Wikipedia talk:Administrators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Desysop inactive admins[change source]

We have, in the past, desysopped several admins for inactivity reasons. In redesigning this page, I noticed there are 9 inactive admins, which is nearly a third of the total admins. I notice some haven't edited since 2007, and others very sparsely. I propose that to keep our admin list accurate with who actually is around to perform admin actions, I propose that after inactivity for 6 months we desysop the admin. If they suddenly become active again, they can always request admin rights back.

If we were to implement this, we would be removing 7 of the 9 inactive admins, most of which haven't made a single edit since 2007, and one hasn't edited in over 2 years. What do people think? Majorly talk 19:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would support that if they had zero edits for say 6 months without warning of an absence. Sparse edits I would probably still keep and/or message said user and ask if they intend to come back. -Djsasso (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
That's what I'm proposing, 0 edits for six months or more. Majorly talk 19:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Yup then I agree. Just wasn't sure where you stood on the sparsly. -Djsasso (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Brion VIBBER, one of the inactive admins listed above is a WMF employee. Angela, another one of them, presumably is Angela Beesely a WMF advisory board member and former trustee. Those two should not be desysopped for inactivity. Everyone else, I see no problem with. SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Brion is not inactive. He was desysopped last summer for inactivity. I disagree how being a WMF employee or advisory board member gives one right to adminship. I don't see Jimbo with admin rights. I don't see Cary Bass with admin rights. I don't see Michael Snow, the chair of the board, with admin rights. Majorly talk 20:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You don't see them, because none of them are developers, so they have no active need for the right except for office actions. At the same time, any of them could get the flag back instantly if they wanted it, so what's the point of removing it? Aren't there better things to do with your (collective) time? SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
We desysopped Brion without issue last year. Angela isn't a developer, and doesn't really have a need for the flag (I'm sure if we asked her nicely, she'd be happy to remove her rights). Such people could get the flag, but temporarily to deal with something. There's no need, or right, for them to have it permanently, if they are inactive. Cary Bass, for example, had to run for adminship on Wikinews recently just like any other user. He couldn't have just "get it instantly", unless it was an official office action. Angela has admin rights because she was one of the first admins here. She isn't here in any other role.
I could ask the same to you. Aren't there better things to do with your time than discuss politics on a wiki you're barely active on? Majorly talk 21:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, or a crat. I'm not wasting any time desysopping people, because I don't have those tools. You however, do, and you should find better things to do with your time. How much valuable article writing time, or admin tool using time, was wasted in your whole premise here, when you could have simply proposed we adopt the de-adminning standard from meta, or commons? Why should we re-invent the wheel here? That's a rhetorical question, Farley, the answer is a collective incompetence among the admins here. Obviously, weeding out developers and advisory board members will go a long way to fix that. SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
PS Angela is a steward so has global adminship anyway. There's no need for her to have adminship. She is not above everyone else. Majorly talk 21:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
What part of "Brion VIBBER was desysopped last summer" don't you understand? In any case, I don't really write articles here. I use my admin tools for admin things. We have plenty of active admins, so if I am here doing this, I won't be missed much. Majorly talk 14:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem with de-sysopping; the respective admin can simply ask by mail ot get the flag back (provided there is sufficient proof that the requesting admin is the real one, and not someone who hijacked the account). --Eptalon (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I support desysopping admins with 0 edits within the past six months. If they return, they can request that their privileges be restored.--≈  Lights  χ  21:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed something but what is the driving force behind desysopping people? I've yet to see an RFA (here) fail because we've got too many admins. If it's a security issue then could someone point me to the evidence suggesting these inactive accounts are compromising anything? If it's down to inactivity then have a list similar to the 'crat list on en-wiki which lists those 'crats who have performed a 'crat action within the last two months vs those who are less active. Otherwise why desysop? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Adminship is not a trophy. Get it if you need it. Keep it if you use it. Lose it if you don't. That's my opinion. Plus, there's precedence to remove inactive people. We've done it in the past without any issues. Majorly talk 22:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
