 21:27, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Could inactive admin accounts pose a security hazard? -- Jiang
I have tagged the inactive sysop accounts. Feel free to double-check and correct. -- Cyan 01:41, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Theoretically we could enhance security by allowing a petition of sysops to immediately desysop someone. That way the damage caused by a hijacked account would be minimised. Of course it would end up being used for political reasons to demote annoying users, but that's the price you pay. -- Tim Starling 02:31, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
If someone's account is hijacked, and the hijacker goes on a rampage, someone will just act unilaterally to block the account (I'm not naming any names). Lack of bureaucracy lends itself to fast security, in this case. And I'd like to keep it as difficult as possible for a clique to acquire that sort of political power. -- Cyan 02:44, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I didn't realize sysops could unban themselves. Suddenly it all makes sense. -- Cyan 03:35, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Right now there are many more sysops than ever before. If one of them goes on a rampage, it might take a Developer to stop them. A developer could unilaterally (but temporarily) de-sysop them. Or even make the whole database read-only.
I'm sure if a genuine emergency comes up, we'll do the Right Thing. Jimbo has never punished anyone for good faith actions. That's why he's a Leader not a GodKing. -- Uncle Ed 22:38, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Actually it might be worth removing Lee's developer access. Developer accounts are truly dangerous. Lee can easily log in via SSH and give himself back developer access if he needs it. The web interface doesn't have the level of security afforded by SSH. In fact it would probably be a good idea to demote all web-interface developer access accounts (but leave the names in bold-italic). Any developer can turn the flag back on when they need it, and turn it off when they are finished. -- Tim Starling 01:30, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
And to think I included you in the list of all-powerful users! Log on to pliny, and type "sql-en". Then use the queries:
Putting "limit 1" after any query which you expect to modify one row is generally considered a good idea, so that if you make a typo it can't go haywire and destroy everything. -- Tim Starling 01:44, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
I've disabled the unfettered SQL access for developer accounts through the wiki. A developer account can put the wiki into (or take it out of) read-only mode, and that's about it now. -- Brion 03:50, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Can anyone delete another contributions without going through the processes set by Wikipedia? Recently I wrote a short addition for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas an article that covers the theories of how indigenous people came to America. The information I added was on subject and written from a neutral point of view. I was surprised to see it was totally removed within hours of its placement. I shortened my comments considerably and re-edited the page. Again, it was quickly and totally removed. That action smacks of censorship. Is censorship not against Wiki-policy? Would an administrator please look into the matter? The copy removed was titled “House of Israel Theory.” The copy removed represented a theory that is over one hundred fifty years old, is upheld by scholarly research and is also supported by millions of people worldwide. To verify the theory is as I say you may want to contact J. Michael Hunter at Brigham Young University. Thank you for helping Wikipedia remain a neutral, reliable online encylopedia as opposed to a forum for particular points of view.
I have concerns with the institution of admins. There is an unstated equivalency made by admins between the real world and cyberspace. We elect our leaders in the real world, so it is just as legitimate to elect them in cyberspace. We resolve differences in arbitration in the real world, so it is just as legitimate to do so in cyberspace. This is a terribly wrong equivalency, for a few reasons:
1. There is no real way of communicating efficiently in cyberspace.
If I have a misunderstanding with another user, we actually have to delete each other's work, talk on the talk page, etc., to resolve differences. If I have a misunderstanding with an admin, he will usually block me straight away without much fuss. Communication across cyberspace is exteremely inefficient compared with the discussions which take place in the real world and which are the basis of our institutions in the real world. Communication with admins is nearly impossible, especially considering the speedy blocks which are given.
The way Jimbo suggests to overcome this is the email list WIKI-En or whatever. The email list is much more efficient; however, there are just so many emails sent over that list that the efficacy of the list is almost nil. Arbitration falls victim to all the same problem of inefficient communication.
2. Anonymity is essential.
I was advised at some point to get a username. Usernames are absolute mistakes, and admins should straightaway stop advising people to get usernames. Every false charge against the username, every smear, sticks, because this is cyberspace. This is because edit wars are almost inevitable if you want to do anything more than minor editing. And it sticks especially because nothing can be deleted. If I tried to deleted some false charge about my username, some admin would ensure that this was reverted and that the charges remained for all to see. Once a charge is made, however false it may be, it invariably sticks. Anonymity aids immensely, especially if your only goal is to edit, because your username page invariably becomes a recepticle for the criticism and anger of others.
3. Admins are insensitive.
They can't be sensitive because you can't communicate with them effectively. You can't take them aside and explain something to them. They will always act insensitively and arbitrarily because they have to; they are working with very limited information.
This is why I believe the adminship system is serially flawed, and the admins should stop being so self-righteous and pretending they are doing a good job. They are doing their best, perhaps, but they are not doing a good job, they are upsetting numerous people more than they'll ever know.
User:Jheijmans said on his User page that he used to be an admin last year until he quit for a while. Does anybody remember that? If so, we can add him to Former Administrators list. -- Menchi 06:30, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Question on Mirror Sites moved to Wikipedia:Village pump.
Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
I'd like to nominate the following inactive sysops for de-adminship. This has been discussed on wikipedia talk:administrators (further talk can probably go there). I'd discuss it with them first... but they're inactive ;-) This is not to deny their many excellent contributions while here, simply to recognise that they are here no longer.
All the above have been inactive for two or more months - in some cases much longer. Thanks. Martin 20:34, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I have been banned for "repeated vandalism". I have no idea what I did to deserve this, and seriously hope it was a mistake on the part of the administrator. I defy RickK or whoever else is responsible for sentencing me, to show where I vandalized anything. Vroman 20:30, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi! This is taken from the Request for adminship page:
"After a 7 day period for comments, if there is general agreement that someone who requests adminship should be given it, then a developer will make it so and record that fact at Wikipedia:Recently created admins. "
My question is: what exactly does "general agreement" mean? Can you become an administrator by only having one person that has reviewed your work and that was positive about it? (--130.236.224.35)
Please add [[eo:Vikipedio:Administrantoj]] Thanks Arno Lagrange 14:42, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Recently created admins is nice but it only lists recently created admins. Do we have a similar page lists old admins? Optim 03:42, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I am aware of the actions of 168... that led to the need for arbitration. However, I am curious to know what the process was to temporarily suspend his admin powers until the Committee makes is ruling. Was it the arbitration committee that made the call for the temporary suspension? Was it a developer? Do tell. Kingturtle 07:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
He then posted on the mailing list and received Jimbo's blessing: [2]. -- Jia ng
Moved here from Village Pump, Fuzheado 02:46, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I propose that the term "sysop" be removed from the Wikipedia lexicon. We already have administrator (short admin), and it is kind of confusing to have both. Not to mention that sysop doesn't really fit the bill, unless you consider Wikipedia a system! I am bringing this up now because of the newly emerged Special:Makesysop seems to be introducing the term sysop even more. I am guessing this would be mostly a search and replace kind of deal, disruptive yes, but is it any more difficult than that? Are the benefits worth it? Dori | Talk 20:15, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
Honestly, I just use sysop and admin interchangably. →Raul654 23:05, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
I thought this had already been done. Kind of reminds me of how people think "bans" and "blocks" are the same thing. - Hephæstos| § 03:51, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Erm, Cyp has invented a category below to put his vote in, which is very funny - but I'm not quite sure what point he's trying to make. [Especially given that we already have a "don't care" category] Would you care to enlighten us on what your actual opinion is, Cyp? - IMSoP 15:58, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Note: I've arranged this back into the original options, and moved people's comments to after their names. There's no point having a straw poll if people just put a comment and then vote for it as though it was an option. If you think I've moved your vote to the wrong option - well, you should have voted properly in the first place, shouldn't you? - IMSoP 12:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
A) I think that sysop should be deprecated in favor of admin
B) I think that admin should be deprecated in favor of sysop
C) Leave it like it is / I don't care
D) I think both "sysop" and "admin" should be deprecated in favor of "janitor"
Out of personal curiosity, I wanted to see how we're doing as a group regarding utilizing the block and unblock powers. I thought I'd share the data; it is for fun and for self-assessment.
Not including tests, jokes and self-bans, the following is a reasonably accurate list of admins and the number of blocks they've made in 2004. It is my understanding that IP blocks expire after 24 hours. As long as that is true, everything is cool - because most of these involve IPs.
86 Maximus Rex (with 10 unblocks) 40 Hephaestos (with 2 unblocks) 35 Morwen (with zero unblocks) 28 Pakaran (with 1 unblock) 28 Dysprosia (with zero unblocks) 25 Ahoerstemeier (with 5 unblocks) 25 Snoyes (with 2 unblocks) 22 Evercat (with 2 unblocks) 18 Salsa Shark (with zero unblocks) 16 Silsor (with 5 unblocks) 16 Angela (with 4 unblocks) 14 Secretlondon (with 3 unblocks) 14 Dori (with zero unblocks) 12 Fuzheado (with 2 unblocks) 12 Tim Starling (with 1 unblock) 11 Dante Alighieri (with zero unblocks) 8 RickK (with zero unblocks) 7 Jiang (with 2 unblocks) 7 Cyan (with 1 unblock) 6 Tannin (with zero unblocks) 5 Eloquence (with 3 unblocks) 5 Raul654 (with zero unblocks) 4 Delirium (with 12 unblocks) 4 Ed Poor (with 2 unblocks) 4 Finlay McWalter (with zero unblocks) 3 Stevertigo (with 1 unblock) 3 Jwrosenzweig (with zero unblocks) 2 Maveric149 (with 3 unblocks) 2 Infrogmation (with zero unblocks) 2 Arwel Parry (with 2 unblocks) 2 Jimbo Wales (with 2 unblocks) 2 PMelvilleAustin (with 1 unblock) 2 JeLuF (with zero unblocks) 2 The Anome (with zero unblocks) 2 Muriel Gottrop (with 1 unblock) 1 Danny (with 1 unblock) 1 Kaihsu (with 1 unblock) 1 Andre Engels (with 1 unblock) 1 Camembert (with zero unblocks) 1 AstroNomer (with zero unblocks) 1 Adam Bishop (with zero unblocks) 1 Meelar (with zero unblocks) 1 Bmills (with zero unblocks) 1 G-Man (with zero unblocks) 1 Jtdirl (with zero unblocks) 1 Evil saltine (with zero unblocks) 1 WhisperToMe (with zero unblocks) 1 Quercusrobur (with zero unblocks) 0 John Kenney (with 2 unblocks) 0 Menchi (with 2 unblocks) 0 Jamesday (with 1 unblock)
Your pal, Kingturtle 03:10, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
where is the discussion of abuse of authority? the chilling effect on free speech? the discouragement of controversy by 'reversals' and 'deletions' that need not list any reason other than 'this page is garbage'. - - did you folks even take any government classes in school? do you know what 'checks and balances' means? do you even want to talk about it? - - no, of course you dont. admins are just doing their righteous thing and cannot make mistakes of any import. or of course nothing bad is happening. no only bad people are restricted by an unaccountable and unelected admin system. - - nice attitude. thanks for turning wiki into slashdot. nice 'objective' 'wide ranging' page, that. -
OH gee, 'convention'. we all know how reliable that is. nobody would ever abuse their power because they should be afraid of 'convention'!!! yes, that is a brilliant check and balance. im sure lots of governments use the terrible terrifying power of 'convention' to keep leaders in line. I think thats what kept nixon from assassinating john dean. 'convention'. yeah. good idea guys.
also i am very heartened to learn that administrators can crticizie each other. because we all know that as a group, only admins should be able to criticize each other, after all, they have been the most hard working and care more about wiki than the lowly slimeball users. furthermore, there will obviously be no danger of 'groupthink', because admins are geniuses in the first place, because look how hard they work and how much they care. third off, admins will never ever have their own interests, as a group. nope. there will never be a decision where admins have to decide on something that is between their own interests and the interests of the users. in fact, the interests of the admins are the same as the interests of the users, sort of like Maos argument against democracy in china: the people's interests are represented by the party, therefore the people dont need to have any say over the party.
