Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Editing a page

If there exist already an article on a particular definition for a word, can i write another definition on the same word but separate article?(213.144.156.179 (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC))

You might be looking for Wiktionary. GiantSnowman 14:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

In case you are, words with the exact same spelling go on the same page there. Should you actually be talking about encyclopedia articles here at Wikipedia (that is not definitions of words), then you might be interested in reading Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Do you have an example in mind? There are of course articles on words (and even on definitions of words) see for example Category:English words, but these are special cases. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2014

Please could smeone add this into the "Vandalism by IP" section near the bottom? I obviously noticesd Asgardian with his brusque removal of my edit, but looking at the sum total of his FF entries all he seems to do it remove good work submitteed by other people. He does not contribute, merely destroys. None of his edits that I have seen add value. 91.125.155.255 (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of wasting the administrators' time, how about going back to the relevant Talk page and discussing as was originally requested? I and another editor (actually an admin) have been working on trying to bring these articles up to speed with sources, and so far so good. However, personal attacks (since removed by an admin), blanket reversions with no explanations and using mulitple IP's to evade a block by an admin don't help your cause. Work with us, rather than against, please.Asgardian (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. - Arjayay (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

shut down an/i

What the fuck is an "incident" anyway? betafive 04:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Your occurrence is an incident slowly unfolding. Chillum 05:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm serious. What purpose does WP:AN/I serve that isn't better addressed by a different noticeboard? betafive 05:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

An incident is just an event or occurrence. We have a lot of them, this is for such incidences that require admin attention. I was just making a joke above as occurrence is a synonym of incident. Chillum 05:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Be that as it may, WP:AN/I appears unhealthily obsessed with porn, cunts and fags at the moment. Maybe it shouldn't be? betafive 05:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have a cure for stupid then I am listening. I don't know how to stop people from acting like fools. Shutting down ANI is not the solution. Chillum 05:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't, but maybe ANI enables them. Is "editors acting foolishly" really an incident? Isn't that better handled at WP:DRR? betafive 05:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to point people in that direction when an incident does not require admin attention. Chillum 18:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't tell if I'm being unclear or if you're being evasive, :-). Excluding incidents better suited for AIV, RFPP, AN3, SPI and DR, what's left for ANI to handle? betafive 23:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's just say that WP:DRR is the most aptly abbreviated project page since WP:FU. They have multiple noticeboards that literally no person has ever used. --erachima talk 23:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to ANI, which literally everyone uses for literally any reason at all. I was thinking about making some pointy redirects to it, but WP:Cunt Police or WP:Trolls Gone Wild would probably earn me a block. betafive 00:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

As one of the more regularly reported people at ANI, I've got a sneaking "like" about scrapping it. It would save me a lot of time. But the reality is that, for all the drama, it does do things that cannot/are not done elsewhere and, for example, I've been hauled before some of the others boards mentioned at WP:DRR only for the complainant to be told to take it to ANI. Some things just can't be easily compartmentalised, for example. I've used it myself recently (rather than been reported to it) and there are genuine reasons for going there. Periodically, people try to blitz the inappropriate reports but they tend to resurface; more frequently, people who file inappropriate reports get told where to go, politely and with a link. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there a policy somewhere about what sort of incident is appropriate to bring to ANI? All I can find is a list of things that should be taken elsewhere. betafive 04:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

For example, WP:AN says "If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. [...] Evasion of blocks, abuse of admin tools, or other incidents → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI)." But WP:ANI says disputes go to WP:DR, WP:EVASION says "See also: WP:Sock Puppetry" wherein WP:HSOCK says block evasion should be handled at WP:SPI, and WP:Requests for review of administrative actions is a redirect to WP:AN, not ANI. Meanwhile, WP:Admin abuse suggests WP:DR or WP:RFC/ADMIN, leading me to wonder: is there any type of incident requiring administrative involvement not better handled someplace other than ANI? betafive 04:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The more specific processes are a bunch of ineffective overly-bureaucratic understaffed fiefdoms that have proven themselves perpetually incapable of providing the necessary remedy to most incidents. Which is, of course, for "dad" to promptly yell at the editors to shape up and stop being jackasses.
So, yes: nearly all of them are not "better handled" somewhere other than ANI. --erachima talk 05:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Point taken, let me rephrase: is there any type of incident requiring administrative involvement not more appropriately handled someplace other than ANI? betafive 22:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes.

The question you appear to be fishing for, the one that has the same form but is answerable "No.", would be "Is there any type of incident requiring administrative involvement that someone, somewhere, at some point has not attempted to spin off into its own process?" And that speaks not to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of AN/I but to the irresistible allure of process creep. --erachima talk 23:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Rough estimate: I could legitimately shut down 60-75% of incidents reported to ANI with {{NOTHERE}}. If those other processes should not be used, they should be discontinued. If they should be used, then people bringing such incidents to ANI should be sent to the right place. Process creep reduces the effectiveness of both ANI and the processes that overlap with subsets of ANI's purview. betafive 16:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If 60%-75% of all incidents reported to ANI should be closed, then that implies that 25%-40% of all incidents reported there should be reported there. Without discussing the estimated percent metrics, that appears to establish that WP:ANI serves a purpose. It is abused as often as it is used, but I don't see an obvious alternative. If you want to propose an alternative, then I suggest an RFC at Village Pump, rather than a discussion here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a quick way to make ANI disappear. Remove it from one's watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't work; any conflict that goes on long enough inevitably ends up on ANI, often multiple times. betafive 20:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Request Closure

I suggest that this thread be closed. I would close it, but I am involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not leave it open? Others might have something to add, or it might just run dry on its own. Either way, I see no harm in leaving it alone. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What happened?