On Simple, generally the precedence has only been to remove inactive admins if they request it. Like with User:Tdxiang, who was desysoped around a year ago after he requested it (a crat has restored his admin powers, now that he's back).--TBC 04:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree 100%...PERIOD!--   ChristianMan16  22:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. And what you're saying makes it more like a trophy than not. Trophies are handed back if not defended. Trust is inherent and should be upheld until otherwise proven. What is the benefit to the community of desysopping if it doesn't prevent others from being sysopped? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Such users are no longer trusted in the community necessarily. Some users above were never voted in, and one has been inactive since before most of the current community even started editing here. What benefit is there in them keeping rights they never ever use? We've done this before. Why are you trying to make it difficult? Majorly talk 22:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not making anything difficult Majorly. You have your agenda, obviously, and that's fine. You say "such users are no longer trusted" - provide evidence of this and I'll happily concede the point, on those individual cases. For those users sysopped before RFA etc, tough, that's the way it was, like when you could get a driving license before driving tests. Unless these guys foul up Wikipedia, there's no harm done. Even if they do, it's just a case of fixing it. If, however, they come back and contribute positively, even better. No need to desysop here, just declare them as inactive. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You've yet to say how keeping their rights will be beneficial to the project. Majorly talk 22:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You've yet to satisfactorily explain the advantage of removing the admins. Why deviate from the status quo with no good reason to do so? You say "such users are no longer trusted in the community necessarily" target those users directly.SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not fond of inactive admins and de-sysopping those that have not edited at all in 12 months is a good idea and also those that have not edited at all this year..--Cometstyles 22:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it ought to be extended to one year of no edits before we consider desysoping? I'd be in favor of that. Bstone (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Discussions like this always seem to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. But I don't really care so I'm going to de-admin myself here. Angela (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Of the admins this applies to (listed below), Aflm's page redirect also includes a interwiki redirect to his pt:wiki page which says he has left wikipedia entirely (1-19-08), prior to this he only edited 2 days since July 2006 and no admin actions since June 2006. Phaedriel has effectively vanished/right to vanished and for all intent and purpose does not exist anymore. Ricky has no admin action in the last 18 months, Freshstart in two years and Tangotango in just over a year. J Di's only actual activity just April 07 has been to declare he is active and two quick deleted during a discussion about his not being active back in January.
Of these, none show a reason to need the admin tools and a couple have even left the project entirely. A one year limit seems more than fair enough, especially as unlike commons, we are not as strick about re-instating admin right in cases where there is no fault on the part of the user (for example Tdxiang). Worst case, they decide to eventually come back and have to wait a couple hours to get the tools.
Meta's policy on this seems simple, effective and to the point:
Any sysop inactive on Meta for a full year will be de-sysoped. "Inactive" means no edits in the past 6 months and less than 50 edits in the last year. They may re-apply through the regular way.
I do not see the need for use to keep the last sentence (as I stated above about re-instatement), but the rest seems just common sense and would be easy enough to maintain. (It also would cover all admins on the list below except Phaedriel.) -- Creol(talk) 16:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Creol. If this policy is going to go through, which it probably will in some form or another, best to make it so that when an admin comes back from their wiki-break, they do not need to re-RFA, but can simply request it from a 'crat. In addition, as I understand it Phaedriel is eligible as a former admin who invoked RTV while in good standing, to ask a steward to grant her new account (if she has one) the bit back. Somehow I doubt she'd do it, because it would be a pretty big indication that it was her, but still, she has a way to get it back as well. When taken in combination with the commons policy below, I think it's the most reasonable proposed reading (even though I disagree with it's existence in the first place).SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Admins[change source]