"If you don't like it, tough. . . . . troll" -- Yes this demonstrates the true democratic spirit of the admins. Obviously someone who thinks like this is very worried about users' interests, and will be protective against the abuse of power as witnessed on just about every other 'community' website on the entire internet, like slashdot, kuro5hin, freerepublic, etc. You sir are truly 'serving the people' and guaranteeting access for all. Nope, no cabalist tendencies here, not at all no siree bob.
Hell, there is nothing to worry about. Why am I even concerned? Yes, the system is perfectly adequate, and nobody will ever be driven off by a bunch of admins deciding their article has no merit or that their opinions are stupid. Or if they did surely they would be able to find the 'admin discussion' where there is guaranteed to be another admin who will take their side against the deleting admin. I dont see why these whiny users want a say in anything, the admins can take care of it all, and if the user cant be bothered to observe this process, too bad for them!
In fact, the discussion pages for administrative decisions are so easy to find, so well thought out, and work so well, that you should be commended for improving on meatspace democracy. Nobody ever goes to the 'deletion list' page and says 'what is this mess'. There are also never any edit conflicts on that page, because it is so short, and there are so few people trying to access it simultaneously. Obviously this whole process of oversight of administrators has been so well thought out and all the issues about overreach of power have been resolved, and nothing really important is going on here.
Nope. System is fine. Full steam ahead. Silence the trolls, for they know nothing of the burden of responsibility!
how come when someone edits a page an admin doesnt like, its called 'vandalism'. but when an admin deletes or edits a page, and writes 'this is nonsense', its called 'administration'?
---
look, man, i dont care about how it works, i care about how its going to work. every single last web board on the internet has had instances where the people in power abused it to delete things simply because they didnt like it. power corrupts.
if there are administrators, and there are more than one, there damn well is a group of administrators. they discuss things on the 'deletion' page, by posting their comments under the suggestions for deletion, suggestions made only by other administrators. if you cant figure out how admins might have a group interest that is different from the users, i feel sorry for you.
the most obvious example would be pages like this. since wiki is itself made by discussions and articles on wiki, and administrators position, abilities, and so forth are come about to by discussions within the wiki system, it kind of stands to reason that eventually some day there will be some fight, wherein the administrators will use their power to further their interests at the expense of the users, on one of these such discussions. any page with discussions about the place of administrators, about admins overstepping, about the way adminning works, etc etc etc, could be a starting point for the armageddon of wikipedia.
if you dont guard against the corruption of power, it will take over. 'new things' will quit being tried out, because those in power will not want to lose their power. why? because its been institutionalized. the rules are in place. the code is like concrete, it is slowly setting in, without any safeguards in place. By the time you need them, it will be too late.
really i dont care though. someone will just fork wiki, since it is all copyleft someone will just take all the content over along with them. sometimes we have to learn things the hard way.
I am afraid I have to complain about Adam Bishop's unfair behaviour and, what I feel, an extreme abuse of his administrator powers.
On 20 Mar 2004, 22:34 he has blocked my account and unfairly reverted my edits in Cottbus, Munich, Dresden, Leipzig, Free City of Gdansk regarding the usage of alternative language names of various cities.
Despite the Wikipedia rule diplayed on this page Sysops can block and unblock IP addresses. This is meant to be used solely to deal with persistent vandalism. IP banning is not meant to be used against unpopular opinions, non-persistent vandalism, etc. Adam Bishop used this ban againts me to push his presonal POV, and to block me from editing and discussing the issue. His action was done without any discussion or warning.
My opinion is that the alternative language placenames should be allowed on condition that this is aplied equally to all languages. For example if we allow German names for Polish cities, we should also allow Polish names for the German cities.
Adam's opinion seems to be that German names for Polish cities should be allowed and maybe enforces, and at the same time Polish names for German cities should be forbidden.
This subject is already discusssed (and was discussed in time of Adams' actions) in the Wikipedia mediation started at my request:
Adam's action blocked me from participating in these discussions and in the mediation process. Adam should have consulted these pages before makin his action.
In these circumstances I demmand:
Mestwin of Gdansk 00:10, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hey Gdansk, I shouldn't have blocked you, so I apologize, but you were trolling and vandalizing and it was very frustrating. Polish cities should have Polish names, but Kiel, Munich, and others aren't Polish. You even said to me that you were changing those articles out of some kind of revenge. Adam Bishop 00:00, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Apologies half accepted, as I do not feel guilty, and you continue to claim that I was. That fulfills 0.5 out of my 3 demands above. -- Mestwin of Gdansk 00:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is there a way to see the IP addresses used by registered users (in order to confirm sockpuppet suspicions)? Better yet, is there a way to get a list of users that have connected from the same IP as a particular user? Mkweise 22:48, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
See wikipedia:feature requests. It's a common request, but there's no ability at the moment. There probably should be. Martin 01:08, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There has been confusion over Macrocosm and Microcosm. It was originally Macrocosm. I changed it to Macrocosm/Microcosm. And somebody changed it to Macrocosm and Microcosm. Now the original history is lost and I would like for it to meet up. Is that possible? WHEELER 14:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia has different kinds of users, with different kinds of powers.
Admins have extra powers, and thus extra responsibility, but no extra authority. Admins have an 'example function' towards other volunteers. That is: if you are an admin, try to be always polite, friendly, kind, stay out of quarrels, etc.
A admin is not 'more' than other volunteers, but he can do more. All authority rests with the wikipedia community. You can not set the direction of a wiki, act on your own authority, or whatever. This applies even if a community is very small, even new volunteers should have a chance to have their say.
Try to follow procedures strictly - if you as a admin dont do it, dont expect that others will do it. Dont quarrel, and certainly not publicly with other admins. Of course you can have differences of opinion, but keep things civilised.
Dont advertise your being admin. Authority does not derive from this, but is carried by your arguments and deeds.
Listing your real name and email address is not obligatory, but it works easier if other admins know these.
If confidential information comes your way, handle it with care.
Protect wikipedia by being carefull with your password. Dont choose an easy-to-guess password such as your name, yopur userid, or words like 'secret'.
Dont forget to logout when using wiki from a public compueter susch as a university
You can
Always use you common sense, and act in the interest of wikipedia.
User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Kenney has just vandalised 3 pages Gdynia, Gdansk and Szczecin by removing the list of sports teams, list of local politicians and the title line. One of his comments was so sick of this shit. I am not sure if the shit remark was to the Polish sporting teams of the Polish politicians, or something else, but this behaviour requiers sokme action. I FEEL INSULTED. Szczecin banditism. Gdynia banditism and Gdansk banditism. May I suggest a 24h ban, and if this will not help to ban this bandit permanetly. Please HELP!!!!!
Go away - you are annoying. Manning 21:48, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Mainpage was added between words "Çàãëàâíàÿ" and "ñòðàíèöà". Now all pages of ru.wikipedia.org not opening:
How fix it? --Ctac
If I try to move a page over to one of its Redirects (which has a history), the move fails with the message: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or contact an Administrator to help you with the move." With a link to this page to request assistance. However, when you get here, there doesn't appear to be a suitable category to handle page move problems. (I was trying to move Les Fauves to Fauvism) -- Solipsist 09:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This is my proposed clarification of that paragraph. Any thoughts, ideas, criticisms? I'm not an admin, so I'm going on what I read about the rollback feature here. If it's wrong, please correct me. --style 05:36, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and edited the page to state that one-click revert should not be used on edits other than vandalism; there seems to be widespread support for it otherwise. ( Wikipedia:Revert already contained some language from brion advising not to use it in editing disputes, which I explained further.) It seems that this is an unwritten rule if not stronger, and it's probably best to treat exceptions as exceptions rather than accepted practice. One-click revert is something of a slap in the face to a good-faith editor; you should be very sure that's not what you're dealing with before you use it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is the right place to ask this question. Apologies in advance if it is not and kindly point the right direction.
From Maruti Udyog website, in Terms of Use.
RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF MARUTI MATERIALS You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any information, products or services obtained from any Maruti Web Sites, directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Maruti will not be held liable for any delays, errors or omissions therefrom, or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof, or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
Based on this can we use images from this in Wikipedia?
Thanks,
Alren 17:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not unless we get explicit permission. -- Hemanshu 10:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Administrators will not exist in quite the same way in MediaWiki 1.4, due for release in a few weeks. Instead there will be user groups, and these can be assigned any mixture of access levels. See Wikipedia:User access levels and its talk page for details. Angela . 23:11, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
I've created one because it's too hard to communicate to other admins via messages (I've already been blocked for doing this!) So I've come up with a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. All admins please feel free to use this! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Andrevan added this to the article:
In the early days of Wikipedia all users acted as administrators and in principle they still should. Any user can act as if he/she is an administrator even if he/she has not been given the extra administrative functions. Users doing so are more likely to be chosen as full administrators by the community when they are finally nominated.
Could you explain this a bit more? From what I've seen on WP:RfA, impersonating an admin has generally been very bad for a potential. What does "act as if they are an administrator" even mean, anyway? The only differences in my actions since becoming an admin have been the use of admin-privs. — Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:01, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
I intend to replace the text with a little clarification added to make it clear that "pretending to be an admin" is a bad idea whereas "behaving like an admin" is a good one since people seem to have misunderstood my original text. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:09, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
And I have now done so -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:56, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Has anyone been considering an intermediate level for "super-users"—people who spend a lot of time on Wikipedia but don't get bogged down in VfD debates, etc.? In particular, I would like the ability to revert vandalism, and perhaps some marginally greater ability to move pages would be nice, though I'd probably just end up causing trouble ;-) — User:Mulad (talk) 05:13, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Current text on this page says:
Every once in a while, I could swear that it works as described. However, more often than not, clicking Rollback simply reverts to the previous version, NO MATTER whether it was the same user and NO MATTER whether I was viewing a diff to an earlier, correct version (e.g., see [3], where I was viewing a 2-back revision by Grutness and the latest version by an anon, and it simply rolled back to the previous edit by same anon--oops, I lied, I see that the IP is off by 1. But it did NOT roll back to grutness). What does rollback *really* do? What is it really *supposed* to do? I'd really like it to rollback to the previous version that I'm viewing on the comparison page. I don't think that even half of the rollbacks that I need to do go back only one revision. Elf | Talk 22:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks; I removed the incorrect statement about the diff. Elf | Talk 23:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You can rollback while looking at a diff. It just doesn't roll back to what you were looking at, necessarily. john k 18:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship is a proposal to allow Wikipedians to vote on the demotion of administrators, just as they vote to promote them. A straw poll is open to gather consensus as to whether such a process should be available. -- Netoholic @ 18:54, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
Is it okay for me to put stuff in my sandbox or will I be blocked just like I would if I put something in the Wikipedia: Sandbox? Also what is a block? -- Trueblue9999 17:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Test edits aren't blockable, particularly in
Wikipedia:Sandbox. You can make your own sandbox and use it for the same purposes. A Wikipedia block is a way of stopping you logging in and editing. We use them to stop people who seem to be doing things that, if left to go on, could damage Wikipedia. --
Tony Sidaway|
Talk 18:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But I got a message saying I will be blocked if I make another edit in
Wikipedia:Sandbox on my talk page. --
Trueblue9999 18:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No fair! Why can't I get de-adminned? And shame on you for deleting Adam Carr's complaint!! Isn't his beef as good as anyone else's beef? Are you demeaning his meat? That would not be meet or proper!
He wants me censured, blocked or de-sysopped for deleting his objections from my talk page - his objections to my having blocked him for one hour. (Note that he did not say de-adminned for blocking him - for that he only demanded an apology, and I gave him half of one ;-)
It's all at user talk:Ed Poor/Adam Carr if you'll please take a look. Uncle Ed 11:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Ed Poor has been at Wikipedia much longer than me and knows that the correct way to reply to a message of any kind is at the Talk page of the person sending the message. I have no intention of rummaging around in his archives looking for something he should have had the elementary courtesy to send to me directly. Adam 06:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so far I got it that beracrats (sic) aren't as powerful as admins of sysops right? And how do you become a site developer if you are an owner of say a wiki site shouldn't you be a sd there since you made it? And if the people that have a website and all of them are admin's then how do you become a sd?
