The administrator noticeboard is where we discuss and coordinate administrative tasks on the wiki. Although this page is intended for administrators, all users are encouraged to participate in discussions.
Before starting a discussion here, please review the list of other community pages below, as your question or suggestion may be more appropriate on another page.
Other pages for community-wide or general questions include:
Specific requests can be made on these pages:
In addition, past discussions from the Administrator Noticeboard can be found at:
 Etiquette Policy Clarification - "Grounds for blocking"
I've edited the Etiquette page to clarify that "grounds for blocking" does not mean "will be blocked". This has been a frequent misunderstanding in the past, and I thought it was time it was fixed. Since it's a policy page, and a topic that's just been brought up, I felt I should mention it. – Robin Hood (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2014 (GMT)
 The Silencer's Block Appeal
Since Silencer is a big fan of following policy and procedure, I am linking his appeal on the AN. I doubt this is needed, but it is in line with policy. ~ Ad intellige (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2014 (GMT)
 Group Add/Remove Rights
Administrators already have the ability to add and remove people from several groups, including all the different types of patrollers, as well as blockers. I'd like to propose that they also have the ability to add or remove Map Users, Cartographers (map editors), and Abuse Filter editors, which are relatively benign permissions. Dave would then only need to be contacted to change the various administrative and bot rights. Does anyone have any concerns with this? I've already asked Dave, and he's fine with it, but I figured I should put it to the community as well. – Robin Hood (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2014 (GMT)
- I personally think this makes sense and have no issue with it. It seems like a tad too much to have to go to Dave to add/remove, like you said, benign positions. •WoahBro►talk 17:54, 6 August 2014 (GMT)
- I'm good with this. We don't have to change these user groups very often, but when we do it's usually pretty straightforward. ⇠eshetalk 18:10, 6 August 2014 (GMT)
- It's a little soon compared to the normal approval period, but I had stuff to do on all our servers that indirectly related to this, so I made this change at the same time. Administrators should now have a bunch more groups they can add people to or remove them from. – Robin Hood (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2014 (GMT)
- I'm good with this. We don't have to change these user groups very often, but when we do it's usually pretty straightforward. ⇠eshetalk 18:10, 6 August 2014 (GMT)
 Suspected vandals
For some reason these IPs keep editing the skyrim credits page. User:184.108.40.206 and User:220.127.116.11 I'm not sure, but I feel like they might need to get banned or something. I think they might be the same person on different IPs, but I can't know for sure. Me and a few other editors have undone 18.104.22.168 multiple times. Can an admin find out for sure? Lorenut (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2014 (GMT)
- I've protected the page. I'm not going to do more right now, cause it is like 3 am and I can't focus all that well at the moment. I don't want to go accidentally blocking the wrong people. Hopefully the page protection takes care of it. Someone else can block those two, but if they are changing their IP intentionally, the page protection will stop them from editing that page. Jeancey (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2014 (GMT)
- Thank you! I've been doing my best to hold down the fort (so to speak) till someone could do something about it. Lorenut (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2014 (GMT)
 Proposed Deletions
Just a note to the other admins that I'm the one who proposed all the older Proposed Deletions, so I can't delete them. Can someone else give them a look when they have a moment? Thanks! – Robin Hood (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2014 (GMT)
- I knew there was something I forgot to do today! I'm about to head to bed, actually, but I will look over these in the morning if someone else doesn't get them first. Thanks for the reminder! ⇠eshetalk 02:59, 8 August 2014 (GMT)
 Block Messages
Per the request of a couple of admins, I've reverted the Block messages to their previous, customizable versions. What's more, I spotted a new option with the InputBox extension, so now they'll auto-fill in the title and text for the block message. The one minor difference is that the text in the input box itself will no longer say the user/IP's name, but just the word "Blocked". I can't imagine that that ever got changed anyway. (See MediaWiki:Blockipsuccesstext.)
One question: the various blocked message boxes are very inconsistent with whether they use —~~~~ or just ~~~~. Do people have a preference whether the dash is automatic or not? And if we keep the dash, do you want an em dash (—), en-dash (–), or double regular dashes (--) like the signature button does? – Robin Hood (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2014 (GMT)
- My preference is two regular dashes, as I've been doing it for years. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 02:59, 11 August 2014 (GMT)
- Including the dashes in the template messages is a massive headache. I use an em-dash in my signature and "--—" looks terribly silly. If people want to use dashes, it's easy to change in your preferences, so I think keeping it as ~~~~ is the most convenient for everyone. The only time I see this being a problem is for people who make use of the signature button, which adds the "--". —Legoless (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2014 (GMT)
 Legoless de-admin request
In my humble opinion, Legoless is unfit to be an administrator. He has consistently showed an out-of-touchness with the workings of the wiki, that ill-becomes an administrator, but much more serious than that, he deliberately lied to sway peoples opinions in the recent events around my warning and block.