  • Freshstart (last edit 6 August 2006)
  • Phaedriel (last edit 26 September 2007)
  • Ricky81682 (last edit 19 November 2007, but inactive before that date since February 2007)
  • Tangotango (last edit 3 December 2007, but sparse edits since May 2007)
  • Aflm (last edit 19 January 2008, but very sparse edits since June 2006 (and effectively retired by redirecting their talk page to their userpage))
  • J Di (last edit 24 January 2008, but sparse edits since April 2007)

Commons discussion on inactive admins - possibly helpful[change source]

Hi - I appreciate this is a different wiki but a similar discussion was held at Commons recently and maybe looking at that discussion's conclusions saves having to reinvent the wheel. In that discussion it was concluded that Developers and members of the board need not be de-admined. Otherwise per : On Commons, any sysop with less than 5 admin actions in the last six months is considered inactive and may be de-admined. Inactive administrators may re-apply through the regular process. This is somewhat in line with the policy at Meta: . --Matilda (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that six months is too short of a time period. Perhaps a year instead?--TBC 04:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
A year would probably be better. But in that case it's only one admin. Is it worth it? Majorly talk 14:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Quite. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It's only one admin right now. In a few months it will be more. SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If this policy has to go through (and I'm still failing to see the benefit of it) then one year of "inactivity" seems appropriate. So with all this kerfuffle on a wiki with 32 sysops and we conclude with desysopping one now and one or two over the next six months. Good use of time here guys... Perhaps we can now focus on expanding this Wikipedia? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Prehaps we should make it a requirement that all sysops hash-commit their userpages, so that their inactive accounts that are deflagged (since they do not change passwords &c regularly and thus are open to compromisation) can readily be reopped. Anyways, would this be worth simply quietly doing this? There's no-one that really would kick up a fuss, is there? Microchip 18:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The two people above would... TRM, if you think this is a waste of time, go away and do something else. I didn't ask you to come here. I think it's a perfectly good use of time. Other projects desysop inactive admins. We have done so in the past (but lack a policy regarding it). Majorly talk 19:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously Majorly, you need to chill out a little. If you wish to occupy the minds of the many intelligent and productive folk here by suggesting one person gets desysopped (and you still haven't said why) then that's fine but I really think you need to reappraise priorities here. How about encouraging people to make simple Wikipedia a bigger, better and more useful resource? Right now this is the fringe of the fringe of the fringe. Utterly trivial and probably ought to be tagged as such so that editors who may think about contributing aren't put off by this pseudo-bureaucracy. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I could say the same to you. I have stated exactly why - they're inactive and aren't using the tools. That's a reason. Just because you don't agree doesn't make it wrong. So far, it seems just you are the only regular who disagrees with me. Anyhow, as I said on my talk, I'm tired of bickering with you, as we never seem to agree, so I'm going to stop replying now. Majorly talk 19:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice attitude. I think I'm not alone by asking why not using the tools should be a reason to desysop. Just because you think it should these guys should be desysoped, it doesn't make it right. It doesn't make a jot of difference if I'm a "regular" or not - you're not answering the question. And more importantly, how do you think this is helping Simple English Wikipedia improve? I really want to know why... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Majorly hasn't acted inappropriately. He has a right to express his opinions, and his rationales have been relatively reasonable so far. So please, let us all assume good faith. --TBC 19:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
TBC, I very much appreciate your view here. But, when it comes to AGF, Majorly insists on it usually but here, now, it's not evident. And I want to understand why the desysopping of one or two admins every three or four months is so critical to running this Wikipedia. Do we have a problem here? Isn't this fixing something that isn't broken? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The obvious reason I see, and I believe its the reason alot of other projects do it. Is that they are a security risk. As mentioned above their passwords don't get changed etc etc and their accounts are vulnerable to hijacking. -Djsasso (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
So, a precautionary measure? En-wiki had a couple of admins whose passwords were eventually cracked and since en wiki makes top 5 in Google for mostly everything, it's a real issue. This particular Wikipedia only has a few inactive admins - I can see the logic but I can't see any evidence that a dormant password is more difficult to crack than an active password. I know everyone says "change your password every week/month/whatever...." but it doesn't happen. I think an active account is more dangerous if usurped because it may take time to notice. A dormant account suddenly making unusual edits will be spotted straight away. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I can see your point, active admins are as vulnerable as inactive admins when it comes to hackers. However, with inactive administrators, I'm assuming there is a greater chance of passwords being misplaced (as a document or on a piece of paper) and misused by other people than with active administrators. Then again, the chance of something like that happening is unlikely either way. --TBC 20:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I do see you point as well, I was just pointing out a relatively simple reason. The reason inactive would be easier to hijack is really only that its more likely to stay the same, and the longer it stays the same the longer password bots have to crack the code. But yes there are many active admins out there who never change their passwords either so it isn't just inactives that are an issue. -Djsasso (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Another thing: administrators that reappear after several months may be 'left behind' as it were, as the Wikipedia moves on without them. Surely they should need to reaquaint themselves with the rules, as there are several policies/guidelines that have changed in the last 6 months. We don't want an administrator that doesn't know the rules well, do we? On a side note, should all administrators, once they have satisfied the criteria for adminship, have to remain in those criteria after their flag is awarded? Microchip 20:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Unless an admin does something blatantly bad or abuses the tools, they should be an admin for good. Baring inactivity, which they of course could get it back when returning. -Djsasso (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocking? Check their contributions...[change source]