How did almost 19 hours of discussion history end up suppressed from WP:ANI? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Same reason it always happens, I imagine: something happened in one of those edits that wasn't removed until many edits later, and to suppress the operative edit, the rest had to be suppressed too. I haven't looked at this particular case, but usually when this happens, the intervening content hasn't been removed from the page; you just can't diff it (because if you could, you'd be able to see what content had been suppressed based on what wasn't in the newer edit). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

See User talk:DoRD#AN/I moluɐɯ 13:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I can think of for redacting that much would be if someone's identity or safety was in danger. Chillum 18:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Such are most examples of legitimate use of oversight or suppression. And some uses of revdel are only acceptable if the material in question would fit the same criteria. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It didn't. The wiki interface for suppression is really bad. A very small amount of content was removed. If editors could diff any of the intervening edits, then they could see what was removed. For example, Floquenbeam's comment at xx:34 on August 11 can been seen at the bottom of the page after suppression [1], and iin one of the striked out entries in the history [2]. (Hour displayed depends on your time zone and prefs). NE Ent 02:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 August 2014

{{edit protected}} Hello, I would like to rename "Vivian Beaumont Theater" to "Lincoln Center Theater" and am having trouble doing so. Can you please help? LincolnCenterTheater (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for administrator notices. Please see the help desk and fellow editors would be more than happy to assist you. Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Please help

I reported a user, who was being abusive, had a history of this type of behaviour (see his Talk page) and had gone beyond 3RR. The conversation about it hadn't really got underway, and it has been archived - can anyone tell me why or revive it? It is regarding User:Joefromrandb on [3]. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

As a way of moving forward, having just read that for the first time, I'm not sure if you were complaining about editing issues, or that he used the word "fucking" in an edit summary. You've been around long enough to know that the former looks like a content dispute and needs resolution through the talkpage/WP:DR, and that the latter won't end up dealt with as it's supposedly simply uncivil as opposed to a personal attack the panda ₯’ 09:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It was a complaint about going past 3RR, edit warring/content dispute on three separate articles and the fact that this editor was incivil and bullying not only on this occasion, but has made a habit of it over a period of time. Boleyn (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

"Uncivil over time" is the purview of wP:RFC/U. You showed no "proof" of "bullying" ... and edit-warring has its own noticeboard the panda ₯’ 11:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hi. As a non-administrator I tend to be pushing a fair chunk of work to WP:ANI am I ok to close down incidents that I have reported that have been dealt with elsewhere either by direct administrator action or by another administrator noticeboard. If so do I just use the archive top box. Advice would be appreciated. Amortias (T)(C) 20:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Just briefly indicate in your summary the resolution, and don't edit war if someone reverts / opposes your close. NE Ent 20:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thats fine, figured I might as well start pulling my weight around a board rather than just reporting people to it. Amortias (T)(C) 20:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The burial place of Fatimah

I've created a page entitled The burial place of Fatimah. For this, I made a draft and moved it to the mainspace. I searched "The burial place of Fatimah" using Google and the result took me to a redirect page (the old draft) while I expected the new main article to be shown in the result list. I omitted the draft (the redirect page) and it is still shown in the results list of Google. Moreover, when I use the redirects as a search keyword, the related wikipedia article is not found. What should I do to fix this problem? Mhhossein (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, it says at the top of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrators' noticeboard page", and it doesn't sound as if your question is related to that subject. Secondly, it sounds as if your concern is with Google, rather than Wikipedia; if you wait a few days, you'll probably find that the Google search indexing will catch up. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hours, even. Minutes, usually. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I did not know that. However thanks for your response. Mhhossein (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

IP Block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please block all IPs from Israel until 1/1/2020 as retaliation for the Nazi-like apartheid carried out by the Israeli state against the people of Palestine. No racism or antisemitism intended here, but we have to stick up for the oppressed any way we can here and launch a BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) campaign. Would you let users from Nazi Germany edit Wikipedia? No, then you shouldn't let users from Israel. Not all Israelis are bad, by any stretch, but we have to make an impact on the country so that the Israeli people will begin to protest for change.

Sincerely,

A British person who is concerned about Palestinian rights — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.148.158 (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could this be some kind of WP:GREATWRONGS record?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm honestly surprised the IP was only blocked for two weeks for this given it had come off a two-year schoolblock about a year ago. But, reblocks are cheap. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow...