"it's me ><ino!" ok i want to be an admin not to do all hard works, i just want to have access to deleted pages, becuase sometimes i put the wrong names for a article, so i want to be an admin to delete them, thank you:D
><ino
09:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, say I go to a wiki site and I have been there a long time and then I become a sysop and I do it then say I want to become a higher rank but I can't so how would I get to be a steward or a site developer would I have to come here and ado alot of stuff here and all that, then go up for nomination and realize I lost. Well that would just be too, inconvient. Bassium!
When I came across the paragraph it was written as follows:
And I reverted it to:
It was clearly someone's personal gripe being slipped into the mix. But now Adam has taken personal offence on my talk page... Is he just continuing the joke, or am I in a bizzarro universe, and his sardonic paragraph was approved wikipedia policy? Themindset 04:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I did not "take personal offence," I asked you to tell me where you disagreed with the paragraph you reverted. I am still waiting for you to do so. Adam 04:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
May I ask you a question? Was your particular phrasing of that final paragraph motivated by personal experience? Or was it an honest interpretation of the spirit of this particular wikipedia project page? Themindset 04:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
It was a summation of what I understand to be the reality of the situation, based on personal experience. Adam 05:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Can I ask why Radical Bender removed an external link from the Manga page to a site I frequent called Manga Life? This site has been in existence since May and already has more manga reviews than any other site I can find on the net, it's kept up to date with new stuff at least every other day, and - frankly - has more detailed and informative reviews than a couple of the other sites already linked. So wikipedia really should be linking here, yet when I add the link this guy deleted it? Surely against the ethos of wikipedia?
Thanks, Mark
Forgive me if this has been rehashed over and over, but I'm curious whether there's been any discussion recently of means of expiring sysop privileges. What if, for example, appointments to sysop had a 6 or 12 month term, after which consensus would again determine whether the editor retained adminship? I found Wikipedia:Confirmation_of_sysophood but this is from a while back, so I'm curious what current thoughts are on this. Friday (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I know if I use my new AdministrativePower® too much, I risk getting a complaint for adminship abuse and getting the power taken away. But is there any danger in using it too little? — JIP | Talk 17:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Just curious, has anyone been desysopped for a reason other than inactivity or their own request? WP:LA doesnt really help me. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The user or administrator "Gamaliel's" history page on the lee Harvey Oswald article has some of the most vulgar comments, just plain filthy as a matter of fact, of anything I have ever seen. I did not expect this of Wikipedia. Anyone can access that page including children. Quite disgusting. Can it be cleaned up?
They don't listen. Maybe got other things to do. Just a mini power trip anyway 152.163.178.143 20:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Mongo has deleted my edits to the September 11, 2001 page where I point out that the perpetrators of these horrible crimes are "alleged" since there has been no trial; and that there are credible dessenters such as David Ray Griffin who believe that the offical report is bogus and that it was not 19 Arabs. He is accusing me of "vandalism" for putting "non-sense" into Wikipedia. I have $1,000,000 backing up my "non-sense". To refuse to mention the huge 9/11 conspiracy movement and the credible people such as the former Chief Economist for Labor, Morgan Reynolds, who believe explosives were used is censorship. Jimmy Walter Reopen911.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmywalter ( talk • contribs) 06:08, 24 September 2005
I said that MONGO isn't an administrator simply because the only reason the complaint is on this page ( Wikipedia_talk:Administrators) is because the complainant believed that MONGO was an administrator. None of my comments have anything to do with the fact that I am an administrator. If I were handling the case in question as an administrator, then I would have taken action as an administrator. Despite Agriculture's sincere belief, I have not done so. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 00:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I think the colors should be changed, also this template should be advertised on an Admin page and included in the You're a sysop! template(s). - Roy Boy 800 02:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Can we get some kind of standard way to capitalise "administrator"? Should it always be capped, or never? It varies throughout WP, and I would like there to be some kind of consensus on this. I think Administrator should be capped, but adminship should remain lowercase. Your thoughts? -- Lord Vold e mort (Dark Mark) 15:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I think special unforgeable tags should be added to users' User: pages if they are administrators/bureaucrats/stewards/board members. This way, you can know easily when you are viewing the page of an administrator without looking at the long admin list. -- Myria 02:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
This is correct. I withdraw my complaint. Tony and I have come to an understanding, and the matter is settled. Both of us may have reacted badly. I do not wish to pursue. Thank you. Iago Dali 12:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Apparently a very young Administrator Splash I believe from Bath England feels it incumbent to block, a piece I have on the history of Cuban espionage. Not alter it, not challenge it but simply block it.
What he/she writes is:
“Please take the request to: Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you recreate the article again, anywhere, under any title without doing so, I will block you from editing Wikipedia. -Splashtalk 18:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)”
While I don’t know Splash’s background nor her/his credentials to do this. Here are some of mine, my family is part Taíno (Siboney), and has been prominent, even famous, through out known Cuban history. I fought in Castro’s forces for almost a year in 1958; during that time I participate in a number of military actions, but never executed anybody. It was the executions that made me break with Castro, in 1961 I was later jailed by Castro and was released through diplomatic intervention. Then I was coerced to leave the country. Having remade my life as an academic, and I am now a full professor in the sciences looking towards retirement. In my field I have almost a hundred refereed scientific publications, and have published (hard copy) probably more than ten publications on Cuba history and associated topics.
I am using the pseudonym (El Jigüe) because of my academic position and because as compromise is reached in each section, I wish merely to contribute and not to be responsible for the final product.
It is my opinion that “Splash” might well be reminded that rather than deleting an article, and insisting on blocking it (and anything else I submit), a far more productive attitude would be to challenge specific parts of the article and attempt a compromise.
Sincerely El Jigüe User talk:205.240.227.15
Sunday, October 23, 2005
I have continuously added new material, new citations, etc etc., under the 1title of Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised. Yet I find this important material constantly deleted. When I address what ever complaints are presented and replace these deleted sections; then the authors of these deletions (critics) then level accusations of multiple postings. From the fervor of these critics and their comments one could readily infer that deletions may well carry an ideological bias. A second now more common procedure (when continual direct deletion fails) seems be to lodge a spurious and often mendacious complaint, which is accepted by a like thinking editor who removes the article soon as possible e.g. Talk:Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised. El Jigüe 1/27/2005
It is now my contention, that the Wikipedia revision process has systematic errors that freely allow serious abuses of this nature; and that that these abuses become a form of ideological censorship. Furthermore I infer from these critics’ behaviors that such abuses have potential far wider use by totalitarian governments to censor criticism by this means. I do not expect any remedies, nor do I anticipate that this article to be restored. However, I do expect to prepare, present in scholarly forum, and then publish a paper on this matter sometime next year. El Jigüe 1/27/2005
This admin is deletion happy - he deleted my brand new Wikiracist article within 5 minutes of creation, violating several wikipedia policies in the process - "Don't bite the newbies", "Assume good faith" and in deleting it as 'utter crap' making a "Personal attack". He also failed to let the deletion process take it's course. If this is the sort of behaviour an admin thinks is appropropiate, why should I bother trying to contribute? 84.68.19.88 14:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
If you know what it means, then fix it and restore it.
This sentence makes no sense because all signed-in editors can check on edits and contributions by other signed in users, as well as anonymous users. In this way, admins are no different from other signed in users. Even anonymous users can check your contributions, though they don't get watchlists. - Lethe | Talk 19:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
From the project page: Administrators are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility.
This may or may not remain true. See Jimbo's experiment at Talk:Alan Dershowitz. Depending on whether the practice is continued, the statement may need to be softened or adjusted. -- Tabor 23:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I have been trying my darndest to keep the Mandy Moore page up to date. But it seems anti fans and fans alike have been vandalizing the information. One in particular, 64.252.215.100 another is 164.67.44.180 What am i to do? Parys
If I try to move a page over to one of its Redirects (which has a history), the move fails with the message: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or contact an Administrator to help you with the move." With a link to this page to request assistance. However, when you get here, there doesn't appear to be a suitable category to handle page move problems. (I was trying to move Les Fauves to Fauvism) -- Solipsist 09:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This is my proposed clarification of that paragraph. Any thoughts, ideas, criticisms? I'm not an admin, so I'm going on what I read about the rollback feature here. If it's wrong, please correct me. --style 05:36, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and edited the page to state that one-click revert should not be used on edits other than vandalism; there seems to be widespread support for it otherwise. ( Wikipedia:Revert already contained some language from brion advising not to use it in editing disputes, which I explained further.) It seems that this is an unwritten rule if not stronger, and it's probably best to treat exceptions as exceptions rather than accepted practice. One-click revert is something of a slap in the face to a good-faith editor; you should be very sure that's not what you're dealing with before you use it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is the right place to ask this question. Apologies in advance if it is not and kindly point the right direction.
From Maruti Udyog website, in Terms of Use.
RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF MARUTI MATERIALS You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any information, products or services obtained from any Maruti Web Sites, directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Maruti will not be held liable for any delays, errors or omissions therefrom, or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof, or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
Based on this can we use images from this in Wikipedia?
Thanks,
Alren 17:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not unless we get explicit permission. -- Hemanshu 10:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Administrators will not exist in quite the same way in MediaWiki 1.4, due for release in a few weeks. Instead there will be user groups, and these can be assigned any mixture of access levels. See Wikipedia:User access levels and its talk page for details. Angela . 23:11, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
I've created one because it's too hard to communicate to other admins via messages (I've already been blocked for doing this!) So I've come up with a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. All admins please feel free to use this! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Andrevan added this to the article:
In the early days of Wikipedia all users acted as administrators and in principle they still should. Any user can act as if he/she is an administrator even if he/she has not been given the extra administrative functions. Users doing so are more likely to be chosen as full administrators by the community when they are finally nominated.
Could you explain this a bit more? From what I've seen on WP:RfA, impersonating an admin has generally been very bad for a potential. What does "act as if they are an administrator" even mean, anyway? The only differences in my actions since becoming an admin have been the use of admin-privs. — Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:01, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
I intend to replace the text with a little clarification added to make it clear that "pretending to be an admin" is a bad idea whereas "behaving like an admin" is a good one since people seem to have misunderstood my original text. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:09, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
And I have now done so -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:56, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Has anyone been considering an intermediate level for "super-users"—people who spend a lot of time on Wikipedia but don't get bogged down in VfD debates, etc.? In particular, I would like the ability to revert vandalism, and perhaps some marginally greater ability to move pages would be nice, though I'd probably just end up causing trouble ;-) — User:Mulad (talk) 05:13, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Current text on this page says:
Every once in a while, I could swear that it works as described. However, more often than not, clicking Rollback simply reverts to the previous version, NO MATTER whether it was the same user and NO MATTER whether I was viewing a diff to an earlier, correct version (e.g., see [4], where I was viewing a 2-back revision by Grutness and the latest version by an anon, and it simply rolled back to the previous edit by same anon--oops, I lied, I see that the IP is off by 1. But it did NOT roll back to grutness). What does rollback *really* do? What is it really *supposed* to do? I'd really like it to rollback to the previous version that I'm viewing on the comparison page. I don't think that even half of the rollbacks that I need to do go back only one revision. Elf | Talk 22:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks; I removed the incorrect statement about the diff. Elf | Talk 23:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You can rollback while looking at a diff. It just doesn't roll back to what you were looking at, necessarily. john k 18:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship is a proposal to allow Wikipedians to vote on the demotion of administrators, just as they vote to promote them. A straw poll is open to gather consensus as to whether such a process should be available. -- Netoholic @ 18:54, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
Is it okay for me to put stuff in my sandbox or will I be blocked just like I would if I put something in the Wikipedia: Sandbox? Also what is a block? -- Trueblue9999 17:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Test edits aren't blockable, particularly in
Wikipedia:Sandbox. You can make your own sandbox and use it for the same purposes. A Wikipedia block is a way of stopping you logging in and editing. We use them to stop people who seem to be doing things that, if left to go on, could damage Wikipedia. --
Tony Sidaway|
Talk 18:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But I got a message saying I will be blocked if I make another edit in
Wikipedia:Sandbox on my talk page. --
Trueblue9999 18:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No fair! Why can't I get de-adminned? And shame on you for deleting Adam Carr's complaint!! Isn't his beef as good as anyone else's beef? Are you demeaning his meat? That would not be meet or proper!