When admins block vandals, could they take a minute to check the vandal's contributions to ensure that all of their vandalistic edits are removed. I often follow up blocks myself and find bad edits hanging around for far too long. Using rollback it should take moments. Cheers y'all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I know you're referring to the user I recently blocked, but I wanted to see if our new BOT would automatically remove them. Ever increasing vandalism leads to more 'exotic' vandalism and the bot should be updated constantly through edits it has missed being incorporated into the script. --Gwib -(talk)- 18:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Chris G Bot doesn't really revert all the vandalism around. I just want to alert everyone that the bot does miss some vandalism. So if you see the bot reverting, make sure the bot reverts all the vandalism edits. Just a note. – RyanCross (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It's better to be safe than sorry. Revert all vandalistic errors. The bot may be useful but it can never replace human editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if the bot can be programmed to "learn" vandalism from samples (just like ClueBot). Chris, are you listening? :) Chenzw  Talk  08:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection[change source]

Please could a Sysop Full Protect my User and Respective talk page. This way While i'm not here but still monitoring my account for Unwanted and offencive comments. A Page protection would ensure my account is safe from vandalism. Thanks

Retrieved from ""

former admins box[change source]

The former admins box is going to get larger and larger. It should be removed because it doesn't serve any real purpose. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It shows who the former admins are. That looks like a purpose to me. Majorly talk 00:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Yup serves a perfectly good purpose to me. Size is not an issue, there is a reason we put it in a collapsible box. -Djsasso (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
It does when we hit 100kb because of all the admins leaving. Good news: Razorflame came back! Griffinofwales (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
And when the page gets too big we create a subpage. -Djsasso (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
If it's that important. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
en:Wikipedia:Former administrators, for the record. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrat w/o adminship?[change source]

I came across an old discussion back at enWP about whether it was possible to attain bureaucrat status without first getting adminship. There were different answers/opinions on the question. Normally a user would go from user --> admin --> b'crat hierarchy. However is it possible that a glitch in the system could make that happen, or whether it could be done intentionally? What about checkusership or oversightership without adminship? —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 06:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, the roles of admin, bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversighter are independent of one another. Technically you don't need to be admin to become bureaucrat, checkuser or oversighter. Note however, that for example the role of bureaucrat is limited to promoting users, and assigning bot status. On Simple, we have agreed that crats, checkusers,... need to be admins first; If you think this is wrong, you should discuss it, but please do so on Simple Talk, rather than here.--Eptalon (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
No, no. I'm not disagreeing, I'm just asking people's opinions here. IMO, I agree that all b'crats, CUs, and oversighters should be admins first. —§ Snake311 (I'm Not Okay!) 08:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I suppose you could have one big super-duper RfA/RfB combined... I'd like to see it at the very least :) But personally I think admin first, then crat is best. Kennedy (talk • changes). 17:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I feel that as 'crat has the power to make themselves sysop, 'crats should always be an admin first (as it doesn't really make sense that you "have the power, but aren't allowed to use it". CU and OS, however, are wholly independent (but someone who could pass CU but not admin is unlikely) MC8 (b · t) 17:42, Tuesday August 11 2009 (UTC)

Inactivity[change source]

I have been inactive here for many months; recently, someone wrote to me on my talk page in another project, to see if I'm interested to come back and become an active admin here.

While I'm on a restrained schedule these days, if there really is a need for more helping hands with admin tasks, I'm willing to dedicate a little time every day to Simple English Wikipedia. Your comments are appreciated. - Huji reply 08:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Huji!! We have more than enough admins so don't worry too much. I'm sure the message left was more about this policy than anything else. You are, of course, welcome to edit here as always! Take care and see you around! :) fr33kman 08:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I left that message because I was wondering why he wasn't editing. πr2 (talk • changes) 18:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
That is not an appropriate thing to do! fr33kman 19:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay. With the change I just made in this page, I have a one-year grace period to decide if I want my perms removed, or I can free my time to edit here. - Huji reply 15:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Active/Semi-active[change source]

Just wondering what the criteria is here. How many edits/logged action should someone have to be active. I see that PeterSymonds is listed as semi-active while he's ~50 edits/logs for this months. Is it just "per gut feeling" or is there something like xy actions = active and less are semi-active? I know that we move people to the inactive section after three months of no edits/actions. -Barras (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