Haven't been around much lately, other than the odd fix. It's interesting too see just how much this site has degraded. Everyone her is now bitching about the most juvenile nonsense imaginable. This used to be a community (didn't it?), sure we had the odd pot-stirring idiot cause problems every once in awhile (some of them where admins!), but I don't remember it being this bad. And civility? That is gone right out the door. I see no less than 43 uses of the word "fuck", right here on this ANI page, including a section header. Sure, the word isn't prohibited, but can't we try to be a little more mature and decent? I mean, what next? How about "cunt"? Can I freely use the word "CUNT" here, whenever I feel like? ...Shit, where was I going with this? Oh yeah... maybe it's time to open up the mandatory registration debate again. - ^theWOLFchild 07:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because you can say something does not mean you have to. You have a lot of latitude on how you choose to present yourself. Chillum 08:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• IMO, using ANI as a place to deposit excrement stretches the general meaning of "choos[ing] to present [one]self".  Unscintillating (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Editors will need to look for a post by User:Black Kite, link, to find the post that appears to be posted by Thewolfchild, and the post by Thewolfchild is found on the Project Page.  User:Black Kite might want to review WP:TPO.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Appropriate venue for AGF matters?

What's the best venue to use for dealing with a WP:AGF problem, like unprovable personalized accusations of violating a core content policy, posted in response to, and with the effect (it not intent) of clouding policy discussions, seemingly simply because I'm involved in them? My dogged pursuit by this editor and WP:FACTION allies thereof has been stressful enough that I've significantly scaled back my editing generally, and abandoned work-in-progress where this editor pops up repeatedly to start trouble with me. It's a general pattern of personal animosity that verges on but perhaps doesn't quite cross the line into WP:HOUNDING. My desire is to see the personalization of a content dispute, and pursuit of it across Wikipedia into forums where it's disruptive and anti-collaborative, come to a stop, not to have the bringer of the animosity punished, so I'm not certain ANI is the best venue, as it tends to over-favor punitive actions. I don't see an AGF/NPA noticeboard listed at WP:NOTICEBOARDS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone, anyone? Is the appropriate place just WP:AN itself?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U usually the panda ₯’ 09:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Request to close

Would someone please close Request administrator to evaluate conduct of user? I have started an RFCU.

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Lifting an Arbcom restriction

Is this the venue, where an editor may request a lifting of his/her arbcom restriction? GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the exact nature of the restriction. NE Ent 15:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Generally, no. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

request for copy of deleted article

Would an administrator please provide a copy of deleted article List of scouting troops and service units, including its edit history? I contacted the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scouting troops and service units for this, but they are involved in a lot elsewhere i think and i am not sure they are an administrator or not anyhow. Could someone else simply provide it? TIA, --doncram 00:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not use WP:REFUND like everyone else? the panda ₯’ 09:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Didn't know of that. Thanks, will do. --doncram 21:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Separating subsection

User:Robert McClenon added a subsection Proposed Site Ban of User:Fearofreprisal underneath the section Requesting interaction ban with Hijiri88. They're different incidents, with different issues and outcomes. I'm splitting then into separate sections. Posting here ahead of time because I figure McClenon may revert Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No, they're not. You are being disruptive by continually trolling the Wikipedia community and targeting one user in particular. You have also admitted several times that you are editing under a secondary account to edit in areas you consider to be "controversial". You have done this in your IDHT, poorly-veiled troll thread on ANI, so creating a subsection on the same exact topic is perfectly acceptable per WP:BOOMERANG. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

“Native American”

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am a British Wikipedia user, so I am not familiar with the current US convention in respect of the use of the term “Native American”. As such I cautiously offer this opinion. I recognise and acknowledge the personal significance that such an identifier may have with people of Native American descent, but my issue (as an outsider) is three-fold.

1: Use on Wikipedia is inconsistent - Please can the administrators agree on a policy and apply this as much as possible

2: “Native American” is often used in these pages as an identifier of nationality when the term identifier “American” should suffice. For better or for worse, the current political entity is the United States of America and the demonym is “American”. There will be individuals who are subjects of articles who would identify themselves as multi-ethnic and terms such as “Hispanic-American” or “British-American” would seem perfectly reasonable if such instances. However, the term “Native American-American” has an obvious clunkiness that does not read well. Furthermore, it dilutes the significance of each of the individual tribes, so surely indentifiers such as “Blackfoot-American” or “Choctaw-American” would be more appropriate. Where specific ethnicity or multi-ethnicity is not so strongly held by the subject, but qualifies as being notable, then the following example template would surely be sufficient:

[Name] is a(n) [political nationality] actor of [ethnicity] descent.

3: “Native American” itself is modern Americanism (or Englishism) which at best is a bland place-holder name. Should it not, indeed, be dropped in its entirety – except as an article subject in its own right – and replaced by the appropriate Tribe name?

(Of course, we then can extend the same argument to the suitability of “Blackfoot” – an Englishism – or “Choctaw” – an Americanization – and other Tribe epithets!)

Over to you good people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.88.237.18 (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

We already have a guideline - WP:OPENPARA - which states that "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Basically, ethnicities should not be mentioned in the opening. These people are American (nationality) before they are 'Native American' or 'African American' or anything else. The ethnicity is irrelevant. GiantSnowman 11:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as an American editor, I agree that "American" should suffice for identifying the subject person's nationality in the first sentence. When it is relevant to the subject's notability, phrases such as "he is a Native American political activist," "she serves as the Dakota tribal chairman," or "he is also a poet known for writing in the Choctaw native language" may also be appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you for your swift and considered attention. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.236.102 (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, @86.162.236.102:, with regard to #1, "can the administrators agree on a policy", administrators have no role (as administrators) in setting Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Wikipedia policy is set by the usership at large through discussion and consensus building, and the potential usership at large is basically the living population of the Planet Earth; or at least the subset of it that shows up here at English Wikipedia and also cares about the subject at hand. Wikipedia administrators have no special powers in setting Wikipedia policy; admins here are SOLELY registered users whose experience and community trust has granted them access to three additional tools that normal editors such as yourself do not have. Other than the direct use of those three extra tools (to delete articles, to protect ("lock") articles, and to block users) admins are considered equal in every way to any other user, and are not given any more "weight" in their powers to set Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If this is an area of Wikipedia's documentation you feel is lacking, you're free to start a discussion to gather opinions of others and get it clarified. --Jayron32 20:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

