Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: Try logging in a few more times, it's behaving strangely today. Try with a wrong password, and then the right one again. I don't know if it will help, but I had trouble logging in just now. כסיף Cyp 00:44, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Can't log in

message: User:Tim Starling "effectively has developer access" but is not labelled as a developer. Why? --Jiang (Dated September 17, 2003)
:I could just mark myself as a developer. I'm not sure if I'm meant to ask for permission or not. I seem to remember Eloquence asked for permission, but I don't think Nick Reinking did. There's about 15 people with SSH access (like me) but only 7 of them are marked as a developer. Being marked as a developer doesn't really have any practical advantages, it's just symbolic. -- Tim Starling 02:03, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
Allow me. -- Cyan 02:10, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't Tim Starling a developer? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jheijmans, former admin? 

message: 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)
replies: text: What do you mean? The Block log shows no record of a user called Vroman being banned. If you are blocked, how are you posting here? Angela. 21:30, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: All I can think of is that Vroman got an IP from an IP pool that was banned previously. --snoyes 21:33, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation seems to have corrected itself. Thanks for taking the time to investigate. Vroman 23:10, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Banned for vandalism?

message: 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)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: #Does "The following users have sysop rights as of October 4, 2003" mean to say that the admin list was last updated on that date ? But it is being updated regularly.
#Page says "Sysop activity status was checked on February 17, 2004. ". But Optim's entry in the Inactive list shows 6 March.
:I think the issue is that Optim listed himself; however, February is the last time someone actually checked the contribs of every sysop to find the inactive ones.  Pakaran. 19:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Date confusions

message: 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:
* Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation
* Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(disputed_place_names)
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:
* a formal apologies from Adam Bishop
* some sort of penalty for his unfair and biased behavour
* revoking of his administrator rights, as he clearly has broked the basic rules 
Mestwin of Gdansk 00:10, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you to demand anything? You are not blocked now and Adam apologized. --mav 10:00, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin powers abuse by Adam Bishop 

message: 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)
replies: text: Who are you to demand anything? You are not blocked now and Adam apologized. --mav 10:00, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just received apologies 

message: 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)
replies: text: No (if you are able to then it's a bug and security issue), but developers have access to the logs and can check if an account is a sock puppet (if it's being used for making trouble). Dori | Talk 22:54, Mar 31, 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)
thread_title:  Is there a way to see the IP addresses used by registered users (in order to confirm sockpuppet suspicions)? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request to ban John Kenney =

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright question? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Admin noticeboard 

message: 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)
:There's an advanced new "user levels" system coming in a future version of the software that will make such ideas possible. For now, though, you're either a sysop/admin or you're not. (Note that "super-user" wouldn't be such a good name, because it sounds like the person who can do everything...) - IMSoP 18:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted a similar idea at Wikipedia:Maintenance adminship. I agree that "super-user" sounds better. Rad Racer 01:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super-user? 

message: Current text on this page says:
:Revert pages quickly. Any user (logged-in or not) can revert a page to an earlier version. Administrators have a faster, automated reversion tool to help them revert vandalism by anonymous editors. When looking at a user's contributions, a link that looks like: [rollback] – appears next to edits that are at the top of the edit history. Clicking on the link reverts to the last edit not authored by that user, with edit summary (Reverted edits by X to last version by Y) and marks it as a minor change. In a fairly recent change, admins can also rapidly revert changes when viewing a diff.
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 , 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)
replies: text: It rolls back all contiguous edits by the most recent editor.  If the most recent editor made five edits in a row, and you only want to roll back the last one, you're out of luck, it rolls them all back.  Moreover, if you want to roll back the last three editors, you're also out of luck; it only rolls back the most recent editor.  It doesn't matter which version you are comparing.  Does that explain it? Jayjg (talk) 22:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts don't work?

message: 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)
thread_title: Blockable

message: 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)
thread_title:  A question? 

message: When I came across the paragraph it was written as follows:
:If you think an administrator has acted improperly against you or another editor, you have no effective redress. There is no formal complaint mechanism or process for having such a grievance dealt with. You can express your concerns directly to the administrator responsible, but they can ignore you if they choose. In this case, you must resort to the notoriously slow and only occasionally effective Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. 
And I reverted it to:
:If you think an administrator has acted improperly against you or another editor, you should express your concerns directly to the administrator responsible. Try and come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, you can take further action according to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There have been a number of alternative procedures suggested for the removal of sysop status but none of them have achieved consensus.
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)
replies: text: I agree with Adam and think that his version of the paragraph is completely accurate. Why don't you answer his question? What specifically in the paragraph you reverted do you disagree with?--198.93.113.49 16:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I reverted the final paragragh "Dealing with grievances" 

message: 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)
replies: text: PS. Don't read anything into the word "vote" in the title.  I don't mean a literally democratic process, I mean consensus.  Friday (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expiration and/or vote to retain 

message: 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)
replies: text: None that I'm aware of. So far, no admin has been de-adminned for not doing much — not even for not editing at all. There is a proposal somewhere (RFA Talk, I think) about de-adminning completely non-editing inactive admins after 12 months and an email for security reasons. -Splash 18:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underuse of administrative power? 