People are free to put themselves where they think they should be which is what I think the case of PeterSymonds was. Others I generally move when there last 50 edits go back more than a month. To me active tends to mean you are very likely to be on the wiki when someone needs help. Someone doing less than 50 edits a months isn't really likely to be around. That being said I suppose that's mostly a gut feeling. Peter is a rare case of someone who does a tonne of actions but not edits. I have generally left him always at semi cause it seems like that is where he wants to be. No pressure to do things cause he is lazy. ;) lol -DJSasso (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Totally agree on the lazy part. :-P Thanks for the answer anyway. -Barras (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
o; PeterSymonds (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Updates needed[change source]

By my reckoning it is high time user:Bsadowski1 was moved to semi-active, and user:Mh7kJ moved to active. The lists lost their point if they get too far out of touch. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Just change it, it's a wiki and no one will mind it when you update a page. -Barras talk 11:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I actually update it every couple weeks. Part of it is based on what the admin themself wants to be listed at. If they want to be listed as Semi instead of Active that is their call. As for Bsadowski I had him as semi but was asked by a number to move him to active because he is by far our most active CU. He does alot of things here every day that non-admins/cus can't see. He is possibly one of our most active admins. He just doesn't edit the wiki itself much. If you want to know the criteria I use to determine Active vs Semi when I do update it then it is basically if I look at your last 50 edits and there are edits from 3 months ago in it then you are Semi. So if I were updating it today anyone with edits from January would be moved to Semi. -DJSasso (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
And just in case anyone is curious, I move people to Inactive when they have no edits in 3 months or when we are warning those people in danger of falling below the activity threshold for the inactive admin policy in July and October. -DJSasso (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Just add my support for Bsadowski - he does an incredible amount of work in keeping the spammers, trolls, and open proxy abusers off this wiki. I have been round long enough to remember what it was like before he was here.--Peterdownunder (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Please help![change source]

User:The1337gamer won't let me edit, help! - (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That user has only made one edit here. How is he/she stopping you from editing? Are you sure it was here, and not on a different Wikipedia? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

St.Mary’s Catholic Primary School project[change source]

Since the lead teacher Kevin Holdaway has written to Chenzw in a threatening manner, we should consider doing one or two things.

We could alert those admins who are Stewards (Barras, Bsadowski1 and M7) as to whether the issue should be put to the legal section. Personally, I think the teacher's threats have absolutely no substance. Furthermore, I have followed the correspondence, checked out the links given by Chenzw, and find they are helpful and satisfactory.

On the other hand, the teachers have never registered as users, and seem to have no experience of how WP works. That is where the problem really lies. If you read the childrens' pages, you will see that:

  1. they are unwikified and show no signs they understand how articles are developed.
  2. to a large extent they do not even use the information on our existing pages to help write their versions.
  3. everything they have done could have been done with simple word processing software.

I'm thinking we should not be quite so permissive to school projects. The lead teacher should be registered and should give evidence that they know what they are doing, wikipedia-wise. If not, we should reject projects. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I might comment more later, but for now:
  • Let's keep separate the issues with this specific project (the subject of this section) and discussion of school projects in general. The latter is best discussed at WP:ST rather than here, because policy is not made by admins alone.
  • In general, we do not require users to register (I think that policy is at a higher level than individual Wikipedias). However, if students are to do article work anywhere other than on live articles, there needs to be at least one registered user for the project so that subpages can be used. In this case, there is a registered account under the name of the school (although that may actually be against policy).
In answer to Mac's specific points, are we sure the students considered their articles finished? All those points might still be addressed. Also, I'm not sure what it would mean to reject a project. We can't/don't stop people outright from editing here. Even if a project weren't announced on the school project page, a class could still work in userspace. Of course, if/when their work went live, it would be subject to our usual requirements. (Let's use the term "requirements" instead of "standards", which sounds more judgemental.) --Auntof6 (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I am glad that this is being brought up on-wiki, because an on-wiki discussion regarding this issue will make it easier for all of us when we bring it up to WP:ST about a possible change in stance/guidelines pertaining to school projects. Regarding this specific case, though:
  • According to Wikipedia:Schools/Projects/African Animals, the project has a 6-week timeline. Looking at one of the pages created, the first edit to the page was made on 18 May, with the addition of an image. Assuming that 18 May is week 2, it would mean that we are halfway into week 9 now. I don't think they are finished yet, considering that the students still want to make improvements.
  • The deletion was not intended to be retaliatory in any manner. Rather, we have been accused of "disclosing children's details in relation to the school", presumably caused by my move of the class assignment pages to the userspace of User:Stmaryscps. I will note that the full contribution history of the page is publicly accessible, and that it is known that User:Stmaryscps has edited the page before... I will leave everyone to think about the merits of this accusation, but in either case, if the school really finds it a problem (and/or possible privacy/legal/operational/regulatory issue) to associate the school's name with their students' contributed content (I will further note that Wikipedia:Schools/Projects/African Animals also appeared to deliberately avoid mention of the school's name), then deletion should be an option.
  • @Barras, Bsadowski1: I wonder if the school also sent an email to OTRS? Chenzw  Talk  02:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The class project page may not mention the school, but Stmaryscps has edited that page. (Of course, that could be oversighted.) In addition, the class project page mentions the age of the students. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If I may put the case from a school’s perspective:

As a primary school we have to be so aware and so careful of not disclosing children’s information including references to even the school name. With any children’s work that goes on public display, we must obtain permission from their parents/guardians first especially if they have any reference. We also have to put up a notice (as seen on the Project Page) with reference to guidelines and security. Sadly, that is the way of life today.

Where the children’s work has no reference, name or picture, then permission is not required as in the case of when we originally setup our school’s Wikipedia pages. I was so careful checking and double checking especially that I gave assurance to parents/guardians that no personal information will be divulged, it only needs one to complain. Personally, I enjoyed the teaching and explaining to the children the value of such sites and saw the children’s enjoyment making their own little contribution, remember these children are only 8 and 9 years old.

I confess I am not an expert in designing or contributing to your site and in full knowledge of your terms, conditions and guidance’s however, I found it to be difficult to find such guidance’s and those that I did seem to be scattered within pages within pages.

Please have some empathy here and understand our frustration when we have tried so much to ensure anonymity, to do things correctly, to follow your instructions and guidelines then to find the children’s work either deleted, missing and now with a reference. We are only trying to teach. — This unsigned comment was added by (talk • changes) at 08:07, 5 July 2016‎.

The original article pages were set up as user pages, but for users that are not registered. User pages can exist only for registered users. Many of our school projects set up accounts to be used by their students. The account names do not have to be identifiable, they can be whatever you like (perhaps the "XXPoplar" names would work). The user pages set up would have been fine if the matching accounts had been set up. If you like, I can create the accounts and move the work pages underneath them, to the names they originally had. I would give you the passwords in email, you could give them to the students, and the students could log in to work on the pages. Would that help?
In any case, you should probably not mention the students' ages again. We don't allow minors to be identified as minors, for their protection. You might want to remove mention of their ages from your various pages, and after that we might be able to suppress it from the page history. If we can't suppress it, we might be able to recreate the pages without the age information.
Another aspect of school projects here is that they are allowed as long as the work is something that can eventually improve Wikipedia. Some school projects write new articles. Some improve existing articles. What do you see happening with the students articles in the end? I notice that there are multiple students working on articles for the same subject; do you see them consolidating their work somehow? If there is no plan to update existing pages or create new pages, then this may not be the right place for your project.
Let me know what you think about the above. Is there anything else we could do to address your concerns while still working within Wikipedia requirements? Issues like we have seen here are the reason we ask people to coordinate with us before starting a school project, so that we can help them understand Wikipedia's requirements. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Auntof6 -Thank you for your help and advice.

Firstly, I am concerned about the mention of our school and the repercussions, therefore we may have to delete the site, is this something that can be easily achieved?

Interleaved reply: If by "site" you mean pages, then yes, individual pages can be easily deleted. Which pages do you think mention the school in a problematic way? It might also be possible to just delete mention of the school name and suppress it from the page history. It would require a user with the oversight right to say whether that's possible in each case. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

In regards to creating accounts; as these are young children it is difficult enough getting them to login, find the Wiki site, then their own areas. By the addition of passwords would cause more problems, but thank you for the assistance.

Interleaved reply: That is your choice. Just be aware that if the students do not log in, their working pages have to be under another registered user, as they are now, because only registered users can have what we call "sandbox" pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned their ages in the project page is so any person seeing the page would appreciate these were created by young children and understand obvious spelling and grammar mistakes. I was also demonstrating to the children that Wiki pages can be edited by other people and then having the children proofread class members’ work to correct such mistakes.