(Stalking) I would really suggest that you register, which would give you greatly enhanced rights and powers in the community, such as the ability to !vote in RfAs, - where "we" give our opinions which are decisive in the election of admins- and get involved in the grass roots decision making which is pretty much how things actually get done. You made some very good points in your OP. We need every good new ed we can get, and you sound a wikipedian by instinct Irondome (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

My view of the matter at heart is that "Native American" and "Indian" are both acceptable, and I tend to use either interchangeably. While we should avoid needless offense, Wikipedia is a trailing indicator and I find no national consensus on this point.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

In part this is a regional thing. Indians/Native Americans in different parts of the country use different terminology. But Dirtlawyer1, User:GiantSnowman and others, please understand that although Indians are American citizens, 'nationality' is another thing. The US government recognises 562 "domestic dependent nations" - members of these nations have US and tribal citizenship. The largest Cherokee tribe even calls itself the Cherokee nation. This all needs to be taken into account if you are going to say that a member of a recognised tribe has a certain nationality. I'd hate to see articles denying someone's nationality and assuming it's American because they are American citizens born in America. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Just an aside, Doug, the wiki-lower-case-second-word thing has various consequences when proper names of band/tribal governments come into play; if the Cherokee Nation government uses that formation, then Cherokee nation as a reference to the whole people/ethnicity gets problematic; especially when there are more than one "FOO Nation" at play; Mohawk nation is now at Mohawk people, and though I'm not fond of the "people" dab except when absolutely necessary, there aren't options because of the capital-N meaning; some categories also jumble ethnicity with government e.g. Category:Crow Nation vs Category:Duwamish tribe; there is no chartered government for the Duwamish by that name, and there is no separate title or category for the Crow people as such; complications like this abound around Wikipedia, partly as a result of BOLD moves adding dabs where not needed, or RM/CfD closes that were done my mal-informed or heedless closers.... "not gonna go there right now" but suffice to say that if the main ethno article is at Cherokee nation and one of the tribal governments/associations uses "Cherokee Nation", we have a problem; I know there's an IPNA editor out there who maintains the people, land, government, reserve/reservation are "all the same thing" but that's just not the case when there's more than one government,and more than one reserve/reservation. None of this matters re "Native American" as being disputed here ("not again") but it does apply to proper ways to refer to/link to existing content and in terms of standard uses/ conventions.Skookum1 (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• And might I add that what is used in the US does not apply to Canada. "Indian" is never acceptable -- First Nations is the proper term, and the common usage for ethnicity would be First Nations group followed by Canadian -- i.e. Dene Canadian, etc., no hyphen. freshacconci talk to me 19:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

[ec] Complicating matters is that Indian, Native-American, Indigenous, First People, First Nations, or describing a particular tribe, potentially describe different things: citizenship status as members of a tribal nation, cultural heritage and self-identification, geography (because the term is specific to tribes in the US and possibly Canada), classification status for various government purposes, and/or ancestry. Not all tribes have land or are recognized by the states, or alternately by the US Federal government. Some are subsets of other tribes. A few cross national borders. Many have ancestry tracing to more than one tribe, only some actually live on a tribal reservation, and most have European or African ancestry as well. Some identify with Native Americans or native people as a whole; others identify with their specific tribe. Given that there is not a single fixed conception of who is Native American, what it means, or what it should be called, there is understandably some inconsistency in the sources. I believe that as of 2014 most in the US are just fine with being called Indian, Native American, or American Indian, although some are displeased by one or all of the terms. See the Native American name controversy article. The WP guideline applies pretty well to this issue, suggesting that we mention it only where relevant to notability, and that we give some weight to self-identification when describing whether to mention it and how. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Since this topic is the subject of an ongoing controversy it will not likely be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. However there it may be possible to define some "best practices" that might be adopted by editors:

1. How is the individual or group identified in the majority of sources being used? If there is consensus there, then the article should use the same terminology. This should solve the "relevance to notability" issue: if sources find ethnicity worth mentioning, the article should also.
2. What is the context of the article? Historical, cultural, or political contexts may favor one usage over another. Historically those indigenous to the contiguous 48 states are Indians or American Indians, while Alaskan Natives are never "Indians". The term "Native Americans" is of only recent origin, and not universally accepted, thus we have the National Museum of the American Indian. Whenever possible, the correct tribal names should be used in a cultural context. Political usage is the most difficult to deal with for WP, since there is no "neutral" terminology.FriendlyFred (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment in reply to various above; "Indian" is not "never acceptable in Canada" though it is in dis-use, yes, some band governments and tribal councils e.g. the Fraser Canyon Indian Administration use it, and the Indian Act like Indian reserves are still called that; "First Nations" is the preferred use for non-Inuit, non-Metis aboriginal Canadians; "Native American" should never be used for Canadian "Indians", though some category names still jumble that up by imposing that usage on Canadian and Mexican content/articles... StatCan/Census of Canada uses "North American Indian", which would also include those of Native American origin now living in Canada, i.e. who are not also First Nations; complicating this further is that recent court decisions have clarified/established that "non-Status Indians" (those whose formal status was denied if, e.g., their father was non-native) and Metis are BOTH considered the same as "full status Indians", whether or not they have a band government that's accepted them as members.

