The contents of MediaWiki:Unprotect will be changed from Unprotect to Protected and MediaWiki:Protect from Protect to Unprotected as per discussion in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Change Unprotect to Change protection.
This page 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. |
A copy of the conversation has been posted at MediaWiki talk:Unprotect for posterity. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 19:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
This statement was first put on this page in February 2003. [1] It seems no one really knows where it comes from. Besides - can anyone adequately describe exactly what it means? Currently, it is up to anyone to interpret "adminship should bo no big deal" anyway they like. I replaced the sentence with something hopefully more describing. Now - did I get the meaning of the quote right, or... // Habj 23:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone deleted the userbox template
man- kind | Regarding gender, this user prefers the vernacular, not what is politically correct. |
without deleting
This user supports the use of gender-neutral language. |
. Really, if one is to go, both should go. This is the kind of decision that makes me draw the conclusion that Wikipedia is hopelessly biased in favor of "consciousness-raising" and political correctness. I put that box up to indicate my language preference, not to advertise my political beliefs. If it is unacceptable, that's fine with me as long as the other one goes too. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I changed it so it said that administrators had more power than bots, since it looks like they do here: Wiki: User_access_levels --Minipie8 22:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
This was added by BenAveling on February 24 [2]. I just wonder, why should we not do so? I easily understand that we should not use rollback on other people's good-faith but misguided edits, because reverting without explanation is rude and discourteous. But If I see an admin using rollback on their own edits, then I immeditately assume that it is a mistake they want to take back quickly, and it is not rude and discourteous to anyone but him- or herself. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
There are too many policies and rules, they change too often, and they are not always intuitive to find. If the rollback is to only be used for reverting vandalism, then please change its edit summary to reflect this. Until then, people will continue to use it for any reason they see fit. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I was looking through the listusers special page and found two odd user types: "boardvote" and "checkuser". I'm a new user, so I don't know all of the wiki terms. - 82Something
Now that we have the procedure of marking the best articles through the {{featured article}} template, I would like to propose that we also mark the user pages of our best users, i.e. administrators, by using the admin mop image ( ) through a new template: {{administrator}}. I've even set out the code for that:
Suggestions or comments are welcome. The one problem I can think of right now is whether to have the image of size 14px (as in the FA template), or 20px (as in my user page), because of the white space behind the image.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 11:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't personally like drawing attention to admin status. It's fine as a choice, but not as a requirement. I don't want people to automatically assume I know what I'm talking about by virtue of having admin access- I make mistakes, just like anybody, and I want them to be pointed out to me when I do. I also don't want newbies to think they're not allowed to disagree. I think we should de-emphasize the difference between "admins" and "normal users", not emphasize it. We're all just editors, when it comes down to it. Friday (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Awards for "best picture", "best actor", "Best scientist", "Best Wikipedia editor" make sense to me. But "Best janitor"? Per Friday, being an admin is not something to brag about, and its just a set of tools and assumes admins are somewhat more experienced. It is hard to judge what makes one a "good admin", unlike deciding what is a good article. So, I am opposed to the idea. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
While I don't necessarily think it should be made mandatory, I would like to clarify whether or not the opposers think it should be forbidden. If not, then it can spread virally and its own success will determine its fate. I'd start with people using the admin userbox. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Good idea, excuse me while I steal it... Stifle (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind it existing, but it shouldn't be uniform as the featured article stars are. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I like it, and would suggest that it be used by all admins. It's not a trophy, it's a simple icon that shows whether someone has admin status or not. It's a very useful thing to know about someone. The mop icon is good because it's particularly un-trophy-like. Stevage 15:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Per Stevage; it doesn't look like a trophy. A user could easily look in the upper right corner of the page to find an admin for help; a user would have to scroll through an entire userpage to find an admin userbox, and even then, some admins don't use userboxes because they don't like them. Keep the mop icon. (^'-')^ Covington 02:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
That's three extra buttons! FYI this system breaks for anons, log out and view a page with a tag like this. Prodego talk 20:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hiya - message for Admin HEAH
Having trouble getting in touch because you've disabled newbies from getting in touch from your userpage, so Pls, if this is the wrong place, forgive me :-/
Noticed that you'd deleted a page (as per the below link: http:https://www.duhoctrungquoc.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Vestibulodynia )
Could you please let me know why? Can't find *any* ref to it in deletion logs (looked under both the dates listed in the above link, 9 April & 20 March) so I don't know why! We want to have an entry with this condition, so if there is any prob with content let me know so I can rewrite it.