He wants me censured, blocked or de-sysopped for deleting his objections from my talk page - his objections to my having blocked him for one hour. (Note that he did not say de-adminned for blocking him - for that he only demanded an apology, and I gave him half of one ;-)
It's all at user talk:Ed Poor/Adam Carr if you'll please take a look. Uncle Ed 11:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Ed Poor has been at Wikipedia much longer than me and knows that the correct way to reply to a message of any kind is at the Talk page of the person sending the message. I have no intention of rummaging around in his archives looking for something he should have had the elementary courtesy to send to me directly. Adam 06:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so far I got it that beracrats (sic) aren't as powerful as admins of sysops right? And how do you become a site developer if you are an owner of say a wiki site shouldn't you be a sd there since you made it? And if the people that have a website and all of them are admin's then how do you become a sd?
"it's me ><ino!" ok i want to be an admin not to do all hard works, i just want to have access to deleted pages, becuase sometimes i put the wrong names for a article, so i want to be an admin to delete them, thank you:D
><ino
09:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, say I go to a wiki site and I have been there a long time and then I become a sysop and I do it then say I want to become a higher rank but I can't so how would I get to be a steward or a site developer would I have to come here and ado alot of stuff here and all that, then go up for nomination and realize I lost. Well that would just be too, inconvient. Bassium!
When I came across the paragraph it was written as follows:
And I reverted it to:
It was clearly someone's personal gripe being slipped into the mix. But now Adam has taken personal offence on my talk page... Is he just continuing the joke, or am I in a bizzarro universe, and his sardonic paragraph was approved wikipedia policy? Themindset 04:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I did not "take personal offence," I asked you to tell me where you disagreed with the paragraph you reverted. I am still waiting for you to do so. Adam 04:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
May I ask you a question? Was your particular phrasing of that final paragraph motivated by personal experience? Or was it an honest interpretation of the spirit of this particular wikipedia project page? Themindset 04:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
It was a summation of what I understand to be the reality of the situation, based on personal experience. Adam 05:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Can I ask why Radical Bender removed an external link from the Manga page to a site I frequent called Manga Life? This site has been in existence since May and already has more manga reviews than any other site I can find on the net, it's kept up to date with new stuff at least every other day, and - frankly - has more detailed and informative reviews than a couple of the other sites already linked. So wikipedia really should be linking here, yet when I add the link this guy deleted it? Surely against the ethos of wikipedia?
Thanks, Mark
Forgive me if this has been rehashed over and over, but I'm curious whether there's been any discussion recently of means of expiring sysop privileges. What if, for example, appointments to sysop had a 6 or 12 month term, after which consensus would again determine whether the editor retained adminship? I found Wikipedia:Confirmation_of_sysophood but this is from a while back, so I'm curious what current thoughts are on this. Friday (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I know if I use my new AdministrativePower® too much, I risk getting a complaint for adminship abuse and getting the power taken away. But is there any danger in using it too little? — JIP | Talk 17:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Just curious, has anyone been desysopped for a reason other than inactivity or their own request? WP:LA doesnt really help me. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The user or administrator "Gamaliel's" history page on the lee Harvey Oswald article has some of the most vulgar comments, just plain filthy as a matter of fact, of anything I have ever seen. I did not expect this of Wikipedia. Anyone can access that page including children. Quite disgusting. Can it be cleaned up?
They don't listen. Maybe got other things to do. Just a mini power trip anyway 152.163.178.143 20:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Mongo has deleted my edits to the September 11, 2001 page where I point out that the perpetrators of these horrible crimes are "alleged" since there has been no trial; and that there are credible dessenters such as David Ray Griffin who believe that the offical report is bogus and that it was not 19 Arabs. He is accusing me of "vandalism" for putting "non-sense" into Wikipedia. I have $1,000,000 backing up my "non-sense". To refuse to mention the huge 9/11 conspiracy movement and the credible people such as the former Chief Economist for Labor, Morgan Reynolds, who believe explosives were used is censorship. Jimmy Walter Reopen911.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmywalter ( talk • contribs) 06:08, 24 September 2005
I said that MONGO isn't an administrator simply because the only reason the complaint is on this page ( Wikipedia_talk:Administrators) is because the complainant believed that MONGO was an administrator. None of my comments have anything to do with the fact that I am an administrator. If I were handling the case in question as an administrator, then I would have taken action as an administrator. Despite Agriculture's sincere belief, I have not done so. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 00:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I think the colors should be changed, also this template should be advertised on an Admin page and included in the You're a sysop! template(s). - Roy Boy 800 02:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Can we get some kind of standard way to capitalise "administrator"? Should it always be capped, or never? It varies throughout WP, and I would like there to be some kind of consensus on this. I think Administrator should be capped, but adminship should remain lowercase. Your thoughts? -- Lord Vold e mort (Dark Mark) 15:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I think special unforgeable tags should be added to users' User: pages if they are administrators/bureaucrats/stewards/board members. This way, you can know easily when you are viewing the page of an administrator without looking at the long admin list. -- Myria 02:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
This is correct. I withdraw my complaint. Tony and I have come to an understanding, and the matter is settled. Both of us may have reacted badly. I do not wish to pursue. Thank you. Iago Dali 12:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Apparently a very young Administrator Splash I believe from Bath England feels it incumbent to block, a piece I have on the history of Cuban espionage. Not alter it, not challenge it but simply block it.
What he/she writes is:
“Please take the request to: Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you recreate the article again, anywhere, under any title without doing so, I will block you from editing Wikipedia. -Splashtalk 18:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)”
While I don’t know Splash’s background nor her/his credentials to do this. Here are some of mine, my family is part Taíno (Siboney), and has been prominent, even famous, through out known Cuban history. I fought in Castro’s forces for almost a year in 1958; during that time I participate in a number of military actions, but never executed anybody. It was the executions that made me break with Castro, in 1961 I was later jailed by Castro and was released through diplomatic intervention. Then I was coerced to leave the country. Having remade my life as an academic, and I am now a full professor in the sciences looking towards retirement. In my field I have almost a hundred refereed scientific publications, and have published (hard copy) probably more than ten publications on Cuba history and associated topics.
I am using the pseudonym (El Jigüe) because of my academic position and because as compromise is reached in each section, I wish merely to contribute and not to be responsible for the final product.
It is my opinion that “Splash” might well be reminded that rather than deleting an article, and insisting on blocking it (and anything else I submit), a far more productive attitude would be to challenge specific parts of the article and attempt a compromise.
Sincerely El Jigüe User talk:205.240.227.15
Sunday, October 23, 2005
I have continuously added new material, new citations, etc etc., under the 1title of Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised. Yet I find this important material constantly deleted. When I address what ever complaints are presented and replace these deleted sections; then the authors of these deletions (critics) then level accusations of multiple postings. From the fervor of these critics and their comments one could readily infer that deletions may well carry an ideological bias. A second now more common procedure (when continual direct deletion fails) seems be to lodge a spurious and often mendacious complaint, which is accepted by a like thinking editor who removes the article soon as possible e.g. Talk:Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised. El Jigüe 1/27/2005
It is now my contention, that the Wikipedia revision process has systematic errors that freely allow serious abuses of this nature; and that that these abuses become a form of ideological censorship. Furthermore I infer from these critics’ behaviors that such abuses have potential far wider use by totalitarian governments to censor criticism by this means. I do not expect any remedies, nor do I anticipate that this article to be restored. However, I do expect to prepare, present in scholarly forum, and then publish a paper on this matter sometime next year. El Jigüe 1/27/2005
This admin is deletion happy - he deleted my brand new Wikiracist article within 5 minutes of creation, violating several wikipedia policies in the process - "Don't bite the newbies", "Assume good faith" and in deleting it as 'utter crap' making a "Personal attack". He also failed to let the deletion process take it's course. If this is the sort of behaviour an admin thinks is appropropiate, why should I bother trying to contribute? 84.68.19.88 14:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
If you know what it means, then fix it and restore it.
This sentence makes no sense because all signed-in editors can check on edits and contributions by other signed in users, as well as anonymous users. In this way, admins are no different from other signed in users. Even anonymous users can check your contributions, though they don't get watchlists. - Lethe | Talk 19:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
From the project page: Administrators are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility.
This may or may not remain true. See Jimbo's experiment at Talk:Alan Dershowitz. Depending on whether the practice is continued, the statement may need to be softened or adjusted. -- Tabor 23:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I have been trying my darndest to keep the Mandy Moore page up to date. But it seems anti fans and fans alike have been vandalizing the information. One in particular, 64.252.215.100 another is 164.67.44.180 What am i to do? Parys
THERE ARE CONSTANT VANDALS. WHAT AM I TO DO? Parys 19:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Just unblocked 216.135.25.129 and 216.135.25.89 (but not 216.135.25.72), since I suppose it's unlikely that e will have the same ip address again, after it's changed... Would it be ok to also unblock all ip addresses that were blocked more than a week or so ago? كسيپ Cyp 08:28 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Not to suggest any hierarchy, but could a list be arranged according to seniority. I have no vested interest in that, having very recently been promoted to sysop status. This would just be an interesting chronicle of Wiki's growth. 172 04:23 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hi, I'm user Gutza and I can't log in any more. I'm sorry if I should've complained about this somewhere else, I found no better place to do it. I'm sure I'm typing my credentials right, I use Mozilla and it stores the credentials for all the sites I'm registered with, and I used it before to log in Wikipedia. Also, my user hasn't been deleted because trying to re-create it results in an error message saying a user with the same name already exists, or something to that effect. Does anyone know what happened? Please answer on my user's talk page so we don't load this page with this discussion. Thank you! -- 217.156.116.130 00:36, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC) :-(
Wikipedia >> iPedia or ePedia or ...
I suggest shortening the project name for easier publicity of the internet site
Tonius 2003.08.12
User:Kkawohl I have been attempting to post somewhat controversial items relating to 21st Century Spirituality and a reestablishment of Transcendentalism in the 21st Century and how it relates to religious rationality. I was called a nut-case and my postings were considered propaganda and were deleted consistently. Is religious rationality which is not based on superstitions that have survived since the Middle Ages not an item of interest? How much power is too much if administrators can base deletions on their biased religious beliefs?
User:Tim Starling "effectively has developer access" but is not labelled as a developer. Why? -- Jiang (Dated September 17, 2003)
Allow me. --
Cyan 02:10, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Oh why thank you, Cyan. As my first act as developer, I will query the database using the long-since-disabled web interface. SELECT 1!
1 |
---|
1 |
The power!!! *evil laugh* :) -- Tim Starling 02:20, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
If protection can not be used by a sysop involved in an edit war, does the same apply to the use of the rollback button? It seems it should as it is giving a sysop advantages over normal users for a reason it was not implemented. Should it only be used for reverting vandalism? Angela 17:36, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Remove Zoe, and other inactive or long gone admins? 戴眩sv 21:27, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Could inactive admin accounts pose a security hazard? -- Jiang
I have tagged the inactive sysop accounts. Feel free to double-check and correct. -- 65.92.250.32 01:40, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
PASTED by Fuzheado 02:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Where do I apply for sysop status? I'd like to help in such regards.
