Talk:Dog on the Tuckerbox

Note discussion of massacre - unverified so far - at Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

'SOMEONE' who should learn not to fiddle, changed 'colonials' to Europeans. If you have a flamin doctorate, leave stuff alone if you dont know what u are on about. How do u know they were all from europe. You are in lah lah land. I guess all who came through Yass heading south got asked to show their passport so of course they were all Europeans were they. There was just one way to get to gundagai in those days like there is today so of course the origins of all were known. Grrrrrrrrrrr. Port Phillip and all points east and west was Napoleon's Land. Now who was in bed with the French in that era. I'd not call them Europeans. Stop vandalising pages here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.9.202 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC+10 hours)

On the Wikipedia it is generally called European settlement - see for example Indigenous Australians#Before European settlement. Referring to me as a vandal breaches WP:NPA - the next time you attack any wikipedian you will be blocked and all subsequent attempts to edit from any similar IP will also be blocked for 24 hours as you have been warned previously. --A Y Arktos\^talk 10:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't threaten me. Having vandal bots attack net users is what vandalism is and that is what has been happening. Anyone who has 'tools' needs to learn to use them with discretion as attacking people on the Internet with 'tools' is not an action that is admired or will win anyone any kudos from anyone who does not choose to go on like that. I can go get a full kitbag of 'tools' also but dont. Its stupid bullying stuff like that ends up causing DoS attacks etc and the Internet is better off without it. Some wik admins need to step back a bit and take a deep breath. Its just largely an ego/power thing anyway. This whole claim that vandal attacks are happening is just a furphy put around by some admins it seems so you can then go act tough with your silly tools. Its what happens when people gets tools that are available all over the Internet to anyone so they are not some special token of your status her ebeleive it or not. Are 'wikipedians' wiki admins belonging to some sort of realm defended by bags of 'tools'. That is a stupid image to put forward and makes me seriously doubt your maturity. Try growing up a bit as, as a contributor here I really do not need to hear such babyish carry ons.

I dont give two hoots what stuff is called on wikipedia if that desription changes the reality of the content being posted. Messing up pages is vandalism. Wikipedia is not the authority of what goe sup here remember. Its just the vehicle that holds the content. Wikipedia does not exist to change history, but to be a repository for it. If you think that as a admin you can change stuff like that here that I have posted messing up the whole meaning of what that was about, you need to think again as you are acting outside the integrity of the content wik claims it seeks to present. "European settlement" leaves out all from the rest of the world who might have also been around at this really significant phase in Australia's 'contact' story so its a really narrow world view to run with.

You need to learn some 'people skills' or you should hand those tools back.

Are u going to cut off southern nsw's access to wiki. Big threat. Not many would post here I dont think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 9 July 2006 (talk • contribs) 203.54.186.90.

Wikipedia policies

As already stated at Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales#Semi-protection:

All editors should be aware of Wikipedia policies, specifically: No original research, Verifiability, No personal attacks, Civility and Etiquette. Any editors breaching any of the policies will be blocked and their contributions reverted.

All editors have also been put on notice that comments on talk pages should be signed. Unsigned comments may be reverted.

--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct

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

This Wikipedia article or category is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you may try using the talk page or start a discussion at the village pump.  

Please Wikipedia:Edit this proposal. This is proposed policy based on the many opinions given at the Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll. Contents [hide] 1 Accountability 2 Behavior 2.1 General 2.2 Consensus 2.3 Wheel warring 2.4 Bullying and threats 3 Admin tools 3.1 Deletion 3.2 Blocking 3.3 Protection 3.4 Rollback

[edit] Accountability Admins are primarily held accountable by other admins. All admin actions are logged, are subject to discussion and review, and (with the exceptions of image deletion and page history merges/splits) can be undone by other admins. An admin who regularly misuses admin tools may be temporarily blocked by other admins, just as users can be blocked for edit wars or personal attacks; such blocks should be noted on the admin noticeboard.

Admins, having more power, can do more harm than an average user, and thus are subject to higher standards of behavior. It is the responsibility of the admin to know the additional policies which apply to them as admins, and to take care to faithfully operate within them, so as to foster a just environment. Admins are held accountable to the arbitration committee, which has the authority to impose probation or sanctions, including removal of admin status.

That said, nobody's perfect. While admins are held to high standards, it is inevitable that they make the occasional mistake, or perform an action that isn't particularly wise. Admins are expected to listen to reasonable criticism, and to learn from their mistakes.

[edit] Behavior [edit] General Admins are entrusted with additional abilities, but do not have special rights beyond those of regular editors. Like everybody else, admins are expected to behave in a civil manner, to not engage in revert wars and to not claim ownership of articles. With regard to simple misbehavior, admins are treated identically to regular users; for instance, a three-revert violation can be sanctioned with a 24-hour block.

[edit] Consensus Wikipedia works by consensus. One of the tasks of an admin is to implement that consensus. As such, if a discussion has led to consensus for a certain version or action, an admin should not ignore that to revert to another version or perform the opposite action, if they prefer that for whatever reason. Of course, neither should any other editor.