• Also re "first nations" in lower case, that's emerging in media and academic use as the preferred adjectival form e.g. "first nations person" mot "First Nations person", the Wiki-convention being "FOO First Nation" is a band government designation (when they use that form, some only use "Nation", as do some tribal councils, some omit any "disambiguation" in their names entirely; some even use "Tribe" which is more of an American band-government designation; it does vary. The "nation" term gets used variously, as does "First Nation" e.g. "Shuswap First Nation" might get used for all of or any component group of either of the two Secwepemc tribal councils, for the whole people - but it's also specifically the name of the Shuswap First Nation band government (aka Shuswap Indian Band, which despite its name is not in the Shuswap Country; "Shuswap Nation" is the formal name of one of the two tribal councils which happens to include the Shuswap First Nation band government). Sometimes, in other word, "a member of the Tsilhqot'in nation" might mean of the people as such, not a member of a particular band government attached to the Tsilhqot'in National Government. As far as wiki-convention goes, when a topic covers both countries e.g. Indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast, "indigenous" is the preferred usage; also as preferred, and indicated by someone above somewhere, "more correct" is not to not label people "racially" i.e. as generic "First Nations" but by their specific tribe/people, when applicable/known; same with languages - "in the local native language" or "the First Nations word for" should be "in Haad kil" (the name of the Haida language) or "in Sm'algyax" (Coast Tsimshian language) or "in Halkomelem" is preferred.
• as far as the query that opened this section, the non sequiturs involved re "American" simply do not apply; WP:NCET also stipulates that whatever a people call themselves should be taken into account in naming and name-usage:

"How the group self-identifies should be considered. If their autonym is commonly used in English, it would be the best article title. Any terms regarded as derogatory by members of the ethnic group in question should be avoided."

• "Red Indian" remains common in the UK so as to distinguish North American aboriginal peoples from people from India, or from the West Indies; that doesn't meant it's acceptable (anything but).Skookum1 (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

One further comment; I find it strange that this is again being talked about, many years after being hashed out already, based on half-formed understandings from afar..... for example "“Native American” itself is modern Americanism (or Englishism) which at best is a bland place-holder name." is just patently wrong. "Native American" is a legal designation used by Native Americans themselves, and to them it's not "a bland place-holder name". Educate yourself, please.Skookum1 (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment re "2: “Native American” is often used in these pages as an identifier of nationality when the term identifier “American” should suffice. " that's so vague as to "so often used...when the term identifier 'American' should suffice" is a matter of opinion, and you're going to have to name specific articles where you think that should be the case; if "Native American" is used about someone in a wikipedia article, supplanting it with "American" as "that should suffice" is, quite frankly, poppycock.Skookum1 (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Late to this party, and speaking only for the USA (not Canada) but to clarify (again and again):

1. The best thing to do is to call living people what they want to be called. If unclear, when possible, respect tribal ethnicity and refer to a person by their tribe, where known or relevant; i.e. Cherokee, Navajo, Chippewa, etc... i.e. "Foo is a Cherokee musician from Oklahoma, USA." Or: "Foo is an American musician who is a member of the Cherokee nation." If someone's Native heritage is enough a part of who they are to be verified in an RS, then it should be presented equally to their American heritage. This is consistent with WP:BLP.
2. Native American/Indian status in the USA is a POLITICAL status, not simply an ethnic one. To be legally an "Indian" is a question of law. Who is an "Indian" varies from tribe to tribe; some tribes are very restrictive in their enrollment laws, others quite lenient. Bloodline is a factor, but I know of people who are close to 100% Native American, but not eligible for membership in any tribe because their tribal heritage is too mixed. Conversely, some tribes allow enrollment of people who are less than 1/8 (or even 1/16th) blood quantum of that tribe.
3. For historic articles about people who are now deceased, using tribal affiliation is usually best, but IAR may apply, particularly where tribal affiliation is unknown or mixed.
4. "Native American" is a term coined in the late 20th century (about the same time as "African-American" replaced "black"). It is seen particularly in USA Academe to distinguish American Indians from people in India; thus for articles on history, literature, etc., "Native American" is generally appropriate. It's the "safest" default to use as a general rule.
5. "Indian" remains a term of art in law, seen in a lot of legal cases and statutes, basically because the law in this area began forming in the era of John Marshall, when the most respectful word used in that time period was "Indian" and the concept of tribal recognition as dependent sovereign nations dates to that era. e.g. BIA, ICWA, etc. So where law is involved, "Indian" has a specific meaning and is generally used.
6. "American Indian" probably goes way back to when it was realized that we had to distinguish American Indigenous people from people in India. As a popular term, it became more prominent in the time of identity politics stuff in the 60s, (about when "black" replaced "negro") so that that term is a little bit older. It can be used interchangeably with Native American to some degree. Most often, I see "American Indian" on government and census-type stuff, demographic data. It also is the name on the big museum
7. Many Native American people today will colloquially speak of themselves as "Natives" or "Native People" (you can pretty much hear the capitalization there). Not used much professionally, but I often hear it in everyday speech. Indian is still used colloquially as well.
8. Some people in the Native American community view "Indian" as mildly offensive or annoying, though this view is far from universally held—other folks prefer to be called "Indian" and think "Native American" is mildly condescending. I personally have spoken to people from the same tribe who are on different sides of the issue; it might be a generational thing, I'm not sure. Seems like people over 60 are more OK with being called "Indian" than people under 60. I hear "Natives" more from people under 50.
9. Phrases such as "red Indian" or "redskin" are generally viewed by Native people as quite racist—right up there with words like "n----r" to describe African-American people. Just stop. (You Brits might get away with it once on but not twice!) You occasionally hear phrasing such as "Red Nation" or "Red Power" that is not considered offensive, but it's a minefield —and Native people sometimes take ownership of the word "red" in a way akin to how folks in the black community "own" "ni--a," i.e. it's not really OK for white people to do so.
10. As far as "American," yes, they are ALSO American citizens (Native people were not universally US citizens until 1924).
11. To see how the terminology blends, the Denise Juneau lede and first section is a good example; (and I think the original article was put up by her staff) She is an American politician, she is an American Indian, and a member of the Mandan and Hidatsa tribes. Then they note that she "acknowledged the value of her Native American heritage."

