Wikipedia talk:Administrators' guide
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrators' guide page.
|Wikipedia Help Project||(Rated NA-class, Top-importance)|
- 1 Comment
- 2 Thoughts
- 3 Name change
- 4 Viewing deleted images
- 5 Kudos
- 6 A suggestion
- 7 Instruction creep
- 8 To become an adminstrator
- 9 Standardizing the organization of admin instructions
- 10 Lets all take a feild trip to wikiversity!
- 11 Proposal for new module
- 12 Upload image from URL?
- 13 How to deal with Abuse Filters - Request for comment
- 14 WikiProject Administrator
- 15 New guide to checking open proxies
- 16 Viewing deleted pages and contributions
- 17 Revision deletion
- 18 Move
- 19 BLP vandalism sandbox
- 20 Revision deletion question
- 21 Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2014
- 22 "New admin" to become "Administrators' guide"
- 23 Needs a page on closing discussions
- 24 Missing a bit on imposing sanctions (other than blocks).
- 25 Adjust wording edit request
Nice idea! >Radiant< 14:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- You can thank Ryan Postlethwaite and Jreferee for it! :) Acalamari 23:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I think this is a great idea! I wish this had existed when I became an admin. It would have saved me some time coming up the learning curve.
Second, I would like to suggest that each page start with a pointer to the relevant policy. I have done this for blocking and protecting. The point here being that new admins should be familiar with the relevant policy but they might not be.
--Richard 06:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly, it's all good and well know how to use the tools, but if you don't know when to use them, you get yourself into a mess. I'll look into adding a few statements from policy a bit later on. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool idea for the admins! Why not try to incorporate more admin-like things such as reverts as well? ('Course I'm not an admin, so what do I know? :) ) Icestorm815 04:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea. I added a link for a Rollback and Undo course at Wikipedia:new admin. I'll see if I can write it up in the next day or two. Jreferee 21:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Viewing deleted images
- Yup there is, like any normal page, click "3 deleted edits" - scroll to the bottom of the page and you will see two sections: Page history is the text of the page e.g. the rationales e.t.c. and file history is the history of all the images that have been there. Click on any of the file histories and you will see the image that has been there at that time. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I added instructions at Wikipedia:New_admin_school/Viewing_deleted_pages#View a deleted image. -- Jreferee t/c 21:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much for setting this up! Barring a drastic change in my RfA, it looks like I may be going through the paces here in a few days. I'm really grateful I don't have to start cold as an admin using the buttons for the first time in real situations. I probably wouldn't delete the main page but I suspect there's still some practical learning I need to do before I'm a fit mopjockey. Cheers, Pigmanwhat?/trail 21:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I added a new section "View deleted contributions of an editor" to Wikipedia:New_admin_school/Viewing_deleted_pages. I also added a few more images for practice. Feel free to swith them out in favor of more "interesting" images that may help keep the student's attention. -- Jreferee t/c 15:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This school only is about which buttons to push. It is not meant to go into when to push the buttons. There is a link at the top of each course that leads to when to push the buttons. Please keep that in mind when revising the courses. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 15:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
To become an adminstrator
What is the school usually about. I'm interest on become and admin one day so I can block users, delete pages, and contribs, protect and semi-protect pages. Where in Southern California to attend school? I'm form South Orange County, California.--Freewayguy (Meet) 19:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - from the reading that I've done, you need to submit a "Request for Adminship" or be nominated by someone else. You can read more about the process here - Request for Adminship. This "New Admin school" page is an set of instructions and procedures to assist new admins with normal processes. Unless I'm very mistaken, there isn't any formal school that you would actually attend. The RfA article will give you some additional references, like Administrators' reading list, Administrators' how-to guide, and Guide to requests for adminship. Best of luck. Regards. --Daddy.twins (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- You could also check out the Admin Coaching page and request a coach to help you learn what the role involves. nancy (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Standardizing the organization of admin instructions
I have proposed a standardization of the admin instructions pages. Feel free to join the discussion. This would not affect the new admin school directly in any way, but since you are all dealing with making life easier for new admins I thought you might be interested in giving your 2 cents. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Lets all take a feild trip to wikiversity!
Is it possible to copy this to Wikiversity? There's nothing against teaching about editing and I have some expirence and an account (under the same name) there so I could help do that. Just a suggestion.--Ipatrol (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- If someone wants this transwiki imported to wikiversity, just drop me a note. I don't even know if this project is active here. FYI, also see v:How to be a Wikimedia sysop. --mikeu talk 23:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Proposal for new module
The discussion from this thread at WT:U lead my suggestion (which seems to have support) to create a new module for the handling of violations of username policy. As with other NAS modules, such as the one on rollback, it will not only benefit admins, but it will also be useful to editors who are active in username violation reporting. Whilst the username policy provides a general overview of what's allowed, it does not give sufficient guidance or examples of violations and the best way to handle them. How do I do about getting the process started? I know of a few admins who would like to actively help in its drafting, so is it as simple as sandboxing it and getting consensus on whether it should go live or not? Cheers. Nja247 14:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Upload image from URL?