Firstly, this comment saying "Multiple admins have contacted you privately to listen to your side of the story." is the main focus of the complaint. It implies that I had an opportunity to defend myself and refused, when I was given no such opportunity because no admins contacted me at all. It also goes against the tone of the emails I received after the block (which was some time after this post) which implies that the admins were waiting for me to contact them with my defense (a frankly ridiculous notion unless I am to guess which admins were involved).
Secondly, this comment quoting the wikipedia policy page with "Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning" is a deliberate misquotation of the policy page, avoiding whole tracts of policy on how to deal with a personal attack and taking the summation at the end of the page as the basis of the warning, despite the policy's underlying concept of seeking a non-administrative solution (especially in first-time cases), and that we have our own policy on attacks which is incompatible anyway. My point here is twofold; one, if you do not understand a policy do not accuse someone of breaking it, and two, do not misquote policies to enforce an action. Both of these actions are unacceptable from anyone, much less an administrator who should know the rules before supporting administrative action. Also within that post is the comment "Unless you are arguing for a block instead..." which is quite a provocative statement, as following my reply that had policy been implemented properly I would have been, I did get a block (which was over the top in length, and wasn't a replacement for the warning).
Lastly in connection to the warning, this post comments that "This isn't the first time The Silencer has been abrasive towards other editors". While that may certainly be the opinion of some people, its the first I've heard of it, having never been approached in public or private about being abrasive on the wiki. So in terms of the warning, this is the first offence, and an administrator should know that before saying otherwise. Another comment there about "common etiquette should be of paramount importance" can be left for another post about the value of factual information (the content if my original post for which I was warned).
Moving on to some examples that show a lack of wiki-knowledge. This one is (assuming good faith) a lack of knowledge that plural headers are a standard across the wiki, no namespace or section is exempt. Icons have been standard for around 18 months at this point, using this template (which has no other use but for the way it was used). Copyright is a serious issue, and suggesting a wiki that takes images from the web as the source of an image is as bad as suggesting google search is a source. These editing examples are of particular importance in establishing that Legoless had no place being involved in the administrative action taken against me as an involved admin, as on all three occasions it fell to me to explain how an admin was wrong and chastise him for suggesting copyright was a trivial issue. Without a reply on any of the three occasions I have to assume he had no issue for being shown to be wrong, but with these three edits coming a month before the warning, and an insinuation of being passive-aggressive in past posts, it certainly leaves space for the accusation of being biased. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:03, 12 August 2014 (GMT)
- Oppose: This feels completely like a witchhunt and nothing else. --AKB Talk Cont Mail 23:15, 12 August 2014 (GMT)
- Comment: The main issue here that involves a detriment to the wiki is the bottom three. Any action for the others would be punitive, not protective. Those three, while valid concerns, are not grounds for removal of rights. I'll wait to support or oppose, though, until Legoless responds. Jeancey (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2014 (GMT)
- Comment: (edit conflict × 3) To offhandedly address address a couple of these:
- Both AKB and RobinHood implied that they had contacted you following the warning you received. If AKB did not, in fact, contact you via email, then I admit I was wrong on that point. Claiming that I maliciously and purposefully lied about it is unfounded.
- I was semi-active on the wiki since December 2012 due to various personal constraints, so I was not aware of the icon issue. If it was truly such a long-standing policy, it's curious that it was only being implemented on some pages in the last month, and not even in a standardised fashion (see this).
- Aside from contributing to the discussions following your warning and removing your patroller rights per your own request, I did not take any administrative action towards you. A clear consensus was reached among the admins, and it would be poor form for me not to support it due to my own "bias" when it comes to your sour attitude.
- Edit: As for the copyright issue, I chose not to respond due to your overly domineering and aggressive response, not because I believed myself to be in the wrong. As it turned out, the user image in question was simply removed, but I stand by my point that trying to apply copyright law to an image macro is ridiculous.