Sorry to write a book here. Hope all the above helps. Montanabw^(talk) 06:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Why is this here on AN, and not at WP:IPNA or Talk:Native American name controversy?Skookum1 (talk) 07:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"Native American" is probably the safest, most politically correct term, just as "African American" would be the most correct/inoffensive term for American blacks. Since everyone in America came from somewhere else, (except for those Native Americans), there are also Lithuanian-Americans and Norwegian-Americans, etc. We're all Americans. Blackfoot and Choctaw are specific tribes, see Choctaw language and Blackfoot language. —Neotarf (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question

Hi,

I'm trying to build up my usefulness around here in regards to problem solving. I'll be the first to admit editing is not my strong point but I'll turn my hand to it where nessecary. I have been quite involved in dealing with vandalism and other issues taht ahve been cropping up and have a question with regards to if I can/can't/should/shouldn't do something else. I've been closing sections on WP:ANI that have been dealt with and am wondering if it would be possible to do the same with regards to the WP:AIV where there are obvious closures such as editors who havent been correctly warned, those who have been reported to the wrong place etc? Any advice appreciated as im not sure if this is soley an admin task or not if no admin action is required. Amortias (T)(C) 20:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Might want to check out Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs. Closing discussions is helpful, but dealing with backlogs is much more useful. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Forgotten password

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not sure where to put this as there is no precedent. I have forgotten/misplaced my password, while I am still online. As soon as the 30 day log in period ends, I will be shut out of my account. Also, I did not put my email into the account, and can't without using my password. Requesting advice on getting a temporary password. -- Orduin _⋘T⋙ 16:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Tomorrow, I will post to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents unless issue is addressed here or I am advised to post my issue elsewhere. If issue is addressed there, I will strikethrough the section here and note it as being solved unless other action is taken. -- Orduin _⋘T⋙ 17:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

See Help:Logging in#What if I forget the password?. There are no sysops capable of recovering or resetting your password. It's good that you've discovered your problem now, before you've made many edits using this account. NebY (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Eh, I've only had this account for a short while, I might as well start to close it down. -- Orduin _⋘T⋙ 17:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, without a registered email address there is no other option than creating a new account. De728631 (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I won't be making that mistake again! I'll be posting my new account on my profile page once my login expires. In the meantime, I'll be finishing up some little projects I have started. -- Orduin _⋘T⋙ 18:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I hate that you have to lose an account. Of course, you can always try a bunch of different passwords to remember it once it expires (I just use "password" for everything so I can't forget...;). One more note, you might want to put "I used to use the account Orduin" on your new account so no one thinks you are socking. This may or may not be a problem, but could crop up if you edit contentious articles. Dennis - 2¢ 18:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats what I am doing. Thanks for your concern! ;) I won't forget my new password though, and I have an email attached to the new account, so if I do forget... -- Orduin _⋘T⋙ 18:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You may want to google password recovery for your particular browser to see if your browser has saved it, for example, here is a help page for Firefox: [4] —Neotarf (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin sock puppetry! Sex! Violence! Lots of other exciting stuff!