Kingturtle 22:48 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
Hi I was trying to fix a typo in the NLCS series someone had listed 2001 twice instead of 2002 at it said i was block for vandalism, don't know how that is vandalism but anyway some one may wnt to atleast fix the typo
Just unblocked 216.135.25.129 and 216.135.25.89 (but not 216.135.25.72), since I suppose it's unlikely that e will have the same ip address again, after it's changed... Would it be ok to also unblock all ip addresses that were blocked more than a week or so ago? كسيپ Cyp 08:28 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Not to suggest any hierarchy, but could a list be arranged according to seniority. I have no vested interest in that, having very recently been promoted to sysop status. This would just be an interesting chronicle of Wiki's growth. 172 04:23 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hi, I'm user Gutza and I can't log in any more. I'm sorry if I should've complained about this somewhere else, I found no better place to do it. I'm sure I'm typing my credentials right, I use Mozilla and it stores the credentials for all the sites I'm registered with, and I used it before to log in Wikipedia. Also, my user hasn't been deleted because trying to re-create it results in an error message saying a user with the same name already exists, or something to that effect. Does anyone know what happened? Please answer on my user's talk page so we don't load this page with this discussion. Thank you! -- 217.156.116.130 00:36, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC) :-(
Greetings
"Love-hate relationship". The topic submitted is clearly to others who voted it for deletion, does not know the important need for such topics to be discussed on this website and at least explained in a more understandable manner rather than using philosopycal or psychological terms to explain it. Worse would be another copied source to fill in the topic. If it was essay in form, it is simply because emotions on relationships are not dictionary materials like words given meaning to.
Lawyers and Psychology students finds it a better form of explanation. I respect your reasons for wanting to delete it. It inspires me to do better and level my aricles to your standards. thank you and I hope to be given a chance to contribute in a more analitical point of view till the best is achived to explain the topic well.
[aprildawn]
User:Kkawohl I have been attempting to post somewhat controversial items relating to 21st Century Spirituality and a reestablishment of Transcendentalism in the 21st Century and how it relates to religious rationality. I was called a nut-case and my postings were considered propaganda and were deleted consistently. Is religious rationality which is not based on superstitions that have survived since the Middle Ages not an item of interest? How much power is too much if administrators can base deletions on their biased religious beliefs?
The above posting was made in haste & I sincerely apologize.
User:Tim Starling "effectively has developer access" but is not labelled as a developer. Why? -- Jiang
Allow me. -- Cyan 02:10, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Oh why thank you, Cyan. As my first act as developer, I will query the database using the long-since-disabled web interface. SELECT 1!
1 |
---|
1 |
The power!!! *evil laugh* :) -- Tim Starling 02:20, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
If protection can not be used by a sysop involved in an edit war, does the same apply to the use of the rollback button? It seems it should as it is giving a sysop advantages over normal users for a reason it was not implemented. Should it only be used for reverting vandalism? Angela 17:36, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Remove Zoe, and other inactive or long gone admins? 戴眩sv 21:27, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Could inactive admin accounts pose a security hazard? -- Jiang
I have tagged the inactive sysop accounts. Feel free to double-check and correct. -- Cyan 01:41, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Theoretically we could enhance security by allowing a petition of sysops to immediately desysop someone. That way the damage caused by a hijacked account would be minimised. Of course it would end up being used for political reasons to demote annoying users, but that's the price you pay. -- Tim Starling 02:31, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
If someone's account is hijacked, and the hijacker goes on a rampage, someone will just act unilaterally to block the account (I'm not naming any names). Lack of bureaucracy lends itself to fast security, in this case. And I'd like to keep it as difficult as possible for a clique to acquire that sort of political power. -- Cyan 02:44, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I didn't realize sysops could unban themselves. Suddenly it all makes sense. -- Cyan 03:35, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Right now there are many more sysops than ever before. If one of them goes on a rampage, it might take a Developer to stop them. A developer could unilaterally (but temporarily) de-sysop them. Or even make the whole database read-only.
I'm sure if a genuine emergency comes up, we'll do the Right Thing. Jimbo has never punished anyone for good faith actions. That's why he's a Leader not a GodKing. -- Uncle Ed 22:38, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Actually it might be worth removing Lee's developer access. Developer accounts are truly dangerous. Lee can easily log in via SSH and give himself back developer access if he needs it. The web interface doesn't have the level of security afforded by SSH. In fact it would probably be a good idea to demote all web-interface developer access accounts (but leave the names in bold-italic). Any developer can turn the flag back on when they need it, and turn it off when they are finished. -- Tim Starling 01:30, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
And to think I included you in the list of all-powerful users! Log on to pliny, and type "sql-en". Then use the queries:
Putting "limit 1" after any query which you expect to modify one row is generally considered a good idea, so that if you make a typo it can't go haywire and destroy everything. -- Tim Starling 01:44, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)
I've disabled the unfettered SQL access for developer accounts through the wiki. A developer account can put the wiki into (or take it out of) read-only mode, and that's about it now. -- Brion 03:50, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Can anyone delete another contributions without going through the processes set by Wikipedia? Recently I wrote a short addition for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas an article that covers the theories of how indigenous people came to America. The information I added was on subject and written from a neutral point of view. I was surprised to see it was totally removed within hours of its placement. I shortened my comments considerably and re-edited the page. Again, it was quickly and totally removed. That action smacks of censorship. Is censorship not against Wiki-policy? Would an administrator please look into the matter? The copy removed was titled “House of Israel Theory.” The copy removed represented a theory that is over one hundred fifty years old, is upheld by scholarly research and is also supported by millions of people worldwide. To verify the theory is as I say you may want to contact J. Michael Hunter at Brigham Young University. Thank you for helping Wikipedia remain a neutral, reliable online encylopedia as opposed to a forum for particular points of view.
I have concerns with the institution of admins. There is an unstated equivalency made by admins between the real world and cyberspace. We elect our leaders in the real world, so it is just as legitimate to elect them in cyberspace. We resolve differences in arbitration in the real world, so it is just as legitimate to do so in cyberspace. This is a terribly wrong equivalency, for a few reasons:
1. There is no real way of communicating efficiently in cyberspace.
If I have a misunderstanding with another user, we actually have to delete each other's work, talk on the talk page, etc., to resolve differences. If I have a misunderstanding with an admin, he will usually block me straight away without much fuss. Communication across cyberspace is exteremely inefficient compared with the discussions which take place in the real world and which are the basis of our institutions in the real world. Communication with admins is nearly impossible, especially considering the speedy blocks which are given.
The way Jimbo suggests to overcome this is the email list WIKI-En or whatever. The email list is much more efficient; however, there are just so many emails sent over that list that the efficacy of the list is almost nil. Arbitration falls victim to all the same problem of inefficient communication.
2. Anonymity is essential.
I was advised at some point to get a username. Usernames are absolute mistakes, and admins should straightaway stop advising people to get usernames. Every false charge against the username, every smear, sticks, because this is cyberspace. This is because edit wars are almost inevitable if you want to do anything more than minor editing. And it sticks especially because nothing can be deleted. If I tried to deleted some false charge about my username, some admin would ensure that this was reverted and that the charges remained for all to see. Once a charge is made, however false it may be, it invariably sticks. Anonymity aids immensely, especially if your only goal is to edit, because your username page invariably becomes a recepticle for the criticism and anger of others.
3. Admins are insensitive.
They can't be sensitive because you can't communicate with them effectively. You can't take them aside and explain something to them. They will always act insensitively and arbitrarily because they have to; they are working with very limited information.
This is why I believe the adminship system is serially flawed, and the admins should stop being so self-righteous and pretending they are doing a good job. They are doing their best, perhaps, but they are not doing a good job, they are upsetting numerous people more than they'll ever know.
User:Jheijmans said on his User page that he used to be an admin last year until he quit for a while. Does anybody remember that? If so, we can add him to Former Administrators list. -- Menchi 06:30, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Question on Mirror Sites moved to Wikipedia:Village pump.
Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
I'd like to nominate the following inactive sysops for de-adminship. This has been discussed on wikipedia talk:administrators (further talk can probably go there). I'd discuss it with them first... but they're inactive ;-) This is not to deny their many excellent contributions while here, simply to recognise that they are here no longer.
All the above have been inactive for two or more months - in some cases much longer. Thanks. Martin 20:34, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I have been banned for "repeated vandalism". I have no idea what I did to deserve this, and seriously hope it was a mistake on the part of the administrator. I defy RickK or whoever else is responsible for sentencing me, to show where I vandalized anything. Vroman 20:30, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hi! This is taken from the Request for adminship page:
"After a 7 day period for comments, if there is general agreement that someone who requests adminship should be given it, then a developer will make it so and record that fact at Wikipedia:Recently created admins. "
My question is: what exactly does "general agreement" mean? Can you become an administrator by only having one person that has reviewed your work and that was positive about it? (--130.236.224.35)
Please add [[eo:Vikipedio:Administrantoj]] Thanks Arno Lagrange 14:42, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Recently created admins is nice but it only lists recently created admins. Do we have a similar page lists old admins? Optim 03:42, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I am aware of the actions of 168... that led to the need for arbitration. However, I am curious to know what the process was to temporarily suspend his admin powers until the Committee makes is ruling. Was it the arbitration committee that made the call for the temporary suspension? Was it a developer? Do tell. Kingturtle 07:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
He then posted on the mailing list and received Jimbo's blessing: [2]. -- Jia ng
Moved here from Village Pump, Fuzheado 02:46, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I propose that the term "sysop" be removed from the Wikipedia lexicon. We already have administrator (short admin), and it is kind of confusing to have both. Not to mention that sysop doesn't really fit the bill, unless you consider Wikipedia a system! I am bringing this up now because of the newly emerged Special:Makesysop seems to be introducing the term sysop even more. I am guessing this would be mostly a search and replace kind of deal, disruptive yes, but is it any more difficult than that? Are the benefits worth it? Dori | Talk 20:15, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
Honestly, I just use sysop and admin interchangably. →Raul654 23:05, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)
I thought this had already been done. Kind of reminds me of how people think "bans" and "blocks" are the same thing. - Hephæstos| § 03:51, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Erm, Cyp has invented a category below to put his vote in, which is very funny - but I'm not quite sure what point he's trying to make. [Especially given that we already have a "don't care" category] Would you care to enlighten us on what your actual opinion is, Cyp? - IMSoP 15:58, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Note: I've arranged this back into the original options, and moved people's comments to after their names. There's no point having a straw poll if people just put a comment and then vote for it as though it was an option. If you think I've moved your vote to the wrong option - well, you should have voted properly in the first place, shouldn't you? - IMSoP 12:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
A) I think that sysop should be deprecated in favor of admin
B) I think that admin should be deprecated in favor of sysop
C) Leave it like it is / I don't care
D) I think both "sysop" and "admin" should be deprecated in favor of "janitor"
Out of personal curiosity, I wanted to see how we're doing as a group regarding utilizing the block and unblock powers. I thought I'd share the data; it is for fun and for self-assessment.
Not including tests, jokes and self-bans, the following is a reasonably accurate list of admins and the number of blocks they've made in 2004. It is my understanding that IP blocks expire after 24 hours. As long as that is true, everything is cool - because most of these involve IPs.
