Template talk:User wikipedia/Administrator/Archive 1

Color scheme

Dunno if the color scheme is adminish. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A divisive template?

This template is divisive by definition as it divides WP users into two distinct categories. Therefore, it should be deleted according to the recently revised T1 rules. However, I will not actually propose its deletion because I do not want to be the author of another Gmaxwell & Cyde type disruption. Friendly Neighbour 06:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this for TfD, i will also add your reason (mine being an unfree image) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 23:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're reading the deletion criterion too literally. Sure, it divides users, but then by your definition, so does every other userbox. This template is necessary because it provides an easy way for other users to identify administrators. enochlau (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image removed

The admin mop was removed as per WP:UP#What can I not have on my user page? and should not be re-added. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 10:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True that it's not a free image, but since this is Wikipedia after all, I don't see the problem with displaying the Foundation's copyrighted logos on any page (including user/user talk pages)! Let me know if I'm barking up the wrong tree though... enochlau (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do i, but there are lots of editors who say every rule must be followed 100% and in this case the userbox doesnt comply with all the rules, Its not like the image is needed that much anyway. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 13:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I was just wondering. enochlau (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is utter nonsense. The Wikipedia mop logo was uploaded precisely so it can be used by the Wikipedia projects for purposes such as this. Its copyright is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, which also owns Wikipedia. Its usage on infoboxes such as this one is not a case of fair use, it is simply a case of Wikipedia using one of its own trademarks. The only problem might be if the image was being used in some way that subverted the trademark, which clearly isn't the case here. But this is not the same as using a non-free image from another source. Wikipedia cannot sue itself for copyright infringement, you know. — sjorford ++

It is still non-free and with keeping with the rules, does not belong in the userbox. Sorry. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I smell a POINT being made... --light darkness^(talk) 16:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's daft in the extreme to remove the image from the template, even dafter to refer to rules to back it up. It's common sense to see that it's ok to use Wikimedia licences images on Wikipedia, they're not being used used fairuse. Remember Wikipedia:Use common sense. You're a human, not a robot ;) Thanks/wangi 16:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its still non-free a replacement was added, i believe you are the ones making a point. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Enochlau and all the others who don't see a problem with using this image. It's like saying McDonald's can't use the Golden Arches on their paper cups because it's a trademarked image. Joyous! | Talk 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it didnt violate the rules then it would be okay to stay however it does, its a catch 22 situation. However the same could be said with vandalism: There may be users that see no problem, however it still breaks rules and it will still be reverted. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By non-free it is meant to imply free-use which usage in the userspace *is* against Wikipedia guidelines (WP:FAIR seems to be one example). I don't see a problem with using the Wikipedia logo however - since the text with it states that the user is a Wikipedia admin, and it is therefore not being used for something other than showing Wikipedia. The logo is not fair-use but is instead an execption to our no copyrighted images policy. Anyway, if we are picking this apart WP:UP is only a guideline and not policy. Ian¹³ /t 17:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently the image is copyrighted by Wikimedia (because of the Wikipedia logo), and is used with permission. There is no reason not to use it and I support the image being used.--Alabamaboy 17:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus achieved

Why is this discussion still going on? Only one editor has supported doing away with the image while at least 7 have supported using the image or questioned why it was removed. That seems like consensus to me.--Alabamaboy 17:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus, the image is still not free. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus does not mean everyone agrees - only most. Ian¹³ /t 17:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that but still.

Do not include non-free images (images uploaded to Wikipedia without the permission of the copyright owner, or under licenses that do not permit commercial use) on your user page or on any subpage thereof (this is official policy and the usual wide user page latitude does not apply, see Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy for details). Non-free images found on a user page (including user talk pages) may be removed (preferably by replacing it with a link to the image) from that page without warning (and, if not used in a Wikipedia article, deleted entirely). Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you appear to be making a WP:POINT here, which is not allowed. You nominated the template for deletion on July 4, which resulted in a speedy keep [1] and the next day raised this point about the image. Consensus does not mean universal agreement--it means 80 percent agreement or so and we appear to have that (even without adding in the comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Template:User_wikipedia.2FAdministrator). I say this issue should be considered over? Any other comments?--Alabamaboy 17:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The template should be reverted to the version with the image and User:MatthewFenton should be blocked for WP:3RR if he reverts again. Naconkantari 17:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything said could be considerd a point, however again i shall repeat my self.

