Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrators: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Are admins required to have notifications enabled?: note change based on this discussion
Complaints: == Complaints == Only USER see a reason for having two sections, #Grievances by users [["administrator abuse" USER Only WP:User Gmail user Contact text data<small>('text')</s> Edit: Only Contact User Edit talk page :I'd support that. the Small text latter section needs to include processes between text page and Gmail.com. Support Contact text massage [[User...
Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 35: Line 35:


== Complaints ==
== Complaints ==
Only USER see a reason for having two sections, [[WP:ADMIN#Grievances by users ("administrator abuse")|#Grievances by users [["administrator abuse" USER Only]] [[WP:User]]

[[User:Md.Al Mamun|Gmail user]] Contact text data<small>([[User account: accoun.google.com|'text']])</s>
Can anyone see a reason for having two sections, [[WP:ADMIN#Grievances by users ("administrator abuse")|#Grievances by users ("administrator abuse")]] but also [[WP:ADMIN#Disputes or complaints|#Disputes or complaints]]? They seem to cover the same ground to me. Can we merge them? &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 13:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Edit: Only Contact User Edit talk page

:I'd support that. At the very least the latter section needs to include processes between talk page and arbcom. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
:I'd support that. the Small text latter section needs to include processes between text page and Gmail.com.
Support Contact text massage
[[User:Contact|Gmail.com]] ([[User text:data|text]])
User Country:Bangladesh
User language:US/Global And All Languages
Country Code:+880
09 November 2023 (UTC)


== Why is Wikipedia using bias and questionable reporting to slander political candidates? ==
== Why is Wikipedia using bias and questionable reporting to slander political candidates? ==

Revision as of 14:13, 9 November 2023

WikiProject iconWikipedia Help NA‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
NAThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
TopThis page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

External videos
video icon Wheel warring

Complaints

Only USER see a reason for having two sections, [[WP:ADMIN#Grievances by users ("administrator abuse")|#Grievances by users "administrator abuse" USER Only WP:User Gmail user Contact text data('text') Edit: Only Contact User Edit talk page

I'd support that. the Small text latter section needs to include processes between text page and Gmail.com.

Support Contact text massage Gmail.com (text) User Country:Bangladesh User language:US/Global And All Languages Country Code:+880 09 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia using bias and questionable reporting to slander political candidates?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Not an issue for Administrators. Referred elsewhere.

Why is Wikipedia involved in gaslighting and reporting unfavorable and misleading information about Political Candidates in effort to mislead the public. This is more than just business as usually this is evil collision. I’m scared to trust anything on Wikipedia even again. 2603:6081:F840:A3:A184:50DA:FCC4:3D6C (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Examples would help. HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this is not a content noticeboard either, it is a talk page for discussing the administrator user right, if you are trying to contact an admin WP:AN is the place, but it seems more like you want WP:RSN for a discussion of a subject like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are admins required to have notifications enabled?

At Help talk:Notifications#Admin notifications Schwede66 asked essentially this question, which is not addressed by this policy. The spirit of not requiring admins to have email enabled and places like ANI requiring a talk page notification rather than a ping suggests that there is currently no expectation that admins are required to have them enabled, indeed I believe that at least one administrator (Liz) does not and I am not aware of the community having an issue with this.

If this is correct we should consider adding something similar to the language regarding emails to this policy, maybe saying having them enabled is "suggested" or "recommended" but explicitly not required, and that even if they do have them enabled they are not required to respond to them (for the same reasons admins are not required to reply to emails). Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf seems like an easy no. They are not required to do lots of things that are not in the policy. — xaosflux Talk 21:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pings can fail, so should not be relied upon for any mandatory communications. — xaosflux Talk 23:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only place I know that address this is WP:ADMINACCT. While best practices are for administrators to have email enabled, they are not required to enable or reply to email.[1] It does not mention notifications but does require communication and response to questions about their actions.[2] So with that I think it would be best practice to have notifications on, I know Liz can be pretty hard to get a hold of because of that, but it does not seem to be required. PackMecEng (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that admins do not need to have notifications enabled, but would suggest that those who have them turned off state that clearly on their user page. —Kusma (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is a perfectly reasonable requirement. It is possible to tell when someone does not have email enabled (if you do) - there is no "email this user" link when viewing their user page, but as far as I am aware there is no way to tell when someone has pings switched off. I have the setting enabled to give me a notification when a ping fails, but I didn't get one when pinging Liz in my opening message. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It takes an extra step to leave a talk page message, but I wouldn't say that makes it pretty hard to get a hold of a particular editor, as long as they are either watching their own talk page or have kept notifications for talk page messages enabled. isaacl (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not required, and I don't know that it should be required (long-term abusers would have a field day), but admins really should turn pings on unless they have an extremely good reason not to. I remember back when I was a very new editor (not even extended-confirmed), an admin made a mistake with Huggle and accidentally gave me a templated warning. I instantly pinged him about it, but because he didn't have notifications enabled, he never saw my message. Now, if this happened to me today it would obviously be no big deal, but as a new editor who wasn't an expert in the way pings and talk pages and warnings and blocks work, I remember just being afraid I was going to end up blocked. While everything ended well in that story, I wouldn't be surprised if we've lost would-be productive editors over the years because an admin made a mistake and never saw the ping about it. The spirit of ADMINACCT is making sure reasonable queries can be answered, and admins should try to follow that even when something isn't required by the "letter of the law". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per this discussion, I've reworded the bullet about emails to include mention of notifications. New wording While best practices are for administrators to have email and notifications enabled, they are not required to do so, nor are they required to read and/or respond if they are enabled. Administrators who do not have notifications enabled are strongly encouraged to note this on their user page.. I'll leave a note regarding the last clause for inclusion in the next WP:ADMINNEWS. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]