It has been pointed out to me that Special:ListGroupRights indicates that administrators can upload images directly from a URL (notably a Commons URL). Is this true? If so, where's the secret key? --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC) falishas daughter is my wife bra to be serious though i note that you have some capitillization errors your friendly neighbor makla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whydowelovewiki (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
How to deal with Abuse Filters - Request for comment
Hi! I've posted a request here about help for new admins about abuse filters. As there in't a terrific amount of traffic there, I thought I'd drop a note here about it. Stephen! Coming... 15:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
New guide to checking open proxies
I've written a Guide to checking open proxies. It's not exactly noob admin level, but would be relevant here I think. Feel free to move it and/or edit it mercilessly. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Viewing deleted pages and contributions
In the Administrator privileges section, it said that on a scale of 1 to 9 of severity, viewing deleted pages and contributions rates as 9. Why can it cause so much damage since no one but you actually sees what you do? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Please add a revision deletion section to the new admin. I recently encountered a case in which three administrators all failed to completely delete inappropriate content from the history using the revdel feature. The scenario is as follows (problematic revisions are in red text):
- Admin 3 Undid Admin 2's undo
Admin 2 Undid Admin 1's undo as a "dummy edit" (unnecessarily and incorrectly)hidden by Admin 3 Admin 1 Undid outinghidden by Admin 2
- User 2 A revision in between
User 1 Outing anotherhidden by Admin 1
Admin 3 quickly corrected this afterward. The important lesson is that all revisions with the problematic content (including the "revision in between"), not just the revision that introduced it, must be hidden. Although oversighters know this, WP:REVDEL does not make it clear. The result is increased visibility of the inappropriate content to all users versus a scenario in which no admin action is taken. PleaseStand (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
BLP vandalism sandbox
I made this page for testing yomum poses a while ago and kind of forgot about it till just now. How it works is explained on the talk page. Might be a good addition to new admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Revision deletion question
I am not a new admin but I'm not sure where else to ask.
An IP address made a constructive edit to Bitmessage, an article I recently created. Then, a while later, the IP address mysteriously became hidden (diff). This action wasn't logged, as normally happens when an admin hides an identity or edit summary or what not. Also, the action cannot be examined (the checkbox in the article history is grayed out), as one can normally do with logged revdel actions.
I'm just curious how this happened. Is there some automatic detection of non-logged-in editors going on that causes the IP address to be hidden automatically? ~Amatulić (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- That means the IP address has been suppressed by oversight, presumably because someone was logged out when they shouldn't have been and reported it to them. Suppression logs are not visible to sysops. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2014
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
"New admin" to become "Administrators' guide"
I should write here too about this big transformation I'm planning. I've gotten input on various other pages such as WP:ADMINGUIDE – which is the problem. There's too many pages, and fragmenting them makes it difficult to find the information you're looking for and keep it maintained. Leaving "New admin" as it is now means there's still much the admins have to figure out on their own. So, I want to create a new centralized point of reference for all admin duties, that documents the basic principles behind them and how to carry them out. In effect we're keeping our admis informed from day one, and "learning on the job" will become less of a problem.
A consequence of this is that the "school" aspect will be lost, which has already somewhat happened. We won't remove the practice exercises, however. E.g. WP:NAS/B will still document how to practice a block on the test accounts, etc, but we'll have other additional pages that do not have a way to practice the tasks (such as merging page histories and edit filters).
Needs a page on closing discussions
Many green admins really need help with doing this properly.
See Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list#Closing discussions for outline. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Missing a bit on imposing sanctions (other than blocks).
This needs a links to pages/sections on WP:AE, WP:AC/DS, and other topic bans, interaction bans, move bans, etc. This is an area where new-ish admins often make mistakes. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Main page related work should be added too. Might take a look at this soon. Sam Walton (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Adjust wording edit request
In the third sentence it opens with 'Administrative tools are very powerful...', however I feel that such a phrase may lean too much towards the idea that being an Administrator confers authority onto a user, when it should lean towards the idea that they are 'a servant of the Wikipedia' (to put it blandly). Therefore I propose the phrase be adjusted to 'Administrative tools have been granted due to the trust the community has in you...' or some variant of that. Thank you! 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've implemented your suggested improvement. I don't think the wording is ideal - there should probably be some better indication that the tools can do damage ("impact the entire site" as WP:RFA puts it) - but I've no better suggestions at this time. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)