86 Maximus Rex (with 10 unblocks) 40 Hephaestos (with 2 unblocks) 35 Morwen (with zero unblocks) 28 Pakaran (with 1 unblock) 28 Dysprosia (with zero unblocks) 25 Ahoerstemeier (with 5 unblocks) 25 Snoyes (with 2 unblocks) 22 Evercat (with 2 unblocks) 18 Salsa Shark (with zero unblocks) 16 Silsor (with 5 unblocks) 16 Angela (with 4 unblocks) 14 Secretlondon (with 3 unblocks) 14 Dori (with zero unblocks) 12 Fuzheado (with 2 unblocks) 12 Tim Starling (with 1 unblock) 11 Dante Alighieri (with zero unblocks) 8 RickK (with zero unblocks) 7 Jiang (with 2 unblocks) 7 Cyan (with 1 unblock) 6 Tannin (with zero unblocks) 5 Eloquence (with 3 unblocks) 5 Raul654 (with zero unblocks) 4 Delirium (with 12 unblocks) 4 Ed Poor (with 2 unblocks) 4 Finlay McWalter (with zero unblocks) 3 Stevertigo (with 1 unblock) 3 Jwrosenzweig (with zero unblocks) 2 Maveric149 (with 3 unblocks) 2 Infrogmation (with zero unblocks) 2 Arwel Parry (with 2 unblocks) 2 Jimbo Wales (with 2 unblocks) 2 PMelvilleAustin (with 1 unblock) 2 JeLuF (with zero unblocks) 2 The Anome (with zero unblocks) 2 Muriel Gottrop (with 1 unblock) 1 Danny (with 1 unblock) 1 Kaihsu (with 1 unblock) 1 Andre Engels (with 1 unblock) 1 Camembert (with zero unblocks) 1 AstroNomer (with zero unblocks) 1 Adam Bishop (with zero unblocks) 1 Meelar (with zero unblocks) 1 Bmills (with zero unblocks) 1 G-Man (with zero unblocks) 1 Jtdirl (with zero unblocks) 1 Evil saltine (with zero unblocks) 1 WhisperToMe (with zero unblocks) 1 Quercusrobur (with zero unblocks) 0 John Kenney (with 2 unblocks) 0 Menchi (with 2 unblocks) 0 Jamesday (with 1 unblock)
Your pal, Kingturtle 03:10, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
where is the discussion of abuse of authority? the chilling effect on free speech? the discouragement of controversy by 'reversals' and 'deletions' that need not list any reason other than 'this page is garbage'. - - did you folks even take any government classes in school? do you know what 'checks and balances' means? do you even want to talk about it? - - no, of course you dont. admins are just doing their righteous thing and cannot make mistakes of any import. or of course nothing bad is happening. no only bad people are restricted by an unaccountable and unelected admin system. - - nice attitude. thanks for turning wiki into slashdot. nice 'objective' 'wide ranging' page, that. -
OH gee, 'convention'. we all know how reliable that is. nobody would ever abuse their power because they should be afraid of 'convention'!!! yes, that is a brilliant check and balance. im sure lots of governments use the terrible terrifying power of 'convention' to keep leaders in line. I think thats what kept nixon from assassinating john dean. 'convention'. yeah. good idea guys.
also i am very heartened to learn that administrators can crticizie each other. because we all know that as a group, only admins should be able to criticize each other, after all, they have been the most hard working and care more about wiki than the lowly slimeball users. furthermore, there will obviously be no danger of 'groupthink', because admins are geniuses in the first place, because look how hard they work and how much they care. third off, admins will never ever have their own interests, as a group. nope. there will never be a decision where admins have to decide on something that is between their own interests and the interests of the users. in fact, the interests of the admins are the same as the interests of the users, sort of like Maos argument against democracy in china: the people's interests are represented by the party, therefore the people dont need to have any say over the party.
"If you don't like it, tough. . . . . troll" -- Yes this demonstrates the true democratic spirit of the admins. Obviously someone who thinks like this is very worried about users' interests, and will be protective against the abuse of power as witnessed on just about every other 'community' website on the entire internet, like slashdot, kuro5hin, freerepublic, etc. You sir are truly 'serving the people' and guaranteeting access for all. Nope, no cabalist tendencies here, not at all no siree bob.
Hell, there is nothing to worry about. Why am I even concerned? Yes, the system is perfectly adequate, and nobody will ever be driven off by a bunch of admins deciding their article has no merit or that their opinions are stupid. Or if they did surely they would be able to find the 'admin discussion' where there is guaranteed to be another admin who will take their side against the deleting admin. I dont see why these whiny users want a say in anything, the admins can take care of it all, and if the user cant be bothered to observe this process, too bad for them!
In fact, the discussion pages for administrative decisions are so easy to find, so well thought out, and work so well, that you should be commended for improving on meatspace democracy. Nobody ever goes to the 'deletion list' page and says 'what is this mess'. There are also never any edit conflicts on that page, because it is so short, and there are so few people trying to access it simultaneously. Obviously this whole process of oversight of administrators has been so well thought out and all the issues about overreach of power have been resolved, and nothing really important is going on here.
Nope. System is fine. Full steam ahead. Silence the trolls, for they know nothing of the burden of responsibility!
how come when someone edits a page an admin doesnt like, its called 'vandalism'. but when an admin deletes or edits a page, and writes 'this is nonsense', its called 'administration'?
---
look, man, i dont care about how it works, i care about how its going to work. every single last web board on the internet has had instances where the people in power abused it to delete things simply because they didnt like it. power corrupts.
if there are administrators, and there are more than one, there damn well is a group of administrators. they discuss things on the 'deletion' page, by posting their comments under the suggestions for deletion, suggestions made only by other administrators. if you cant figure out how admins might have a group interest that is different from the users, i feel sorry for you.
the most obvious example would be pages like this. since wiki is itself made by discussions and articles on wiki, and administrators position, abilities, and so forth are come about to by discussions within the wiki system, it kind of stands to reason that eventually some day there will be some fight, wherein the administrators will use their power to further their interests at the expense of the users, on one of these such discussions. any page with discussions about the place of administrators, about admins overstepping, about the way adminning works, etc etc etc, could be a starting point for the armageddon of wikipedia.
if you dont guard against the corruption of power, it will take over. 'new things' will quit being tried out, because those in power will not want to lose their power. why? because its been institutionalized. the rules are in place. the code is like concrete, it is slowly setting in, without any safeguards in place. By the time you need them, it will be too late.
really i dont care though. someone will just fork wiki, since it is all copyleft someone will just take all the content over along with them. sometimes we have to learn things the hard way.
I am afraid I have to complain about Adam Bishop's unfair behaviour and, what I feel, an extreme abuse of his administrator powers.
On 20 Mar 2004, 22:34 he has blocked my account and unfairly reverted my edits in Cottbus, Munich, Dresden, Leipzig, Free City of Gdansk regarding the usage of alternative language names of various cities.
Despite the Wikipedia rule diplayed on this page Sysops can block and unblock IP addresses. This is meant to be used solely to deal with persistent vandalism. IP banning is not meant to be used against unpopular opinions, non-persistent vandalism, etc. Adam Bishop used this ban againts me to push his presonal POV, and to block me from editing and discussing the issue. His action was done without any discussion or warning.
My opinion is that the alternative language placenames should be allowed on condition that this is aplied equally to all languages. For example if we allow German names for Polish cities, we should also allow Polish names for the German cities.
Adam's opinion seems to be that German names for Polish cities should be allowed and maybe enforces, and at the same time Polish names for German cities should be forbidden.
This subject is already discusssed (and was discussed in time of Adams' actions) in the Wikipedia mediation started at my request:
Adam's action blocked me from participating in these discussions and in the mediation process. Adam should have consulted these pages before makin his action.
In these circumstances I demmand:
Mestwin of Gdansk 00:10, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hey Gdansk, I shouldn't have blocked you, so I apologize, but you were trolling and vandalizing and it was very frustrating. Polish cities should have Polish names, but Kiel, Munich, and others aren't Polish. You even said to me that you were changing those articles out of some kind of revenge. Adam Bishop 00:00, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Apologies half accepted, as I do not feel guilty, and you continue to claim that I was. That fulfills 0.5 out of my 3 demands above. -- Mestwin of Gdansk 00:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is there a way to see the IP addresses used by registered users (in order to confirm sockpuppet suspicions)? Better yet, is there a way to get a list of users that have connected from the same IP as a particular user? Mkweise 22:48, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
See wikipedia:feature requests. It's a common request, but there's no ability at the moment. There probably should be. Martin 01:08, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
There has been confusion over Macrocosm and Microcosm. It was originally Macrocosm. I changed it to Macrocosm/Microcosm. And somebody changed it to Macrocosm and Microcosm. Now the original history is lost and I would like for it to meet up. Is that possible? WHEELER 14:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia has different kinds of users, with different kinds of powers.
Admins have extra powers, and thus extra responsibility, but no extra authority. Admins have an 'example function' towards other volunteers. That is: if you are an admin, try to be always polite, friendly, kind, stay out of quarrels, etc.
A admin is not 'more' than other volunteers, but he can do more. All authority rests with the wikipedia community. You can not set the direction of a wiki, act on your own authority, or whatever. This applies even if a community is very small, even new volunteers should have a chance to have their say.
Try to follow procedures strictly - if you as a admin dont do it, dont expect that others will do it. Dont quarrel, and certainly not publicly with other admins. Of course you can have differences of opinion, but keep things civilised.
Dont advertise your being admin. Authority does not derive from this, but is carried by your arguments and deeds.
Listing your real name and email address is not obligatory, but it works easier if other admins know these.
If confidential information comes your way, handle it with care.
Protect wikipedia by being carefull with your password. Dont choose an easy-to-guess password such as your name, yopur userid, or words like 'secret'.
Dont forget to logout when using wiki from a public compueter susch as a university
You can
Always use you common sense, and act in the interest of wikipedia.
User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Kenney has just vandalised 3 pages Gdynia, Gdansk and Szczecin by removing the list of sports teams, list of local politicians and the title line. One of his comments was so sick of this shit. I am not sure if the shit remark was to the Polish sporting teams of the Polish politicians, or something else, but this behaviour requiers sokme action. I FEEL INSULTED. Szczecin banditism. Gdynia banditism and Gdansk banditism. May I suggest a 24h ban, and if this will not help to ban this bandit permanetly. Please HELP!!!!!
Go away - you are annoying. Manning 21:48, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Mainpage was added between words "Çàãëàâíàÿ" and "ñòðàíèöà". Now all pages of ru.wikipedia.org not opening:
How fix it? --Ctac
If I try to move a page over to one of its Redirects (which has a history), the move fails with the message: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or contact an Administrator to help you with the move." With a link to this page to request assistance. However, when you get here, there doesn't appear to be a suitable category to handle page move problems. (I was trying to move Les Fauves to Fauvism) -- Solipsist 09:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This is my proposed clarification of that paragraph. Any thoughts, ideas, criticisms? I'm not an admin, so I'm going on what I read about the rollback feature here. If it's wrong, please correct me. --style 05:36, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and edited the page to state that one-click revert should not be used on edits other than vandalism; there seems to be widespread support for it otherwise. ( Wikipedia:Revert already contained some language from brion advising not to use it in editing disputes, which I explained further.) It seems that this is an unwritten rule if not stronger, and it's probably best to treat exceptions as exceptions rather than accepted practice. One-click revert is something of a slap in the face to a good-faith editor; you should be very sure that's not what you're dealing with before you use it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is the right place to ask this question. Apologies in advance if it is not and kindly point the right direction.
From Maruti Udyog website, in Terms of Use.
RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF MARUTI MATERIALS You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any information, products or services obtained from any Maruti Web Sites, directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Maruti will not be held liable for any delays, errors or omissions therefrom, or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof, or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
Based on this can we use images from this in Wikipedia?
Thanks,
Alren 17:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not unless we get explicit permission. -- Hemanshu 10:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Administrators will not exist in quite the same way in MediaWiki 1.4, due for release in a few weeks. Instead there will be user groups, and these can be assigned any mixture of access levels. See Wikipedia:User access levels and its talk page for details. Angela . 23:11, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
I've created one because it's too hard to communicate to other admins via messages (I've already been blocked for doing this!) So I've come up with a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. All admins please feel free to use this! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Andrevan added this to the article:
In the early days of Wikipedia all users acted as administrators and in principle they still should. Any user can act as if he/she is an administrator even if he/she has not been given the extra administrative functions. Users doing so are more likely to be chosen as full administrators by the community when they are finally nominated.