Now that I have everyone's attention (I assume people with AN/ANI watchlisted have this page on their watchlist too), allow me to tell everyone something useful when posting to these boards. Pings only work if you sign the same post in which you use {{ping}}. If you make a typo in the ping, and correct it, it doesn't ping them. If you add the ping as a second thought without re-signing, it doesn't ping them. If they have pinging turned off, it doesn't ping them. Don't assume that once you've pinged (pung?) someone, they know you did it. 50% of you reading this think you're pinging people when you aren't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

To editor Floquenbeam: I agree that people need to understand that a signature must be present in the same edit, but I am curious about what proposal you have for those who have turned it off. Should everyone {{talkback}} on the off(?)-chance that someone has disabled it? Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Note

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please review process in which editor Brianyoumans may be using to delete articles-the editor seems to be using a personally subjective standard that may not fall firmly within the Wikipedi:verifiablilty guidelines. Case in point Brianyoumans "I need to seed some notability," re: Gregg L Greer Article. Furthermore Brianyoumans editing seems to be causing an environment of adversity which could prove harmful to Wikipedia. Review rule #3,4,1

A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: 1.Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors. 2.Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. 3.Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified [citation needed] tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable. 4.Does not engage in consensus building: a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. 5.Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.--Greeralivetoday (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)--Greeralivetoday (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Brianyoumans hasn't done anything wrong here. Anyone is free to nominate articles for deletion, and our notability guidelines are one of the main reasons to do so (Verifiability, while very important, is not sufficient to keep an article). The nomination is not outrageously wrong (on the contrary, at first glance he seems to be completely correct). He has not engaged in any tendentious editing, and starting an AfD is an attempt to find consensus about the article and whether it should be deleted or not.

Furthermore, a few points: I see no attempt to discuss this with Brianyoumans before coming here. And here is not the right location anyway: if there was a serious problem, you should have posted it at WP:AN, not the talk page (where you are now). But I would advice against doing that, I don't think that people will see a problem with Brianyoumans' edits, but they may see a WP:COI and WP:SPA problem with yours. Fram (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are the Five Pillars policy pages or essays?

An admin recently informed me that, "The Pillars are powerful, simple, useful, helpful but not policy and they never will be", but it was my understanding that the five pillars are policy pages, specifically: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I wasn't sure where to seek clarification, so if this is the wrong place I'd be happy to take this to the right one. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The Five Pillars essay itself is a "non-binding description of some of the fundamental principles", from the first line of its own FAQ. The "pillars" that it refers to are policies. Ivanvector (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• I was trying to reach out to explain, and after posting, noticed this. The page "The Five Pillars" is an essay, and generally considered a rather good one, but an essay, nonetheless. It talks about policy, and points to pages that ARE policy, but the Pillars page itself is not "policy". The other pages you point to all clearly state at the top that they are policy, the Pillars does not. That is generally how you can tell the difference. Like how WP:BRD isn't a policy, but is widely accepted. Dennis - 2¢ 19:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As a point of interest, there was at one point a modest consensus to consider it "something other than a policy, a guideline, or an essay." Wikipedia_talk:Five_pillars#What_is_this_page.3F. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

But, Dennis, Wikipedia:Five pillars contains five summaries of policy pages, so what's your point about this distinction without a difference? Is there any content at Wikipedia:Five pillars that contradicts the content at the corresponding policy page? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If I summarize my interpretation of the 5 policies on my talk page, that doesn't make it a new policy. Like I said on your talk page, "It is a clever document, an essay really, that sums up our hopes and ideals". We accept it not because we must (a policy) but because we choose to agree that it is a good document. Everyone can say "I might change this or that, but generally, it is good", and we each would disagree on which part to change or not change, but it doesn't matter. We more or less agree it is a good document, and that is good enough. Dennis - 2¢ 19:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:FIVEPILLARS is in Wikipedia namespace, so it's not the same as content at a user talk page. I understand what you are saying, but I think your argument is overly semantic. There is nothing at the "pillars" page that contradicts the corresponding policies. E.g., "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect" is written at the Civility policy, and the "pillars" page renders it as, "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility", but still you argue that the so-called fourth pillar is not policy, but in actuality, it is nearly identical to a policy and is therefore a distinction without a difference. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

They are the first thing we have shown to each new user for many years, it is part of most welcome templates. They summarize the crucial policies and link to them. I think the idea is that not every new user wants to read 50 pages of policy. Think of them as cliff notes. Chillum 20:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:5P came after the individual policies, I think. It is a summary. Just as we do not like using Google Books snippet views because they can lack detail and context, so we should not use WP:5P as if it were itself policy. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

So, is WP:Civility a pillar, or is the summary of WP:CIVILITY a pillar? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be perhaps a little obsessed with the "pillar" word. What matters is the "policy" word. If, for example, I called you a troll and had no evidence to support it then I would certainly be in breach of the WP:CIVILITY policy but not the pillar outlined at WP:5P because the latter in not enforceable as such. - Sitush (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Obsessed? Use loaded language much? I hear you, the pillar page isn't policy, but the five pages that each pillar title links to are policy. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You've got it. I was about to analogise with tax forms: governments send out tax forms with explanatory leaflets but if they prosecute you for something related to the form then they cite Section X of Paragraph Y in Tax Act Z (1985) or whatever. 5P is the leaflet. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

To give you another example of "in wikipedia space", take a look at my user page under the section "Essays". I've written four of them, all of differing usefulness, all are interpretations of policy. Of those WP:BLUDGEON is the one I see used most. It isn't a policy, it just explains one particular type of problem behavior (typically found at AFD) and explains why that behavior is bad, what policies it violates, and offers alternatives. It is arguably useful. Being in Wikipedia space doesn't make a page "policy" or even enforceable in any way. It means it is useful. Some of those pages ARE policies, others are guidelines or essays or Wikiprojects, or just pages. Some are actually jokes. My WP:Farmer Brown is a modern day parable. Five Pillars kind of stands alone. It is something we all believe in, in the most general sense, even if we interpret it a bit differently. The reason we hold it in high esteem isn't the "grade" of page it is, it is because of the wisdom in the words. In a meritocracy like Wikipedia, that matters most. Dennis - 2¢ 22:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Rationalobserver: Wikipedia is not the place to chat about the meaning of life and other stuff. Have a look at WP:5P and decide for yourself what you want to call it—the rest of realize that does not matter. If there is something there that damages the encyclopedia, make a suggestion on its talk for a change. Johnuniq (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• The "Five Pillars" are not policy, they are something akin to an essay: a simplistic graphic representation of fundamental WP principles for complete newcomers to the site. Behind each of these colorful pictures there are real policies and guidelines. Carrite (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Location of 2014 Arbcom election