Thanks v. :o)
Lvpsg 20:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's see. So far today - Someone speedied my article. An admin blocked me for an inappropiate username User:People=Shit immediately afterwards, preventing me from contesting the deletion, and blocking my IP so I couldn't create a new account to do it with either. After much grief, I got my IP unblocked and created a new account, but of course by this time the article (and associated images) was long gone. So, naively I guess, I decided to follow the advice left on my previous user talk page by an admin and list the article at deletion review. Shortly after I listed it, another admin removed the listing and accused me of trolling. Now one's left an attack on my new user talk page. I'm seriously considering just giving up, I'm getting attacked left, right and centre by the admins here. Killerman 18:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
It says Admins can hide vandalism from Recent changes. that sounds bad. ILovEPlankton 04:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
This wikipedian is now so hooked on Wiki, and you all keep the playing ground level so we can play ball and make the magic happen. This is what I wanted the web to be in 1993. My brain says thanks from the bottom of my heart and the ends of my tired fingers! Sorry for clogging the Talk:Administrators page. Alan Canon 18:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Autocratic Censorship Should Not Be Allowed
The wikipedia user User:Scientizzle has immediately deleted pages I have published 4 times now and refers to them as jokes when in fact they are factual occurrences and issues which I believe are of due note for publication. I do not understand why wikipedia allows for the immediate deletion of writings due to the interpretation of one individual. The realm of human knowledge cannot be limited to the whimsy of a single man. --Cs weaver 22:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the heck oversight does, I see its on the permissions list but I have no idea what permissions it grants / should we list those permissions here -- Tawker 07:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
There are 2 identical artiicles Vladimir Rebikov and Vladimir Rebikoff. I tried to move Vladimir Rebikoff into Vladimir Rebikov but had no success. Vladimir Rebikov is better spelling of this name. Could you help? (Meladina 00:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC))
I am a historian who takes much pride in his work. I will not accept it being deleted by some "know-it-all," who enjoys deleting articles soon after they are first created. I was working with the descendants of Edward Capehart O'Kelley, the man who shot Bob Ford (Jesse James) in 1892. I was not given a chance to complete the page when "Kungfuadam" deleted my page without any debate, even after I explained what I was doing. I do not have time to play games with this man. Whoever is in charge must stop him. If not, then please inform me and I will go elsewhere! Soapy 05:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is what was sent to my personal discussion page:
Edward Capehart O'Kelley was speedy-deleted by User:Kungfuadam. If you have not yet talked to him/her, I recommend leaving a polite note on the admin's requesting clarification. Looking at the deleted content, I understand why the tag was added but looking at the page history, this does seem to have been carried out a bit precipitously. We've been fighting a fairly persistent vandal lately and your stub may have just gotten caught in the crossfire.
If talking to the deleting admin doesn't answer your questions, you have the option to petition for a review of the deletion decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Rossami (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
(copy of what I wrote there) Edward Capehart O'Kelley (edit|talk|links|history|watch) was deleted by Kungfuadam (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). You are correct that it shouldn't have been speedy deleted, as it had the {{hangon}} template, and has 2 existing article references. The Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion explicitly states: "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, please consider whether an article could be improved or reduced to a stub. Also, please note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation." You are incorrect as to the place to complain. That should have been Wikipedia:Deletion review. Unfortunately these days, just re-posting the same article again is sometimes considered a form of vandalism, so complain first, and during the review the old article will be undeleted so everybody can see it. --William Allen Simpson 03:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC) And to follow up, don't give up quite yet.... --William Allen Simpson 03:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeff_Soapy_Smith" Soapy 05:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
In addition: I looked over "Kungfuadam's" deletion record and it seems I am not the only one complaining. He is known for quick deletions. looking at your criteria it should have been a week before deletion, not minutes!! Soapy 05:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I shall appreciate if anyone could assist in the unjustified administrator deletion of the racist term "Chinese Pig". The article provides valuable information on a the slur. It is particularly useful for Chinese students who are racially abused and needs information about the term.
The administrator claims that the term needs to be extensively referenced, but the fact is that the term is already sufficiently referenced by credible sources. Other similar articles like "Nigger" and "Coolie" are in Wiki English.
Please be kind to help me revert the carefully written article. The assistance rendered would be appreciated.
