Wikipedia talk:Administrators

Active discussions
Wikipedia Help Project (Rated NA-class, Top-importance)
This 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.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

External video
video icon Wheel warring

Suggestion on improving guidanceEdit

I would like to suggest additional text be added to the section on Grievances by users. My suggestion is to insert additional guidance after the first paragraph:

When expressing concerns to the administrator responsible, it is advisable to do so on the user's own talk page. It's permissible to use the administrator's talk page, but because of the increased number of users watching administrators' talk pages, this could draw a high degree of scrutiny to the discussion and may draw input and even criticism from other users and administrators, which can make it more challenging for the user to discuss the concerns in an orderly and civil manner.
The user can use {{ping}} on their talk page to invite the administrator responsible to the discussion and {{reply}} to respond. However, when the administrator indicates they no longer wish to continue the discussion, the user should respect this request and not continue to ping them. It should be noted that linking to an administrator's user page, such as with [[User:Administrator]] or {{u|Administrator}}, is also considered pinging. It's inappropriate to link to the administrator's user page in this manner in any discussion about the user's concerns after the administrator has indicated they no longer want to discuss further. To link to an administrator's user page without pinging them, use {{noping}}.

It's certainly not necessary, but I think it could be helpful in avoiding difficulty for users when raising concerns. Yes, it happened to me, but no, this is not about me. I think this guidance could be helpful for others that try to follow the guidance found here. Coastside (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC) [modified to add noping, and some ce] 02:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

A technical note - if you re going to mention things that ping, also mention {{noping|Administrator}}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I modified the above to add a line on {{noping}}.Coastside (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggested addition, however I don't think it would fit as guidance on this page. The suggested inclusion is really something relevant to all usertalk pages, rather than anything specific to administrators. If you comment on anyone's usertalk there's a chance a response may come from a third party. And with the exception of certain compulsory notices, you should respect any editor request to stop posting on their talkpage or sending them pings. Maybe propose it for WP:USERTALK? -- Euryalus (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll make sure , there is no more edit. Poudelkeeshab (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "exceptional circumstances to this general principle" is vagueEdit

The section "Exceptional circumstances" contains the following first sentence, "There are a few exceptional circumstances to this general principle."

The use of "this general principle" is vague. Does it refer to the previous section,"Reinstating a reverted action ("wheel warring")"? Structurally, if this is about the previous section, why isn't it in the previous section as perhaps a subsection

And about the principle involved, what is it? It seems if it is an important principle it should have a clear statement of what the principle is. In reading the previous section, what I get out of it is "Wheel Warring is bad". Is that the general principle?

Could someone clear this up for me and maybe revise the page.r

Osomite hablemos 02:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


@Cryptic: I saw your reversion of the "janitors" label.[1]

If memory serves - and my memory is as tight as a metal sieve - the term "janitor" and "janitorial duties" was a lot more common on en-wiki when I first joined in the late '00s. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's the name for sysops on Wikiversity. I've seen used tongue-in-cheek around here, but not enough that it needs bolded in the first sentence. Wug·a·po·des 22:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
If this were 2007 yeah, it might deserve a mention, maybe even a bold spot in the first sentence. But it's use has waned enough that if it were still there now, I might recommend removing or at least de-emphasizing it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The Wikiversity term for what we call administrators is actually "custodian" * Pppery * it has begun... 23:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit request by Kerlouche83Edit

19:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Return to the project page "Administrators".