- Frankly I find this de-admin request to be a petty attempt at payback for the administrative action towards The Silencer in the past month. However, I have no problem leaving it stand, as I have full faith in the community. —Legoless (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2014 (GMT)
- Your 'apology' is not accepted. To base such a statement that had huge implications on nothing more than guesswork is just as bad as outright lying, because you did not know the situation and should not have commented on it. You commenting on the discussion as an admin is taking part in it by association, your words as an administrator carry weight in a discussion requesting administrative action. My request is based your lying and deliberately misquoting policy. It is not acceptable to make statements as an administrator in situations you do not understand, using policy you don't understand, and as such you should not be allowed to do so again (until you do understand your position, at which point you can reapply for admin). AKB, you had not commented on the topic before Legoless made that statement. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 23:40, 12 August 2014 (GMT)
- Oppose: In my honest opinion I feel like this is just a way for Silencer to get payback. With all the issues with Silencer the last few weeks it brings into question the real motive for this request. While some of those are legitimate claims, like Jeancey said they are not grounds for removing admin rights. Lorenut (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2014 (GMT)
- Comment: Contrary to some peoples opinions my aim was not revenge but exposure. True the three links are involved with the 'discussion' about my warning, but had he made these anywhere else I would still have called him out on it. I cannot force the admins to take any action, but now they cannot deny the claims were brought to their attention. As seems to be the way of things, it is who made the post that is the main focus here (seriously, the first response), ignoring the serious claims in favour of counter-claiming some sort of 'revenge' and attempting to stop any sort of reasoned debate. I cannot force any sort of punishment on Legoless, that is up to the community, who should by now know what kind of person they are supporting. If you decide to leave him as an administrator, you can't complain if he does it again (which he's already done by again disparaging the seriousness of copyright). Simply put, if he hadn't lied, what would I have to complain about? Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 01:37, 13 August 2014 (GMT)
- Oppose: I don't see any malicious intent, lack of knowledge, or really much of anything. I see several incredibly minor mistakes, if that. The only reason why I would consider supporting this would be an actual problem that is legitimately causing harm to the site. I just cannot believe these issues could cause major harm, if any, to this site. I know you're going to disagree, but I think all of the issues brought up are, like was previously said, nothing but a witchhunt. Silencer, I stayed out of all of the discussions over the last few weeks. I thought then, and still think now, that things did not have to get as far as they did. The fact that they're getting to this level is just utterly unnecessary. To wrap things up, we do not need this kind of drama here. Period. I know it's happening/has happened on another similar site and I do not want it here. •WoahBro►talk 02:00, 13 August 2014 (GMT)
- Oppose: Many of the points above are based on misunderstandings or minor mistakes. These things happen from time to time and there's really no point to belabouring them. To my mind, there is nothing in this request that warrants de-adminship. – Robin Hood (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2014 (GMT)
- Comment: "This is not a productive area of discussion." - Henry Kissinger's head, Futurama. Silencer, I think how you were treated was patently ridiculous. I think the community tends to overreact sometimes in matters of politeness. It's the internet, people; grow a thick skin or go offline. You're a great editor. But so is Legoless. So let's put all this in our rearview mirror and get back to what matters. Insignificant RevisionsThreats•Evidence 02:40, 13 August 2014 (GMT)
- Oppose: Lorenut took the words right out of my mouth. The only person twisting words and lying here is YOU, Silencer. If your first action after your ban (a ban that YOU pushed for when we were content to give you a warning-see my comments on the appeal on your talk page) is to try and stir up drama for no reason, you're not in the right spot. Go to Encyclopedia Dramatica if you want to stir up drama, not here. Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 12:26, 13 August 2014 (GMT)
- Comment: I wasn't going to comment at all, in the hope that this would fizzle out and we could, as ME puts it, get back to what matters. And I agree completely with everything else ME says above. However, I would like to suggest that people stop accusing others of lying. Lying is deliberately telling falsehoods. I see no lies whatsoever on the part of Silencer, just statements which others might disagree with, coupled with a bunch of inflammatory comments from all sides. I also see no deliberate lies on the part of Legoless, just a misunderstanding (regarding contact by admins) and a misinterpretation (the quote from Wikipedia, which is accurately quoted, but perhaps taken out of context). --Enodoc (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2014 (GMT)
- Comment: Bullying other editors and slinging accusations against admins is never appropriate or justified, and while "growing thick skin" is undoubtedly good advice both for the internet and in meatspace, it fails to hold water as a defense of the aforementioned behavior. I do agree that we should all just move on, and indeed most of us have been willing to do so for the last month. There's no point drudging up more pointless squabbles over this one issue. Zul se onikaanLaan tinvaak 15:01, 13 August 2014 (GMT)
- Comment: "Slinging accusations" is entirely justified with proof, they are not immune to scrutiny or from answering for their actions. Again, if there were no lies there would be no justification for calling for any action to be taken. You yourself are hardly immune to scrutiny, having twisted my words on more than one occasion (proof can be provided for anyone interested). I see only two people who have commented on the lies and misquoting so far, with far more scrutiny being placed on the editing issues (which are not enough on their own which is why they are examples). When you suspect an admin of telling lies against you, then you'll know how easily you can 'move on', until then you are simply preventing an admins actions being looked at for no other reason than you don't want to bother with it. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 17:47, 13 August 2014 (GMT)
- Comment: Silencer the problem is that none of the legitimate evidence is enough to remove an administrators rights. As for your first couple pieces of evidence. AKB said above " I said I have talked to the Silencer privately in the past, it was confusingly worded so it is completely understandable that Lego thought I was currently speaking to him about the conflict at the time" so I think that removes your first piece of evidence. Now onto the "misquotation" I don't feel like it's a misquotation. I looked up the policy and I feel it was used under correct circumstances. Let's move on, yes this may be the first time you've been talked with about the way you speak to people, but I have noticed a lot of times where you have been rude to other editors. Once again with this request being so close to your blocking it calls into question your true motive. Lorenut (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2014 (GMT)