Interleaved reply: Since this work is not in live articles, I don't think anyone would be concerned about those mistakes. They would have to be fixed before going into live articles, however. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

In our ICT curriculum, the children now have the task of creating such Wiki pages for editing and correction. As this is our first attempt at doing so it is a learning curve for all of us. Whilst appreciating comments and criticisms about our site, it would have been a great help if there was a dedicated area where I could read Wiki guidance and thus avoid such confusion and at times deletion of their work. Indeed this created immense frustration when explaining to the children that they cannot do any more corrections in their dedicated lesson due to someone suspending or deleting their work. As mentioned, after searching through many Wiki information pages, I found it difficult to find relevant guidance.

Interleaved reply: There is some information, including helpful links, at Wikipedia:Schools, Wikipedia:Schools/Projects, and Wikipedia:Schools/Teachers' Guide. Note that those pages are specifically for school-related topics, not for generally learning to use Wikipedia. We have tried not to put restrictions on school projects, but because of the issues related to this one, we may make restrictions on future projects. The veiled legal threats made certainly do not make us want to cooperate with these projects. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, personally, I find Wikipedia a wonderful site for information and the way in which others can contribute positively in whatever way. It is very rewarding when the children see their own work and comment upon it and want to improve it. They understand the concept and want to contribute.

Interleaved reply: It's always good to see younger people who want to contribute here. At what point were you thinking of putting the work into "live" articles? I recommend asking other editors to look over the work and comment (or even edit) before that is done. Some projects have a specific editor to be their main contact and advisor. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

To my best intentions I try to abide by your regulations and stipulations but again where are the pages of guidance notes? Hence my and the children’s frustration believing we are producing work in a correct method then to have work deleted. Furthermore, with the disclosure of our school is a definite breach of trust to the children’s parents/guardians and could have serious reproductions for the school. I look forward to your comments. — This unsigned comment was added by (talk • changes) at 14:14, 5 July 2016‎.

I have interleaved some replies above.
When you post on a talk page, please "sign" your post by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have many concerns over this particular school project. As a former teacher and long time editor I have assisted many schools with successful projects over the years. Experiences with these projects have enabled us to come up with guidelines and policies to avoid exactly the kinds of problems that this particular project has created. This project has been set up with almost no knowledge or experience of the way Wikipedia works or functions. We are not a free wiki hosting service for schools and students projects. I would expect at the very least that a teacher would have at least some experience, made some effort to learn the basic principles, before wasting everyone's (including the students) time and efforts. The pages created so far are poor quality duplicates of existing pages, and so would be deleted under normal circumstances. This has nothing to do with the age of students, as young primary students have contributed successfully in the past (I remember many of our penguin pages started this way). Many schools are identified on Wikipedia through their IP addresses, however individuals' identities are protected. By not following/understanding our processes, this can make it very difficult for us. To remove the name of the school via OS would be a herculean task now, if not impossible. And on a final point on this matter, everytime you press "Save page" you are agreeing to our terms and conditions "Terms of Use and Policies – You adhere to the below Terms of Use and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities."--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Auntof6, thank you for your comments.
I have made an appointment with our Local Education Authority to express concerns of why the creation of Wikipages is bought into the curriculum and explain my reasons. I now believe that as a Primary School we cannot really contribute to your Encyclopedia as we are not fulfilling your criteria of adding additional knowledge and suggest looking for another platform to do similar projects.
Rather than ‘contributors’ understanding and helping, I have found them to be curt and one certainly demonstrates they have little teaching experience, certainly at primary level. Would you kindly remove our pages from your site as I still have the concerns for the children’s welfare. Thank you again.