Similarly, if discussion is ongoing regarding a certain issue, it is bad form to bypass the discussion and "force" the issue. Instead, one should help out by joining the discussion, or requesting outside opinion if necessary. This, too, applies to any editor.

This does not mean that discussion is needed before any action can be taken. An admin who thinks that e.g. deleting a disruptive page is a good idea can do so. However, should this action turn out to be disputed by another good-faith user, it is preferable to discuss it or get a third opinion.

That said, a few core principles of Wikipedia are non-negotiable. In particular, copyright law (which includes applications of doctrine of Fair Use), the GFDL license, or the Neutral Point of View cannot be overridden by apparent consensus to the contrary. Additionally, sometimes sockpuppets are abused to make an opinion seem more prevalent than it actually is. Such sockpuppetry does not constitute true consensus.

[edit] Wheel warring The term "wheel warring" refers to repeatedly performing an admin action when it is undone by some other admin. It can occur between two admins who disagree, or between one admin and a larger group of like-minded individuals.

Just like edit warring on articles is not acceptable behavior, wheel warring is never appropriate, regardless of what an admin's goals or motivations may be. It is counterproductive and needlessly divisive. An admin should never repeatedly perform the same admin action within a short time frame when the action has been undone by another admin. If admins are in disagreement over what should be done, the issue should be discussed (generally at the admin noticeboard, or deletion review, or on the talk pages of the admins involved) so that consensus can be formed.

[edit] Bullying and threats Admins should never use their admin abilities to intimidate others. For instance, threatening a user with an inappropriate block is just as bad behavior as actually making that block. Of course, warning a user in advance of blocks that are appropriate is good practice - it is only common courtesy to inform a revert warrior or vandal that a block can be imposed for that behavior. When dealing with established editors that don't generally make problems, it may be preferable to suggest different behavior, rather than mentioning blocks.

[edit] Admin tools [edit] Deletion See also the Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

Pages should only be deleted if they meet a criterion for speedy deletion, or a copyright violation, or if a consensus was reached to delete the page on one of the deletion process pages.

If a page is deleted per one of the deletion process pages, it should only be undeleted after being discussed on deletion review. On the other hand, if a page is speedily deleted, it may be appropriate for an admin to speedily undelete it as well, especially if the admin improves or expands the article. It would be polite to notify the admin who deleted it, and if the two parties cannot reach agreement, the matter should be taken to deletion review.

A page should never be speedily deleted if it has been restored as a result of a deletion review vote.

[edit] Blocking See also the Wikipedia:Blocking policy.

An admin should not block a user if they are not neutral with respect to that user, or have a conflict of interest. For instance, an admin blocking a user for an edit war involving that same admin is abusing his or her power. That said, being accused or attacked by a user does not necessarily mean a conflict of interest. When in doubt, the admin should place a notification on the admin noticeboard.

Admins should also be aware that warning a user of a block, especially when the user has no prior history of problems, can be perceived as a threat. When dealing with otherwise good contributors, it may be advisable to make suggestions to their behavior without mentioning a block.

An admin blocking any user should have an e-mail address set and "Wikipedia e-mail" enabled, so that the blocked user can contact the blocking admin for clarification or to request unblocking.

When undoing a block placed by another admin, it is good form to make a note of it either on the blocking admin's talk page, or on WP:ANI. Better yet would be to discuss it first unless the block is a clear violation of policy. Assume good faith should extend to admin actions and they should not be undone without a better reason than "I wouldn't have done it".

When an admin is blocked for whatever reason, the admin cannot perform any editing or admin actions, except for unblocking his or her own account that has been blocked by the auto-blocker for sharing an IP address with another blocked user. In other cases, admins should not unblock themselves, even if the block is perceived as unjust. If it is truly unjust, some other admin will step in and unblock.

The appropriateness of a block on another admin should be discussed on the noticeboard. It is extremely bad form to wheel war over whether another admin should be blocked.

[edit] Protection See also the Wikipedia:Protection policy.

An admin should not protect a page in an edit war he is involved in. However, protection of a page does not imply endorsement for the version the page is protected in. For that reason, it shouldn't be a problem if an uninvolved admin reverts once to the other version and then immediately protects.

Admins can edit protected pages, but should in general refrain from doing so (with the obvious exception of adding a message). If a page is protected to stop an edit war, it is bad form to ignore the protection to edit the page anyway.

Admins can also edit the MediaWiki pages which define the Wikipedia interface. Since any change in there affects the entire community, these pages are not for experimenting with and should never be modified without prior discussion in a central place, such as the admin noticeboard and the village pump.

[edit] Rollback Admins can use the rollback button to quickly undo the last edit(s) by a single person on a single page. It is the equivalent of picking the last version by another editor from the history and restoring that, without leaving an edit summary. Non-admins have access to a javascript tool that has the same function.

The rollback tool is mainly intended to be used against vandalism, but may also be used in other cases, with due care, at the admin's discretion. However, it should never be used in a content dispute or edit war.