(Sorry about the standard of my English because it is my second language and I am from Hong Kong.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki:Articles_for_deletion/Chinese_Pig --Chungkwok 03:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
User:HOTR is currently engaged in deleting people on the UK Conservative Right who have biographies. I suggest it is a politically motivated exercise. For instance, how could anyone say that Sam Swerling, one of England's leading law lecturers, and well-known political activist and writer, was not notable. Yet his bio article has vanished. Something needs to be done here. 81.129.155.181 22:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
On the HRWiki there is a user called Homsar. He is a sysop on this wiki, but I CAN'T FiND HiM!!! WHERE IS HE??? I NEED TO ADD HIM TO MY FRIENDS LIST!!! --HomfrogHomfrogTell me a story!ContribulationsHomfrog 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I have been online for over 10 years 'playing' all through the ether. In that time I have never had my ip blocked once though I have come across all types in some programs. I have never been targeted online for anyhting apart from a couple of gentle 'boots' from one galah who wasnt viscious or kept it up night after night after night after night. In the last couple of weeks here my ip has been blocked several times when I objected to admin vandalism of stuff I had posted where meaning etc were changed making what I put up a heap of lies. I have made a lot of contributions to wik. I did make some errors as I had no idea what I was doing to start. They were not intentional. I cite most posts immediately, with references on the way in next couple of days re those I dont have the reference immediately to hand. (I have an arm injury so can't pull my cardboard box other filing cabinet off the top of the cupboard to get a couple of things out.) Since I have been on wik I have been continuously stalked by an admin who has been very rude, keeps vandalising stuff I put up, seems to be very fixated on following me around the ether and trying to control my every moove. Of course I told that admin to get lost. I am a former professional stalking/violence worker so have seen how it happens and where it ends up, and dont have regard for that sort of rot. I have never seen it to the extent that I have seen it happen on wik. I will tell any stalker to get lost. Its behaviour that isnt needed anywhere and if I am targeted to the point I am continuously being harassed and my health affected then it needs to stop. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? IS IT ALWAYS LIKE THIS? I was going to put a heap of valuable stuff up but given how here is then its best to steer clear of the palce for the sake of my personal wellbeing.
I would be delighted if somebody reviewed either my admin actions or my contributions to the wikipedia - with reference to articles this anon user has also edited. I will take the issues to WP:AN/I for review by other admins. In the mean time I have blocked the user again for ongoing personal attacks.--A Y Arktos\talk 09:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Now for that admin to find I put the above there that admin had to stalk me again as I had to log off, then come back to be able to post. Fair enough if those admins watching some wik articles do keep an eye on them but this post here shows that where I go all over wik is beign minutely watched. There is no need for that. The admin knows I am not a hoon vandel as such so no need for 24/7 watching and stalking. To post the above post, I came here first after logging back on to the Internet, cut and pasted the already written note above, then I went to the site where the admin was vandalising stuff I had put up (this has now stopped after I sadly had to remove most of the post in dispute - it contained important content). It seems that from me going to that article after here, my new ip has been reg and picked up on then tracked back to here to see what else I had posted under that ip log on number. This is totally ridiculous. Its also stalking. Its that that is uncalled for and highly irregular. CUT IT OUT!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.169 (talk • contribs) .
The page says:
Really? The more you beg, the sooner your are sysoped? Looks like an unsuccessful attempt to describe it "mathematically"... Arbitrary username 17:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I request an investigation into the activities of the user Tototom. He has systematically deleted texts that are well sourced, and have taken a long time to write. The user's vandalism mainly consists of changing text that talk "bad" of (or do not advertise enough) the Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and other dictators of Iran.
He is especially active on Military of Iran and Iranian military industry. An example of his vandalism Military of Iran.
I wrote almost 99% on both those pages, and on more pages... so it is annoying if the user keeps deleting stuff. The user is also active under the nickname Databot using proxies.
- ArmanJan
Previously, rollback advice was to generally use only for vandalism - now its written as a non-optional rule. When did that happen? Was there discussion I missed? KillerChihuahua?!? 00:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
If the rollback should only be used for vandalism, then its very neutral edit summary should be changed to state that vandalism is being reverted. Until then, it remains a neutral and usable means of swift undo. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Please protected arcicle: Rapcore. User:Egr / 85.18.14.4 is vandal. Some users reverted edits by User:Egr / 85.18.14.4. This is snap principles 3RR (many times)!!! Though many warning this user not to cut. Please protected arcicle and block users and this IP. LUCPOL 20:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Following a speedy deletion I discussed the matter with the administrator concerned and take issue with his views.
The administrator claims to speedy delete about 60 articles a day and maintains that it is unnecessary (unproductive of his time) to make any communication with the authors concerned. While I agree that this is appropriate in the case of hoax material/vandalism, I think that obviously genuine authors who fall short in some of the deletion criteria at least deserve a short note to explain to them what has happened. Based on the administrator's own figures this would only apply to half a dozen cases a day and not take more than a few minutes.
I think that this a minimum level of courtesy that newbie editors deserve (it is most likely to occur to newbies who are unfamiliar with the criteria).
Apart from leaving a very sour taste in the mouth, having ones work disappear like this also leaves one feeling bewildered since one can find no trace of it - the administrator argued that all the relevant information was available in the deletion log, but I think he forgets how large and confusing a place Wikipedia can be for the newbie - I finally found out what had happened to my article after making a post at the Village Pump.