Do not include non-free images (images uploaded to Wikipedia without the permission of the copyright owner, or under licenses that do not permit commercial use) on your user page or on any subpage thereof (this is official policy and the usual wide user page latitude does not apply, see Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy for details). Non-free images found on a user page (including user talk pages) may be removed (preferably by replacing it with a link to the image) from that page without warning (and, if not used in a Wikipedia article, deleted entirely).

The image is not free! Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"without the permission of the copyright owner". We have permission from Angela. The template is unprotected. Prodego ^talk 17:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That page is a guideline - not policy. I think you can see everyone else thinks it should stay - so continuing can be considered a point - especially coupled with the TfD nomination (not that that hadn't been made in good faith though). Ian¹³ /t 17:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, permission. I was writing a message suggesting that someone should contact Angela or another Board member to get permission when you all edit-conflicted me -- but I hadn't thought to look on the image page itself for the permission statement. Well, I was going to object until I saw that. There was some difficulty in the past with the use of the Foundation logo by WP:CVU, and so I didn't think this usage was at all obvious. Prodego, thank you for making this key point clear. Everyone, though, it's been less than seven hours since this conversation started, which seems awfully fast to declare consensus. FreplySpang 17:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough people seem to have found it. On a side note, permission is rather odd on Wikipedia, it is given here which allows its usage - and yet if an image is used with permission it is speedy deleted. Ian¹³ /t 17:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:MatthewFenton

It appears that User:MatthewFenton has a personal issue with this template and image, having used the template to falsely claim to be an administrator (see [2]). User:MatthewFenton removed the image when another editor called him/her on this.[3] Exactly 27 minutes after being called on using this template, User:MatthewFenton brought this template up for deletion and then, when that failed, started this whole image mess. This is definately a case of WP:POINT.--Alabamaboy 17:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is still not free. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but if a logo is copyright the Wikimedia Foundation, then shouldn't something that is part of the Wikimedia Foundation be able to use it? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 17:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually. Individual Wikipedia editors are not representatives of the Wikimedia Foundation. FreplySpang 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image

well it appears that everyone is deperate to keep a non-free image, so i will stand down and go to yellow alert. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Yellow alert"? Care to clarify please... Thanks! Ian¹³ /t 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek. See his userpage. Prodego ^talk 17:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My dislike of Star Trek seems to explain it. Thanks! Ian¹³ /t 17:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a star trek lover, red Alert: Shields raised, weapons brought online, yellow shields only and green shields and weapons offline (So in this case; Yellow means its still on my watchlist and i wont contribute much now to discussion) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extra clarification. Ian¹³ /t 17:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and i am going to step down to green alert now anyway as it appears as if people dont mind non-free images on user pages yet they do and 1 person on his own cant change much so i am not going to bother now. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In summary

Well, that was fun, wasn't it. Now can we stop wanking about and get back to writing an encyclopedia, please? — sjorford ++ 09:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought everyone had, until you just brought up the issue again. hmm? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 10:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about old use of that template. I saw that plenty of users (non admins on en.Wiki) was susing it in form {{user admin|other Wikipedia}}. An old version allowed to made such things - to inform ppl that we are admins on other projects - not espesialy in here? Any sugestions? MonteChristof 23:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA parameter

I've added a simple optional RFA= parameter to allow admins to link to their RFAs. I'd previously achieved this on my own userpage by substing the template and adding a link, but figured this simple param would be a cool idea. The code has been tested so should be OK. --kingboyk 20:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useful, but i'd remove the last example in the usage section... Keep it simple, stupid and all that. Thanks/wangi 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --kingboyk 22:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image again

Why not something like this:

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia.