Could you explain this a bit more? From what I've seen on WP:RfA, impersonating an admin has generally been very bad for a potential. What does "act as if they are an administrator" even mean, anyway? The only differences in my actions since becoming an admin have been the use of admin-privs. — Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:01, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
I intend to replace the text with a little clarification added to make it clear that "pretending to be an admin" is a bad idea whereas "behaving like an admin" is a good one since people seem to have misunderstood my original text. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:09, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
And I have now done so -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:56, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Has anyone been considering an intermediate level for "super-users"—people who spend a lot of time on Wikipedia but don't get bogged down in VfD debates, etc.? In particular, I would like the ability to revert vandalism, and perhaps some marginally greater ability to move pages would be nice, though I'd probably just end up causing trouble ;-) — User:Mulad (talk) 05:13, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Current text on this page says:
Every once in a while, I could swear that it works as described. However, more often than not, clicking Rollback simply reverts to the previous version, NO MATTER whether it was the same user and NO MATTER whether I was viewing a diff to an earlier, correct version (e.g., see [3], where I was viewing a 2-back revision by Grutness and the latest version by an anon, and it simply rolled back to the previous edit by same anon--oops, I lied, I see that the IP is off by 1. But it did NOT roll back to grutness). What does rollback *really* do? What is it really *supposed* to do? I'd really like it to rollback to the previous version that I'm viewing on the comparison page. I don't think that even half of the rollbacks that I need to do go back only one revision. Elf | Talk 22:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks; I removed the incorrect statement about the diff. Elf | Talk 23:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You can rollback while looking at a diff. It just doesn't roll back to what you were looking at, necessarily. john k 18:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship is a proposal to allow Wikipedians to vote on the demotion of administrators, just as they vote to promote them. A straw poll is open to gather consensus as to whether such a process should be available. -- Netoholic @ 18:54, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
Is it okay for me to put stuff in my sandbox or will I be blocked just like I would if I put something in the Wikipedia: Sandbox? Also what is a block? -- Trueblue9999 17:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Test edits aren't blockable, particularly in
Wikipedia:Sandbox. You can make your own sandbox and use it for the same purposes. A Wikipedia block is a way of stopping you logging in and editing. We use them to stop people who seem to be doing things that, if left to go on, could damage Wikipedia. --
Tony Sidaway|
Talk 18:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But I got a message saying I will be blocked if I make another edit in
Wikipedia:Sandbox on my talk page. --
Trueblue9999 18:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No fair! Why can't I get de-adminned? And shame on you for deleting Adam Carr's complaint!! Isn't his beef as good as anyone else's beef? Are you demeaning his meat? That would not be meet or proper!
He wants me censured, blocked or de-sysopped for deleting his objections from my talk page - his objections to my having blocked him for one hour. (Note that he did not say de-adminned for blocking him - for that he only demanded an apology, and I gave him half of one ;-)
It's all at user talk:Ed Poor/Adam Carr if you'll please take a look. Uncle Ed 11:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Ed Poor has been at Wikipedia much longer than me and knows that the correct way to reply to a message of any kind is at the Talk page of the person sending the message. I have no intention of rummaging around in his archives looking for something he should have had the elementary courtesy to send to me directly. Adam 06:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so far I got it that beracrats (sic) aren't as powerful as admins of sysops right? And how do you become a site developer if you are an owner of say a wiki site shouldn't you be a sd there since you made it? And if the people that have a website and all of them are admin's then how do you become a sd?
"it's me ><ino!" ok i want to be an admin not to do all hard works, i just want to have access to deleted pages, becuase sometimes i put the wrong names for a article, so i want to be an admin to delete them, thank you:D
><ino
09:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, say I go to a wiki site and I have been there a long time and then I become a sysop and I do it then say I want to become a higher rank but I can't so how would I get to be a steward or a site developer would I have to come here and ado alot of stuff here and all that, then go up for nomination and realize I lost. Well that would just be too, inconvient. Bassium!
When I came across the paragraph it was written as follows:
And I reverted it to:
It was clearly someone's personal gripe being slipped into the mix. But now Adam has taken personal offence on my talk page... Is he just continuing the joke, or am I in a bizzarro universe, and his sardonic paragraph was approved wikipedia policy? Themindset 04:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I did not "take personal offence," I asked you to tell me where you disagreed with the paragraph you reverted. I am still waiting for you to do so. Adam 04:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
May I ask you a question? Was your particular phrasing of that final paragraph motivated by personal experience? Or was it an honest interpretation of the spirit of this particular wikipedia project page? Themindset 04:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
It was a summation of what I understand to be the reality of the situation, based on personal experience. Adam 05:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Can I ask why Radical Bender removed an external link from the Manga page to a site I frequent called Manga Life? This site has been in existence since May and already has more manga reviews than any other site I can find on the net, it's kept up to date with new stuff at least every other day, and - frankly - has more detailed and informative reviews than a couple of the other sites already linked. So wikipedia really should be linking here, yet when I add the link this guy deleted it? Surely against the ethos of wikipedia?
Thanks, Mark
Forgive me if this has been rehashed over and over, but I'm curious whether there's been any discussion recently of means of expiring sysop privileges. What if, for example, appointments to sysop had a 6 or 12 month term, after which consensus would again determine whether the editor retained adminship? I found Wikipedia:Confirmation_of_sysophood but this is from a while back, so I'm curious what current thoughts are on this. Friday (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I know if I use my new AdministrativePower® too much, I risk getting a complaint for adminship abuse and getting the power taken away. But is there any danger in using it too little? — JIP | Talk 17:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Just curious, has anyone been desysopped for a reason other than inactivity or their own request? WP:LA doesnt really help me. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The user or administrator "Gamaliel's" history page on the lee Harvey Oswald article has some of the most vulgar comments, just plain filthy as a matter of fact, of anything I have ever seen. I did not expect this of Wikipedia. Anyone can access that page including children. Quite disgusting. Can it be cleaned up?
They don't listen. Maybe got other things to do. Just a mini power trip anyway 152.163.178.143 20:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Mongo has deleted my edits to the September 11, 2001 page where I point out that the perpetrators of these horrible crimes are "alleged" since there has been no trial; and that there are credible dessenters such as David Ray Griffin who believe that the offical report is bogus and that it was not 19 Arabs. He is accusing me of "vandalism" for putting "non-sense" into Wikipedia. I have $1,000,000 backing up my "non-sense". To refuse to mention the huge 9/11 conspiracy movement and the credible people such as the former Chief Economist for Labor, Morgan Reynolds, who believe explosives were used is censorship. Jimmy Walter Reopen911.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmywalter ( talk • contribs) 06:08, 24 September 2005
I said that MONGO isn't an administrator simply because the only reason the complaint is on this page ( Wikipedia_talk:Administrators) is because the complainant believed that MONGO was an administrator. None of my comments have anything to do with the fact that I am an administrator. If I were handling the case in question as an administrator, then I would have taken action as an administrator. Despite Agriculture's sincere belief, I have not done so. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 00:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I think the colors should be changed, also this template should be advertised on an Admin page and included in the You're a sysop! template(s). - Roy Boy 800 02:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Can we get some kind of standard way to capitalise "administrator"? Should it always be capped, or never? It varies throughout WP, and I would like there to be some kind of consensus on this. I think Administrator should be capped, but adminship should remain lowercase. Your thoughts? -- Lord Vold e mort (Dark Mark) 15:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I think special unforgeable tags should be added to users' User: pages if they are administrators/bureaucrats/stewards/board members. This way, you can know easily when you are viewing the page of an administrator without looking at the long admin list. -- Myria 02:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
This is correct. I withdraw my complaint. Tony and I have come to an understanding, and the matter is settled. Both of us may have reacted badly. I do not wish to pursue. Thank you. Iago Dali 12:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Apparently a very young Administrator Splash I believe from Bath England feels it incumbent to block, a piece I have on the history of Cuban espionage. Not alter it, not challenge it but simply block it.
What he/she writes is:
“Please take the request to: Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you recreate the article again, anywhere, under any title without doing so, I will block you from editing Wikipedia. -Splashtalk 18:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)”
While I don’t know Splash’s background nor her/his credentials to do this. Here are some of mine, my family is part Taíno (Siboney), and has been prominent, even famous, through out known Cuban history. I fought in Castro’s forces for almost a year in 1958; during that time I participate in a number of military actions, but never executed anybody. It was the executions that made me break with Castro, in 1961 I was later jailed by Castro and was released through diplomatic intervention. Then I was coerced to leave the country. Having remade my life as an academic, and I am now a full professor in the sciences looking towards retirement. In my field I have almost a hundred refereed scientific publications, and have published (hard copy) probably more than ten publications on Cuba history and associated topics.
I am using the pseudonym (El Jigüe) because of my academic position and because as compromise is reached in each section, I wish merely to contribute and not to be responsible for the final product.
It is my opinion that “Splash” might well be reminded that rather than deleting an article, and insisting on blocking it (and anything else I submit), a far more productive attitude would be to challenge specific parts of the article and attempt a compromise.
Sincerely El Jigüe User talk:205.240.227.15
Sunday, October 23, 2005
I have continuously added new material, new citations, etc etc., under the 1title of Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised. Yet I find this important material constantly deleted. When I address what ever complaints are presented and replace these deleted sections; then the authors of these deletions (critics) then level accusations of multiple postings. From the fervor of these critics and their comments one could readily infer that deletions may well carry an ideological bias. A second now more common procedure (when continual direct deletion fails) seems be to lodge a spurious and often mendacious complaint, which is accepted by a like thinking editor who removes the article soon as possible e.g. Talk:Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised. El Jigüe 1/27/2005
It is now my contention, that the Wikipedia revision process has systematic errors that freely allow serious abuses of this nature; and that that these abuses become a form of ideological censorship. Furthermore I infer from these critics’ behaviors that such abuses have potential far wider use by totalitarian governments to censor criticism by this means. I do not expect any remedies, nor do I anticipate that this article to be restored. However, I do expect to prepare, present in scholarly forum, and then publish a paper on this matter sometime next year. El Jigüe 1/27/2005
This admin is deletion happy - he deleted my brand new Wikiracist article within 5 minutes of creation, violating several wikipedia policies in the process - "Don't bite the newbies", "Assume good faith" and in deleting it as 'utter crap' making a "Personal attack". He also failed to let the deletion process take it's course. If this is the sort of behaviour an admin thinks is appropropiate, why should I bother trying to contribute? 84.68.19.88 14:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
If you know what it means, then fix it and restore it.
This sentence makes no sense because all signed-in editors can check on edits and contributions by other signed in users, as well as anonymous users. In this way, admins are no different from other signed in users. Even anonymous users can check your contributions, though they don't get watchlists. - Lethe | Talk 19:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
From the project page: Administrators are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility.
This may or may not remain true. See Jimbo's experiment at Talk:Alan Dershowitz. Depending on whether the practice is continued, the statement may need to be softened or adjusted. -- Tabor 23:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I have been trying my darndest to keep the Mandy Moore page up to date. But it seems anti fans and fans alike have been vandalizing the information. One in particular, 64.252.215.100 another is 164.67.44.180 What am i to do? Parys
If I try to move a page over to one of its Redirects (which has a history), the move fails with the message: "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or contact an Administrator to help you with the move." With a link to this page to request assistance. However, when you get here, there doesn't appear to be a suitable category to handle page move problems. (I was trying to move Les Fauves to Fauvism) -- Solipsist 09:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This is my proposed clarification of that paragraph. Any thoughts, ideas, criticisms? I'm not an admin, so I'm going on what I read about the rollback feature here. If it's wrong, please correct me. --style 05:36, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and edited the page to state that one-click revert should not be used on edits other than vandalism; there seems to be widespread support for it otherwise. ( Wikipedia:Revert already contained some language from brion advising not to use it in editing disputes, which I explained further.) It seems that this is an unwritten rule if not stronger, and it's probably best to treat exceptions as exceptions rather than accepted practice. One-click revert is something of a slap in the face to a good-faith editor; you should be very sure that's not what you're dealing with before you use it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is the right place to ask this question. Apologies in advance if it is not and kindly point the right direction.
From Maruti Udyog website, in Terms of Use.
RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF MARUTI MATERIALS You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any information, products or services obtained from any Maruti Web Sites, directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Maruti will not be held liable for any delays, errors or omissions therefrom, or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof, or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
Based on this can we use images from this in Wikipedia?