I would be grateful to hear some authoritative views on the matter.
(I have left out specific details because I don't want to make this personal (the administrator feels that I have abused him enough already) ) Rentwa 01:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think what all experienced wikipedians forget is how large and complicated WP is, and how mysterious are its ways. I was (still am) a noob and honestly had no idea what had happened. I looked at deletion pages but still couldn't work out what had happened. I did put the title into the search and (as I recall) got the 'no such article'. I don't remember seeing a blue link - but I was probably too confused by that stage to proceed calmly and rationally.
I think therefore that Admins should assume assume noobs to be extremely nobby and give them a helping hand if the work appears genuine.
I tend to agree with you on experienced editors - they'll know what's happened, although with what you refer to as unencyclopedic entries I'd tend to be harsher - they too are likely to know what's happened.
The Admin and I are on much better terms now, at least :) . Rentwa 11:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Some joker made an edit, for which they predicted that they would be blocked, because "Wikipedia Administrators do not have a sense of humor." I tried to work it into the text, trying to address is that fact that vandalism is not a joke. That is, Wikipedia Administrators are not required to have a sense of humor, at least where deliberate vandalism is concerned. In the end, I prefered the original text, and I backed out my changes. Just FYI in case you wondered. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I am an admin who thinks its time to leave WP (addiction issues). I see here Meta:Right to vanish that I can delete my user page and talk pages in an attempt to "vanish." It seems odd that I can remove all record of my discussion history (except for Admins who can view/restore). Is that true. Can I just *POOF* delete my pages and disappear? (follow up, can I get a permanent block on my account if I'm concerned about wikiaddition?). 24.29.141.11 23:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the article about how long an admin is an admin for after they are approved. I'm guessing it's forever, since there are so many asshole admins around, is that the case?--Paraphelion 07:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
After witnessing the probable or the likely "auspicious-cum-great Wiki-event" about the two million passing mark record figures of all the Wiki-citizens a.k.a. the Wikin Population in this free-online-English-Encyclopedia for marginally more than half-a-month back then (i.e. seventeen days ago to be exact), now get ready for this yet another thrilling moment (not to be missed): BEHOLD!!! --- I truly praise, commend, and greatly congratulate this English Wiki ONCE AGAIN for surpassing yet another "Wiki-record" with the ONE THOUSAND (or in figures: 1,000) mark of the Wiki-Administrators Population!!! Yet the number of this "Wiki-authorities" and not to mention "Wiki-authoritarians" from this big free encyclopedia are still growing (as stated and based on/in the Wikin User Statistics plus) as more Wikipedians are arriving one-by-one and who aspires to become an administrator of this huge encyclopedia are vying and competing tirelessly for their requests of their adminship promotion to be a success! WOW, what else can I say to express here, man!!? Therefore, Congratulations and Kudos to the English Wikipedia! Keep the numbers going and keep on upgrading the maintenance work of this Wiki-Encyclopedia to the fullest! Yaaahooooo and I REALLY SALUTE to all ENGLISH WIKI-ADMINISTRATORS for their consistent hardwork!!! YEAH!!! --onWheeZierPLot 10:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I know there was one. It was back when the Wiki was young, and I found the name on a list of some sort. Now I don't remember the list or the name. Can anybody help me out? It was... Ivy... Iris... Something like that. 69.145.123.171 Yes, I'm really an IP Sunday, September 17, 2006, 04:57 (UTC)
Centrx, what is speculative about the text you removed? The previous sentence says that standards have risen, which presumably you agree with. Is it not true that existing admins are then not required to go through any process to see if they meet the new standard - something that I think most people would expect to logically follow after a change in standards. It answers the a reasonable question one might have after reading that sentence, "Well, then do existing admins have to go through any process to see if they meet this new standard?" The only speculative part is that admins are the ones mainly responsible for raising of these standards - I admit I have not gone to much length to document this but have rather assumed it to be true based on casual browsing of discussion pages about raising of standards.
As for admins protecting their own userpages - that's negative-true? What's negative about it? I'm not arguing that the above is negative, but why can't this article contain things that are negative? Your argument is that "this page is not a list of all the negative-true things about Admins" attempts to equate my addition of one sentence to turning a medium sized article in to a list of negative-true things about Admins is a logical fallacy, particularly a strawman.
I don't suppose any other admins would care to weigh in with anything but a response predictable for this hegemony? --Paraphelion 18:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
suggested further reading
--Paraphelion 19:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This article uses material from the Wikipedia English article Archive 3, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license ("CC BY-SA 3.0"); additional terms may apply (view authors). Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
®Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wiki Foundation, Inc. Wiki English (DUHOCTRUNGQUOC.VN) is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wiki Foundation.