message: Just curious, has anyone been desysopped for a reason other than inactivity or their own request? WP:LA doesnt really help me. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship is supposed to have the full list. --cesarb 01:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desysopping 

message: 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 anyway152.163.178.143 20:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As more edits are made, those will scroll off the bottom of the list.  Please note that the foul language is not by Gamaliel, but by an anonymous vandal trying to insult her. Joyous  (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Complaint to any administrator who will listen

message: 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
: MONGO is not an administrator.  As a fellow editor he is entitled to contest edits that he thinks are incorrect but he shouldn't be warning you about vandalism, because that isn't what you're doing.  --Tony SidawayTalk 12:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Administrators have no more rights to edit than any other contributor so this makes little difference and is besides the point. The September 11, 2001 attacks article is on my watchlist as it has endured repeated vandalism and POV pushing. My first revert as seen here, was due to Jimmywalter placing the term "alleged" (when discussing the attacks carried out by the 19 hijackers) and the term "many" when discussing the number of people who have written books and produced refuting evidence of the results of the 9/11 Commission appeared to be vandalism, based on Jimmywalter's short edit history, not using edit summaries, lack of contribution to the talk page on this sensitive article prior to or after attempting to insert the information and the correlation with the username to an bio on the person, James W. Walter, (who may or not be the same person as the editor) a proponent of the information. My second revert was due to there primarily being an incomplete sentence structure and an attempt to reinsert the information. I perceived these edits to be vandalism and nonsense due their failure to comply with principles of Occams Razor, a fundamental principle of science which essentially dictates that the preponderance of evidence supports the outcome, or the simplist explanation is the right one. I encourage Jimmywalter to participate in the talk page on the 9/11 attacks or to include his evidence in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article as it may be a better fit there.--MONGO 16:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly with MONGO.  Especially on the note that Administrators have no more rights to edit than any other contributor.  Tony doesn't understand this point at all in my experience, and I think he needs to take a step back and let another admin handle this situation. His obvious bias may be making things worse. Agriculture 22:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Complaint against Mongo

message: 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). - RoyBoy 800 02:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:User admin]] 

message: 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 Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unique user page tags for special users 

message: *User Iago Dali and I came to a peaceful understanding.  According to a message posted on my talk, his desire is to drop the complaint "Thanks for your quick response. I assumed my complaint was dropped when we made peace. I saw the dispute resloution posted on Pinero. How do I drop a complaint? Is there a page? Iago Dali 19:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Complaint against ADMIN ABUSE OF POWER

message: 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
:See the extensive discussion at Talk:Cuban_espionage_and_related_extraterritorial_activity_revised#Deletion_of_this_article.  Wikipedia is not your personal blog or a forum for publishing your essays or original research.  It is not a magazine that will publish your articles intact and unmodified with intellectual ownership by you: all contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GFDL and can be copied, modified or redistributed by anyone.  And finally, duplicated articles re-created in bad faith are speedily deleted as a matter of policy.
:All of the above has been explained to you over and over again, to no avail. -- Curps 01:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised

message: 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)
thread_title:  FCYTravis 

message: If you know what it means, then fix it and restore it.
:"(Administrators, clearly, check on edits and contributions made by Signed-in users.)"
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)
thread_title:  I can't figure out what this sentence means so I'm removing it. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Editorial responsibility 

message: 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
: Try posting this to WP:AN/I. Might get more visibility there. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mandy Moore]] vandals 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright question? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Admin noticeboard 

message: 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)
:There's an advanced new "user levels" system coming in a future version of the software that will make such ideas possible. For now, though, you're either a sysop/admin or you're not. (Note that "super-user" wouldn't be such a good name, because it sounds like the person who can do everything...) - IMSoP 18:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted a similar idea at Wikipedia:Maintenance adminship. I agree that "super-user" sounds better. Rad Racer 01:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super-user? 

message: Current text on this page says:
:Revert pages quickly. Any user (logged-in or not) can revert a page to an earlier version. Administrators have a faster, automated reversion tool to help them revert vandalism by anonymous editors. When looking at a user's contributions, a link that looks like: [rollback] – appears next to edits that are at the top of the edit history. Clicking on the link reverts to the last edit not authored by that user, with edit summary (Reverted edits by X to last version by Y) and marks it as a minor change. In a fairly recent change, admins can also rapidly revert changes when viewing a diff.
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 , 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)
replies: text: It rolls back all contiguous edits by the most recent editor.  If the most recent editor made five edits in a row, and you only want to roll back the last one, you're out of luck, it rolls them all back.  Moreover, if you want to roll back the last three editors, you're also out of luck; it only rolls back the most recent editor.  It doesn't matter which version you are comparing.  Does that explain it? Jayjg (talk) 22:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts don't work?