Thanks,
Alren 17:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not unless we get explicit permission. -- Hemanshu 10:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Administrators will not exist in quite the same way in MediaWiki 1.4, due for release in a few weeks. Instead there will be user groups, and these can be assigned any mixture of access levels. See Wikipedia:User access levels and its talk page for details. Angela . 23:11, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
I've created one because it's too hard to communicate to other admins via messages (I've already been blocked for doing this!) So I've come up with a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. All admins please feel free to use this! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Andrevan added this to the article:
In the early days of Wikipedia all users acted as administrators and in principle they still should. Any user can act as if he/she is an administrator even if he/she has not been given the extra administrative functions. Users doing so are more likely to be chosen as full administrators by the community when they are finally nominated.
Could you explain this a bit more? From what I've seen on WP:RfA, impersonating an admin has generally been very bad for a potential. What does "act as if they are an administrator" even mean, anyway? The only differences in my actions since becoming an admin have been the use of admin-privs. — Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:01, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
I intend to replace the text with a little clarification added to make it clear that "pretending to be an admin" is a bad idea whereas "behaving like an admin" is a good one since people seem to have misunderstood my original text. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:09, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
And I have now done so -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:56, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Has anyone been considering an intermediate level for "super-users"—people who spend a lot of time on Wikipedia but don't get bogged down in VfD debates, etc.? In particular, I would like the ability to revert vandalism, and perhaps some marginally greater ability to move pages would be nice, though I'd probably just end up causing trouble ;-) — User:Mulad (talk) 05:13, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Current text on this page says:
Every once in a while, I could swear that it works as described. However, more often than not, clicking Rollback simply reverts to the previous version, NO MATTER whether it was the same user and NO MATTER whether I was viewing a diff to an earlier, correct version (e.g., see [4], where I was viewing a 2-back revision by Grutness and the latest version by an anon, and it simply rolled back to the previous edit by same anon--oops, I lied, I see that the IP is off by 1. But it did NOT roll back to grutness). What does rollback *really* do? What is it really *supposed* to do? I'd really like it to rollback to the previous version that I'm viewing on the comparison page. I don't think that even half of the rollbacks that I need to do go back only one revision. Elf | Talk 22:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks; I removed the incorrect statement about the diff. Elf | Talk 23:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You can rollback while looking at a diff. It just doesn't roll back to what you were looking at, necessarily. john k 18:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship is a proposal to allow Wikipedians to vote on the demotion of administrators, just as they vote to promote them. A straw poll is open to gather consensus as to whether such a process should be available. -- Netoholic @ 18:54, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
Is it okay for me to put stuff in my sandbox or will I be blocked just like I would if I put something in the Wikipedia: Sandbox? Also what is a block? -- Trueblue9999 17:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Test edits aren't blockable, particularly in
Wikipedia:Sandbox. You can make your own sandbox and use it for the same purposes. A Wikipedia block is a way of stopping you logging in and editing. We use them to stop people who seem to be doing things that, if left to go on, could damage Wikipedia. --
Tony Sidaway|
Talk 18:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But I got a message saying I will be blocked if I make another edit in
Wikipedia:Sandbox on my talk page. --
Trueblue9999 18:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No fair! Why can't I get de-adminned? And shame on you for deleting Adam Carr's complaint!! Isn't his beef as good as anyone else's beef? Are you demeaning his meat? That would not be meet or proper!
He wants me censured, blocked or de-sysopped for deleting his objections from my talk page - his objections to my having blocked him for one hour. (Note that he did not say de-adminned for blocking him - for that he only demanded an apology, and I gave him half of one ;-)
It's all at user talk:Ed Poor/Adam Carr if you'll please take a look. Uncle Ed 11:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Ed Poor has been at Wikipedia much longer than me and knows that the correct way to reply to a message of any kind is at the Talk page of the person sending the message. I have no intention of rummaging around in his archives looking for something he should have had the elementary courtesy to send to me directly. Adam 06:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so far I got it that beracrats (sic) aren't as powerful as admins of sysops right? And how do you become a site developer if you are an owner of say a wiki site shouldn't you be a sd there since you made it? And if the people that have a website and all of them are admin's then how do you become a sd?
"it's me ><ino!" ok i want to be an admin not to do all hard works, i just want to have access to deleted pages, becuase sometimes i put the wrong names for a article, so i want to be an admin to delete them, thank you:D
><ino
09:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, say I go to a wiki site and I have been there a long time and then I become a sysop and I do it then say I want to become a higher rank but I can't so how would I get to be a steward or a site developer would I have to come here and ado alot of stuff here and all that, then go up for nomination and realize I lost. Well that would just be too, inconvient. Bassium!
When I came across the paragraph it was written as follows:
And I reverted it to:
It was clearly someone's personal gripe being slipped into the mix. But now Adam has taken personal offence on my talk page... Is he just continuing the joke, or am I in a bizzarro universe, and his sardonic paragraph was approved wikipedia policy? Themindset 04:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I did not "take personal offence," I asked you to tell me where you disagreed with the paragraph you reverted. I am still waiting for you to do so. Adam 04:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
May I ask you a question? Was your particular phrasing of that final paragraph motivated by personal experience? Or was it an honest interpretation of the spirit of this particular wikipedia project page? Themindset 04:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
It was a summation of what I understand to be the reality of the situation, based on personal experience. Adam 05:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Can I ask why Radical Bender removed an external link from the Manga page to a site I frequent called Manga Life? This site has been in existence since May and already has more manga reviews than any other site I can find on the net, it's kept up to date with new stuff at least every other day, and - frankly - has more detailed and informative reviews than a couple of the other sites already linked. So wikipedia really should be linking here, yet when I add the link this guy deleted it? Surely against the ethos of wikipedia?
Thanks, Mark
Forgive me if this has been rehashed over and over, but I'm curious whether there's been any discussion recently of means of expiring sysop privileges. What if, for example, appointments to sysop had a 6 or 12 month term, after which consensus would again determine whether the editor retained adminship? I found Wikipedia:Confirmation_of_sysophood but this is from a while back, so I'm curious what current thoughts are on this. Friday (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I know if I use my new AdministrativePower® too much, I risk getting a complaint for adminship abuse and getting the power taken away. But is there any danger in using it too little? — JIP | Talk 17:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Just curious, has anyone been desysopped for a reason other than inactivity or their own request? WP:LA doesnt really help me. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 01:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The user or administrator "Gamaliel's" history page on the lee Harvey Oswald article has some of the most vulgar comments, just plain filthy as a matter of fact, of anything I have ever seen. I did not expect this of Wikipedia. Anyone can access that page including children. Quite disgusting. Can it be cleaned up?
They don't listen. Maybe got other things to do. Just a mini power trip anyway 152.163.178.143 20:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Mongo has deleted my edits to the September 11, 2001 page where I point out that the perpetrators of these horrible crimes are "alleged" since there has been no trial; and that there are credible dessenters such as David Ray Griffin who believe that the offical report is bogus and that it was not 19 Arabs. He is accusing me of "vandalism" for putting "non-sense" into Wikipedia. I have $1,000,000 backing up my "non-sense". To refuse to mention the huge 9/11 conspiracy movement and the credible people such as the former Chief Economist for Labor, Morgan Reynolds, who believe explosives were used is censorship. Jimmy Walter Reopen911.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmywalter ( talk • contribs) 06:08, 24 September 2005
I said that MONGO isn't an administrator simply because the only reason the complaint is on this page ( Wikipedia_talk:Administrators) is because the complainant believed that MONGO was an administrator. None of my comments have anything to do with the fact that I am an administrator. If I were handling the case in question as an administrator, then I would have taken action as an administrator. Despite Agriculture's sincere belief, I have not done so. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 00:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I think the colors should be changed, also this template should be advertised on an Admin page and included in the You're a sysop! template(s). - Roy Boy 800 02:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Can we get some kind of standard way to capitalise "administrator"? Should it always be capped, or never? It varies throughout WP, and I would like there to be some kind of consensus on this. I think Administrator should be capped, but adminship should remain lowercase. Your thoughts? -- Lord Vold e mort (Dark Mark) 15:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I think special unforgeable tags should be added to users' User: pages if they are administrators/bureaucrats/stewards/board members. This way, you can know easily when you are viewing the page of an administrator without looking at the long admin list. -- Myria 02:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
This is correct. I withdraw my complaint. Tony and I have come to an understanding, and the matter is settled. Both of us may have reacted badly. I do not wish to pursue. Thank you. Iago Dali 12:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Apparently a very young Administrator Splash I believe from Bath England feels it incumbent to block, a piece I have on the history of Cuban espionage. Not alter it, not challenge it but simply block it.
What he/she writes is:
“Please take the request to: Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you recreate the article again, anywhere, under any title without doing so, I will block you from editing Wikipedia. -Splashtalk 18:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)”
While I don’t know Splash’s background nor her/his credentials to do this. Here are some of mine, my family is part Taíno (Siboney), and has been prominent, even famous, through out known Cuban history. I fought in Castro’s forces for almost a year in 1958; during that time I participate in a number of military actions, but never executed anybody. It was the executions that made me break with Castro, in 1961 I was later jailed by Castro and was released through diplomatic intervention. Then I was coerced to leave the country. Having remade my life as an academic, and I am now a full professor in the sciences looking towards retirement. In my field I have almost a hundred refereed scientific publications, and have published (hard copy) probably more than ten publications on Cuba history and associated topics.
I am using the pseudonym (El Jigüe) because of my academic position and because as compromise is reached in each section, I wish merely to contribute and not to be responsible for the final product.
It is my opinion that “Splash” might well be reminded that rather than deleting an article, and insisting on blocking it (and anything else I submit), a far more productive attitude would be to challenge specific parts of the article and attempt a compromise.
Sincerely El Jigüe User talk:205.240.227.15
Sunday, October 23, 2005
I have continuously added new material, new citations, etc etc., under the 1title of Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised. Yet I find this important material constantly deleted. When I address what ever complaints are presented and replace these deleted sections; then the authors of these deletions (critics) then level accusations of multiple postings. From the fervor of these critics and their comments one could readily infer that deletions may well carry an ideological bias. A second now more common procedure (when continual direct deletion fails) seems be to lodge a spurious and often mendacious complaint, which is accepted by a like thinking editor who removes the article soon as possible e.g. Talk:Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised. El Jigüe 1/27/2005
It is now my contention, that the Wikipedia revision process has systematic errors that freely allow serious abuses of this nature; and that that these abuses become a form of ideological censorship. Furthermore I infer from these critics’ behaviors that such abuses have potential far wider use by totalitarian governments to censor criticism by this means. I do not expect any remedies, nor do I anticipate that this article to be restored. However, I do expect to prepare, present in scholarly forum, and then publish a paper on this matter sometime next year. El Jigüe 1/27/2005
This admin is deletion happy - he deleted my brand new Wikiracist article within 5 minutes of creation, violating several wikipedia policies in the process - "Don't bite the newbies", "Assume good faith" and in deleting it as 'utter crap' making a "Personal attack". He also failed to let the deletion process take it's course. If this is the sort of behaviour an admin thinks is appropropiate, why should I bother trying to contribute? 84.68.19.88 14:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
If you know what it means, then fix it and restore it.
This sentence makes no sense because all signed-in editors can check on edits and contributions by other signed in users, as well as anonymous users. In this way, admins are no different from other signed in users. Even anonymous users can check your contributions, though they don't get watchlists. - Lethe | Talk 19:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
From the project page: Administrators are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility.
This may or may not remain true. See Jimbo's experiment at Talk:Alan Dershowitz. Depending on whether the practice is continued, the statement may need to be softened or adjusted. -- Tabor 23:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I have been trying my darndest to keep the Mandy Moore page up to date. But it seems anti fans and fans alike have been vandalizing the information. One in particular, 64.252.215.100 another is 164.67.44.180 What am i to do? Parys
THERE ARE CONSTANT VANDALS. WHAT AM I TO DO? Parys 19:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)