I am sorry to see that the whole affair had to end like this. As you have also mentioned, Wikipedia contributors are all volunteers, and most of us are not equipped with the specific skills to deal with this situation. In these cases, we rely heavily on teachers to communicate with us beforehand about their projects' objectives and workflow, and to act as a liaison between the school and Wikipedia editors.
While Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and we continue to stand by that, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide a web hosting service for schools to upload their students' pages/creations to. If the intention was to familiarise students with contributing to a wiki (not to be confused with Wikipedia), then Wikipedia may not be the best place for this purpose; a local installation of MediaWiki on the school Intranet will be a better alternative. Chenzw  Talk  09:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you need more admins?[change source]

Hi all, I wanted to throw out a quick hello. How is the admin load over here? Is there a bit of a backlog or do folks feel like things are pretty well taken care of? Just curious what folks might be feeling. I saw a comment further up the page from a few years ago saying Simple had plenty of admins, was curious what the mood might be like now? Cheers, Evilphoenix (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia. I think there are occasional times when there's no admin online to take care of active vandalism, but most of the time we're OK. Most of the things we could use a hand with don't require admin functions. If you're thinking of proposing yourself as an admin, be aware that we usually want a reasonable amount of experience here first, because there are quite a few things that are different here even over and above writing in simple language. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I was an admin on en a while back, but was de-opped procedurally for inactivity. I'm starting to get back into the swing of things. If the vibe was "we are swamped. ack.", I'd raise my hand, but if its not heavily needed, thats a good thing. I think its interesting that admin promotions have dropped off a cliff on en, Im curious how it is going on some of the other languages. Im wondering if part of it is that there might just be *less* admin work to do in general - maybe splitting out of some of the tools, and improvements to RC and NPP are helping. I know en has that restricting new pages to autocomfirmed thing going on now- Ive only glanced at New Pages feed the one time since it started, and I dont know how it compares to right before that change, but my jaw absolutely dropped at how *clean* the New Page feed was....everything looked like it had potential, *none* of the obvious red flags constantly popping up like Back In The DayTM. Encouraging signs. Anywho, let me see if I can't find something useful to do around here. Cheers! Evilphoenix (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocking users: Is the section out of date?[change source]

The section about blocking only talks about vandalism. Are there no other reasons on this wiki for blocking users? Is there a list somewhere of all users who are currently blocked/ have been blocked in the past? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

@Ottawahitech: It says admins can "block and unblock users who are causing trouble". It then says where to report users who are causing one specific type of trouble (vandalism). It does not say that that's the only type of trouble we block for. We also block for bad user names, sock puppetry, block evasion, being rude or uncivil, edit warring, using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion, and other things. Some of those will get a user blocked immediately, and with others we try to warn first. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
This log will show you all blocks (and unblocks) ever. Special:BlockList will show you all currently active ones. Only (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stop vandalisme[change source]

To whom it may concern I am contacting you about Mohsen Makhmalbaf wikipedia page. It is a few days that some people have attacked to his wikipedia page and are putting false information on his page. I have been trying to correct it but again they return everything to their false version. They are putting some wrong sources and some yellow page article source on his page. They are from the group of people who are against him so they keep adding false information to ruin his reputation. Here is the link to his wiki page:ویژه:تاریخچه/محسن_مخملباف I have corrected everything by the user name of: عدالت انسانی

All approved details and information about this known filmmaker is on his official website: Please stop these people ruining his reputation as hie is an alive person and this incorrect information will cause him a lot of trouble and wikipedia should be responsible to stop it. عدالت انسانی (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Could someone please put a page protection on it. عدالت انسانی (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Could someone please protect the pesian (farsi) version of his page please. A page protection would ensure his account is safe from vandalism. Thanks عدالت انسانی (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrator threats, please help[change source]

I have been told by a particular admin that I am violating or not following Wikipedia rules (unknowingly). I want to appeal to someone who doesn't harbor bias, please. I am merely trying to point out blatant bias in my conversation "edits" on talk pages. I have not attempted to edit these pages , but pages like "Presidency of Donald Trump" or "Qanon" or "Trump controversies" are highly biased & contains lies by omission. For instance, pointing out DJT campaign involvement with Russians but omitting any involvement by HRC campaign is biased & dishonest. Pointing out "many false statements " by DJT without context of many false statements by Obama administration is clear bias. I may not be citing with citations in most cases, but it's clearly known by all in the general public that this is true. Markvrb (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not the place to complain about problems on another Wikipedia. Please seek help on the English Wikipedia, where this incident seems to have happened. Vermont (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

27?[change source]

Why are there only 27 admins? If you need something it might take a while to get a response. Gale5050 (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gale5050: Not all of them are active. Also, we usually consider that we have more than enough, because this is a small wiki and there are relatively few editors here. This site isn't exactly like other Wikipedias. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
There's only 16. Vermont (talk) 04:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
15, the 1 more is abuse filter to be exact.Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)