message: 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)
thread_title: Blockable

message: 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)
thread_title:  A question? 

message: When I came across the paragraph it was written as follows:
:If you think an administrator has acted improperly against you or another editor, you have no effective redress. There is no formal complaint mechanism or process for having such a grievance dealt with. You can express your concerns directly to the administrator responsible, but they can ignore you if they choose. In this case, you must resort to the notoriously slow and only occasionally effective Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. 
And I reverted it to:
:If you think an administrator has acted improperly against you or another editor, you should express your concerns directly to the administrator responsible. Try and come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, you can take further action according to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There have been a number of alternative procedures suggested for the removal of sysop status but none of them have achieved consensus.
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)
replies: text: I agree with Adam and think that his version of the paragraph is completely accurate. Why don't you answer his question? What specifically in the paragraph you reverted do you disagree with?--198.93.113.49 16:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I reverted the final paragragh "Dealing with grievances" 

message: 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)
replies: text: PS. Don't read anything into the word "vote" in the title.  I don't mean a literally democratic process, I mean consensus.  Friday (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expiration and/or vote to retain 

message: 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)
replies: text: None that I'm aware of. So far, no admin has been de-adminned for not doing much — not even for not editing at all. There is a proposal somewhere (RFA Talk, I think) about de-adminning completely non-editing inactive admins after 12 months and an email for security reasons. -Splash 18:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underuse of administrative power? 

message: Just curious, has anyone been desysopped for a reason other than inactivity or their own request? WP:LA doesnt really help me. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship is supposed to have the full list. --cesarb 01:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desysopping 

message: 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 anyway152.163.178.143 20:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As more edits are made, those will scroll off the bottom of the list.  Please note that the foul language is not by Gamaliel, but by an anonymous vandal trying to insult her. Joyous  (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Complaint to any administrator who will listen

message: 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
: MONGO is not an administrator.  As a fellow editor he is entitled to contest edits that he thinks are incorrect but he shouldn't be warning you about vandalism, because that isn't what you're doing.  --Tony SidawayTalk 12:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Administrators have no more rights to edit than any other contributor so this makes little difference and is besides the point. The September 11, 2001 attacks article is on my watchlist as it has endured repeated vandalism and POV pushing. My first revert as seen here, was due to Jimmywalter placing the term "alleged" (when discussing the attacks carried out by the 19 hijackers) and the term "many" when discussing the number of people who have written books and produced refuting evidence of the results of the 9/11 Commission appeared to be vandalism, based on Jimmywalter's short edit history, not using edit summaries, lack of contribution to the talk page on this sensitive article prior to or after attempting to insert the information and the correlation with the username to an bio on the person, James W. Walter, (who may or not be the same person as the editor) a proponent of the information. My second revert was due to there primarily being an incomplete sentence structure and an attempt to reinsert the information. I perceived these edits to be vandalism and nonsense due their failure to comply with principles of Occams Razor, a fundamental principle of science which essentially dictates that the preponderance of evidence supports the outcome, or the simplist explanation is the right one. I encourage Jimmywalter to participate in the talk page on the 9/11 attacks or to include his evidence in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article as it may be a better fit there.--MONGO 16:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly with MONGO.  Especially on the note that Administrators have no more rights to edit than any other contributor.  Tony doesn't understand this point at all in my experience, and I think he needs to take a step back and let another admin handle this situation. His obvious bias may be making things worse. Agriculture 22:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Complaint against Mongo

message: 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). - RoyBoy 800 02:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:User admin]] 

message: 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 Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unique user page tags for special users 

message: *User Iago Dali and I came to a peaceful understanding.  According to a message posted on my talk, his desire is to drop the complaint "Thanks for your quick response. I assumed my complaint was dropped when we made peace. I saw the dispute resloution posted on Pinero. How do I drop a complaint? Is there a page? Iago Dali 19:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Complaint against ADMIN ABUSE OF POWER

message: 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
:See the extensive discussion at Talk:Cuban_espionage_and_related_extraterritorial_activity_revised#Deletion_of_this_article.  Wikipedia is not your personal blog or a forum for publishing your essays or original research.  It is not a magazine that will publish your articles intact and unmodified with intellectual ownership by you: all contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GFDL and can be copied, modified or redistributed by anyone.  And finally, duplicated articles re-created in bad faith are speedily deleted as a matter of policy.
:All of the above has been explained to you over and over again, to no avail. -- Curps 01:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised

message: 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)
thread_title:  FCYTravis 

message: If you know what it means, then fix it and restore it.
:"(Administrators, clearly, check on edits and contributions made by Signed-in users.)"
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)
thread_title:  I can't figure out what this sentence means so I'm removing it. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Editorial responsibility 

message: 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
: Try posting this to WP:AN/I. Might get more visibility there. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mandy Moore]] vandals