Avoids any "sticky" issues with explaining to people why it's ok for admins to have a non-free by permission image on theyr userpages while everyone else can not (see various debates surounding Template:Mozilla and asosisated images for why this is a bad precident). --Sherool (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with the image. It does not violate any laws, customs, rules, regulations, or decrees, either in word or in spirit. There is no reason to change it. — sjorford ++ 15:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the reason why non-free images from other sources are discouraged is that, under copyright law, we cannot use those images without a good claim to fair use. If we do not have a good claim, the copyright owners of those images can sue us. Since the Wikipedia mop image is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, we would be suing ourselves for copyright infringement, which is impossible. QED. — sjorford ++ 15:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I'm not talking about laws here, of coarse we can legaly use the logo. I'm talking about a rather fundamental philosophical cornerstone of the Wikipedia project that says we are supposed to be about free content. We routinely speedy delete images that the copyright holder have explicitly given Wikipedia permission to use, because despite this permission those images are not free content (others can't use or modify them without restriction). These Wikimedia logo's and theyr derivatives are exactly the same, they are patently not free content (says so right on the license tag), but neither do we claim fair use. This inconsistency is ocationaly a source of heated discussion when someone demand to know why they can't for example upload a non-free image of themselves under permission for use on theyr own userpage when it's aparently ok to throw the non-free Wikimedia logos around. The "because Wikimedia won't sue us" argument is rather weak in such cases, because you can't rely say that it's because the user might sue us if the use the image he gave us permission to use, and still keep a straight face...

All I'm saying is it will be easier to "defend" coming down on "with permission" images like Jimbo instructed us to if we admins cleaned up our own act first and avoided using a non-free image as our "badge". --Sherool (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clearify there is no problem with using the logo as part of the "skin" on the site. I'm talking about the copies that have been uploaded to our image database and are thus effectively part of the content (even if you argue that userspae is not "content" the template namespace clearly is. You can't properly render most of our articles without also having a copy of the templates they use, and all images are stored in one big database that anyone can download regardles of what the license tag says). --Sherool (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most mirrors don't copy userspace or projectspace, and this template isn't used in articles. I think it's really part of the "skin" of the site and this is a non-issue. --kingboyk 11:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template usage

It goes without saying that you should not have this template on your user page unless you actually are a Wikipedia administrator. (Radiant) 11:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Special:Listusers

I'm thinking that the link on the word "is" looks a bit funny (probably because you never see the word "is" linked)! Would it be better to move the link to the words "This user"? enochlau (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why does it list User:Utcursch when you click the old link? Now it goes to User:User wikipedia88. -The Big X 21:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The old link only showed the admin list, now it shows any user (there is a reason). So whoever is closest to User:Wikipedia/Administrator, gets shown. Prodego ^talk 21:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia administrators

Quite a few admins have this userbox in several of their subpages (self included) and they then appear several times in the category above. I tried changing [[Category:Wikipedia administrators|{{PAGENAME}}]] to [[Category:Wikipedia administrators|{{BASEPAGENAME}}]] but it didn't seem to fix anything. Is it coded the way it is for a higher purpose which I'm unaware of? —Moondyne 08:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usage when adm on other language project. Add Verify?

I've added a template User:Nsaa/Verify_adm to my userpage used as an input to this userbox so the Verify is enabled for other language projects. Is it an idea to change the code from

{{#if:{{{1|}}}||([{{fullurl:Special:Listusers|limit=1&username={{urlencode:{{{username|{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}}}}}} verify])}}

to

{{#if:{{{1|}}}|([{{fullurl:{{{lang_code|en}}}:Special:Listusers|limit=1&username={{urlencode:{{{username|{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}}}}}} verify{{#if:{{{lang_code|}}}| {{{lang_code}}}|}}])|([{{fullurl:Special:Listusers|limit=1&username={{urlencode:{{{username|{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}}}}}} verify])}}

or

([{{fullurl:{{{lang_code|en}}}:Special:Listusers|limit=1&username={{urlencode:{{{username|{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}}}}}} verify{{#if:{{{lang_code|}}}| {{{lang_code}}}|}}])

(the IF statement is not necessary ... since fullurl and fullurl:en is equal her as I have understand).

and a description to add a lang_code-parameter as well when used with other languages like

{{User wikipedia/Administrator|[[German Wikipedia]]|lang_code=de}}
{{User wikipedia/Administrator|[[Norwegian Wikipedia]]|lang_code=no}}

Nsaa (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about things like commons or wiktionary? Prodego ^talk 21:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add meta by using Lang_code=m, see Help:Parser_function. Commons for commons. Wiktionary do not apply since it outside the *.wikipedia.org domain (I suppose so). Use this Template:User Wiktionary/Administrator then?

