Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 3

message: 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". A copy of the conversation has been posted at MediaWiki talk:Unprotect for posterity. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 19:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect to Unprotected and Unprotect to Protected 

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

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

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

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

message: Hiya - message for Admin HEAH
Having trouble getting in touch because you've disabled newbies from getting in touch from your userpage, so Pls, if this is the wrong place, forgive me :-/ 
Noticed that you'd deleted a page (as per the below link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Vestibulodynia )
Could you please let me know why? Can't find *any* ref to it in deletion logs (looked under both the dates listed in the above link, 9 April & 20 March) so I don't know why! We want to have an entry with this condition, so if there is any prob with content let me know so I can rewrite it. 
Thanks v. :o)
Lvpsg 20:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you gave has the reason - it was a copyright violation.  Wikipedia can't have articles that are directly copied from other sites without the text being specifically released under an appropriate license.  If you want to rewrite the article in your own words, that should be absolutely fine. --Tango 16:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paging Admin "Heah" - deletion of entry 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I'm feeling really unwelcomed by admins. 

message: It says Admins can hide vandalism from Recent changes. that sounds bad. ILovEPlankton 04:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does sound politically incorrect. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should change this 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Ummm...I am not an admin, so I haven't deleted anything.  I've only tagged speedy deletion candidates with appropriate tags--if the articles were subsequently deleted, it was because they were unencyclopedic in the opinion of an administrator as well.  I have prod tagged another article, too: First Church of the Almighty Buck and Discount Furniture Warehouse in Del Rio Texas.  I also attempted to explain my actions to Cs weaver at User talk:Cs weaver as clearly as possible with all civility. Thanks. -- Scientizzle 23:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientizzle is deleting pages with no prior warning 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Vladimir Rebikov

message: 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)
thread_title:  I won't create anymore new pages if "Kungfuadam" persists 

message: I shall appreciate if anyone could assist in the unjustified administrator deletion of the racist term "Chinese Pig". The article provides valuable information on a the slur. It is particularly useful for Chinese students who are racially abused and needs information about the term.
The administrator claims that the term needs to be extensively referenced, but the fact is that the term is already sufficiently referenced by credible sources. Other similar articles like "Nigger" and "Coolie" are in Wikipedia.
Please be kind to help me revert the carefully written article. The assistance rendered would be appreciated.
(Sorry about the standard of my English because it is my second language and I am from Hong Kong.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chinese_Pig --Chungkwok 03:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unjustified deletion of the derogatory term "Chinese Pig"

message: 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)
thread_title: Deletion campaign

message: 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!!! --15px|HomfrogHomfrogTell me a story!Contribulations15px|Homfrog 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homsar? 

message: 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)
replies: text: As this rant was your first edit from this Ip, it is hard to examine your contributions and provide any meaningful feedback. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Admin Stalking

message: The page says:
:The amount of begging related to being made an administrator is inversely related to how long it will take to become one. 
Really?  The more you beg, the sooner your are sysoped?  Looks like an unsuccessful attempt to describe it "mathematically"...  Arbitrary username 17:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, that was my pathetic attempt to address Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Use_of_English above. Reworded again. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inverse relationship? 

message: I request an investigation into the activities of the user Tototom. He has systematically deleted texts that are well sourced, and have taken a long time to write. The user's vandalism mainly consists of changing text that talk "bad" of (or do not advertise enough) the Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and other dictators of Iran.
He is especially active on Military of Iran and Iranian military industry. An example of his vandalism Military of Iran.
I wrote almost 99% on both those pages, and on more pages... so it is annoying if the user keeps deleting stuff. The user is also active under the nickname Databot using proxies.
- ArmanJan
:This looks like more of a content dispute than a simple vandalism issue (which would be reported on Wikipedia:Requests for investigation]])... please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for some ways to go about resolving this. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 11:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User deleting text 

message: 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)
replies: text: I like the current wording "Do not use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism; please use manual rollback with an appropriate edit summary."  It focuses on the problem with rollback, not that it's quick but that it gives no meaningful edit summary.  I've maybe twice abused it, I must admit.  - brenneman {L} 00:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rollback

message: 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)
replies: text: I would prefer that in ANY case except pure vandalism/author request, the deleting admin leave a note on the creator/substantial author's user talk page, but I may be alone in that... -- nae'blis 02:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It depends on my mood.  I sometimes communicate with the creators of articles I speedy, but I'm not terribly consistant about it, and it's subjective.  If the article makes no attempt to be encyclopedic ("My cat is phat" or "Mr. jameson is a crappy shop teacher") then I probably issue a  + .  If it's the first edit they've ever made and it's woeful but good faith ("Smash brothers is an x-box game, it has a really good soundtrack") I'll give  + WP:SOFTWARE.  If they've got more than ninety contributions and I'm busy, I just delete it and reckon that they will figure it out. - brenneman {L} 00:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Further to that (having just logged out and tried it) if you put the title of a deleted article into the search bar you get the "no article" message but the article appears as blue right below that.  When you click it, it says "may have been deleted" and links to the deletion log.  Thus making me slightly more confident that anyone but the very nobbiest noob will be able to figure out if I deleted his page.  So, yes it's good to leave a message, but no it's not a hanging offence not to. - brenneman {L} 00:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Policy Clarification

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Administrators are not required to have a sense of humor.  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Right to vanish 

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

message: After witnessing the probable or the likely "auspicious-cum-great Wiki-event" about the two million passing mark record figures of all the Wiki-citizens a.k.a. the Wikipedian Population in this free-online-English-Encyclopedia for marginally more than half-a-month back then (i.e. seventeen days ago to be exact), now get ready for this yet another thrilling moment (not to be missed): BEHOLD!!! --- I truly praise, commend, and greatly congratulate this English Wikipedia ONCE AGAIN for surpassing yet another "Wiki-record" with the ONE THOUSAND (or in figures: 1,000) mark of the Wiki-Administrators Population!!! Yet the number of this "Wiki-authorities" and not to mention "Wiki-authoritarians" from this big free encyclopedia are still growing (as stated and based on/in the Wikipedian User Statistics plus) as more Wikipedians are arriving one-by-one and who aspires to become an administrator of this huge encyclopedia are vying and competing tirelessly for their requests of their adminship promotion to be a success! WOW, what else can I say to express here, man!!? Therefore, Congratulations and Kudos to the English Wikipedia! Keep the numbers going and keep on upgrading the maintenance work of this Wiki-Encyclopedia to the fullest! Yaaahooooo and I REALLY SALUTE to all ENGLISH WIKI-ADMINISTRATORS for their consistent hardwork!!! YEAH!!! --onWheeZierPLot 10:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. I feel like there's a party going on and I wasn't invited = | --   Netsnipe  ►  19:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''[[1000 (number)|ONE THOUSAND]]''' ADMINISTRATORS!!! ''SALUTE YO!!!'' 

message: I know there was one. It was back when the Wiki was young, and I found the name on a list of some sort. Now I don't remember the list or the name. Can anybody help me out? It was... Ivy... Iris... Something like that.   69.145.123.171    Yes, I'm really   an IP  Sunday, September 17, 2006, 04:57 (UTC) 
:User:Isis, banned for activities unrelated to the admin tools.  See here. Xoloz 15:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: indefblocked admin?