Meta: (verify m)

Commons: (verify Commons)

Nsaa (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikt can be used (but only to English Wiktionary I suppose). See Help:Interwiki_linking.

Wiktionary: (verify Wikt)

Wikiquote: (verify q)

Wikibooks: (verify b)

Nsaa (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which image?

A big problem has been solved, being if we should allow wikimedia images here. The answer is yes, according ot Mike. However, this image was replaced. I then reverted it, and it got reverted back. Instead of edit warring over it, let's discuss. Should we use the copyrighted admin mop logo, or the free alternative? Soxred93 (u t) 15:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else being equal, free is obviously superior to unfree. So, unless you have a specific reason to prefer the wikiglobe over the puzzle piece to illustrate this box, I'd say stick with the puzzle piece. Dragons flight (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The globe seems to be recognized as admin, and IMO, the globe makes the fact that it's a Wikipedia administrator, not a puzzle shop janitor. Soxred93 (u t) 16:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the accompanying text: "This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia" does a better job than either image of communicating the specific intent. Dragons flight (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Globe > Puzzle, Kenya Wins! -- Avi (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De-substitute

{{editprotected}}

This template was substed in April. There's no reason for that. This should be reverted, as the {{userbox}} variant is far easier to maintain. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Template:Userbox doesn't allow for certain kinds of customisation, for one thing. For another, do we really want what is essentially an unnecessary transclusion of a transclusion on hundreds of pages? - jc37 09:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not using "certain kinds of customisation" here - practically no userboxen need any styling which isn't provided by {{userbox}}, and this one is no exception. As for transclusion, WP:PERF might only be an essay, but premature optimization has been a well-known anti-pattern for decades. Our time as editors is more valuable than server clock cycles, and we should do everything possible to make the code easy to maintain and modify in future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had written up a response, but I think we should probably unify this discussion. And since we're discussing the "broader theme" on your talk page... - jc37 10:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the discussion on my talk page has gone off on a tangent, and I'd rather not predicate this simple request on the conclusion of Jc37's high-level proposition. Planning on re-enabling this request. (For that matter, I'm not impressed that this is protected in the first place. That it only sees use on admin pages shouldn't automatically mean that normal users are forbidden from editing it.) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re-enabled, as there has been no further discussion. Jc37 has raised objections relating to the general use of userboxen, but nothing which would explin why this template exists better as tables-and-divs than as a transclusion of {{infobox}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On point, I'm not seeing a great deal of discussion on subst:ing this template in the first place - was there a consensus somewhere that I'm missing? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can see. The editor who made the change is anonymous, but pretty prolific by the looks of his contribs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could go either way, on this request, but have a tangential question that might help resolve the debate: does this template really need to be protected? I can see semi, sure -- it is on a fair number of pages -- but full and indefinite protection seems a bit much, and holds up changes which might be beneficial. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used on about 600 pages at this time. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disabled until code is provided to update the template. And Luna: 600 _administrator user_ pages, so it seems like it would be a bit of a large target for a vandal who wanted to screw with admins. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Code is in Template:User wikipedia/Administrator/sandbox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My great apologies for honestly being so distracted as to actually forget about this discussion.

I have 2 main concerns with tw's suggestion for transclusion. 1.) In my experience, most editors find it easier to edit/customise the userbox code, rather than the transcluded version, and that is the more widespread usage. (Though perhaps this point may be moot if the page remains protected.) 2.) I'm not sure that the transcluded version allows for "complete" cosmetic customisation. - jc37 09:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No loss in functionality at all that I see. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]