When/why has Arbcom elections been moved from Wikipedia to Wikimedia? GoodDay (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That is a bit odd. Stranger still is that there appear to be two separate SecurePolls set up. One on en[5] and one on meta[6]. --Tgeairn (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I have also raised this issue here. --Tgeairn (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The ArbCom election is now hosted on the vote wiki, starting with this year's election. With the new update to SecurePoll, all projects will most likely have their elections hosted there as well. Most of the changes are "behind the scenes" and "under the hood" improvements not readily seen by voters, but I can assure you that this is a welcome update that helps both the community and the WMF. For instance, we now have logs that record any changes to the poll configuration, electionadmins can make adjustments without needing the WMF to make the changes at a database level, and there is no longer a need to create an XML file to set up the poll. (Also, Tgeairn's question was answered by James on the link above.) Mike V • Talk 19:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2014

There are editors who remove sourced content from this article without any explanation nor does one person (in one instance) want to give ANY explanation as to to why sourced CIA World Factbook (such as "lack of skilled labor", "the Rial was devalued in July 2013" of or trend signs should be deleted for GDP except that "it is not necessary". I must stress this one editor makes otherwise good edits in other articles it seems; but this is strange. I am the ONLY regular editor of this article since 2006 and most of my edits are IP edits such as the present one. Same problem with this article mostly. 2A02:1205:5007:7A80:781E:3EA2:FD56:D7DC (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried to ask Raamin why he removed your edit? Have you tried to discuss these problem with other editors? Please do so before raising the matter at this board or at WP:ANI, because both of you are now edit warring. I have notified Raamin, so hopefully he can give a few explanations. Please continue this discussion at Talk:Economy of Iran so you can edit the page without filing a request for protected edits, but also do not revert each other any more or you will be blocked. De728631 (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Economy of Iran

A guideline on what to do if an ANI report goes stale?

Hiya, I'm not a n00b, but I don't think it's ever been clear to me what we do if an ANI report is about to go stale, or has gone stale with no attention from admins? Although I do have an open report at ANI, I've seen quite a few cases in the past get archived after 3 days (or whatever the threshold is) without remedy. (IP 108.48.144.42 is an unrelated, but real-life example.) I'm sure "bump" comments are strongly discouraged and I'm not the kind to do that anyway--do we just copy/paste the unresolved, archived case back onto the ANI page, or is there another preferred method? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll start by saying that others may correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I've seen, stale reports that go to archive are usually a sign that there isn't enough there for admins to perform any actions on. ANI is for "admins and experienced editors" so as a rule of thumb if a thread has attracted comment but not enough that admin intervention or comment is required, it'll just be left stale until it is archived or an editor closes it as no action. "Bump" posts aren't encouraged unless new material relevant to the ANI appears and subsequently action is required. However, if a post has not seen admin or editor commentary, then I don't think there is any policy that states one can't bump the post to prevent archiving. However, once it's archived it's usually bad form to unarchive it and copy it back to the main page. It's usually better to just link to the archive. I think the only exception would be if something new happens very close to the archive time stamp, say a few days but no more than a week (these are not hard and fast numbers, just ones I plucked out of the air), then it wouldn't be a big deal to unarchive it. So for example, Incident A happens on 12/12/14 and is archived at 15/12/14 with no action or closure but on 18/12/14 Incident A1 happens and is linked to Incident A, then you could go unarchive Incident A. Blackmane (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully, Blackmane the archivals are performed by bots and the reports aren't usually flagged in any way. My reports are pretty meticulous, so I don't think lack of information is the issue. Based on my experience, (I have a modest 26k edits under my belt) if a report doesn't get any new comments in 3 days (roughly) the bots whisk them away to Ignoredville. Similar things happen at AIV, where if admins haven't responded within a certain amount of time, the report gets removed for being stale. It's a frustrating situation, since it places a needless burden on the reporting, powerless user to re-report the offender (assuming that the reporting editor happens to notice) instead of requiring admins to deal with the complaints. (And I say this with respect for admins, most of whom are overworked. It's one of the reasons I once applied for adminship.) One place where this does not happen is at SPI, but SPI is persistently backlogged. Anyhow, I digress. I still don't know what the appropriate protocol is for keeping a report alive, or for what to do when the report gets archived, so if anybody else has any input, I'd still be interested. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

(My edit count is even more modest) Indeed they are, they're set to archive after 36 hrs of no activity or earlier if it picks up the {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} tags. If you feel that your report requires attention, there is no problem, generally, with posting beneath it asking for a response. The bot will only use the last timestamp for archiving purposes.

As for "not enough there", I mean that in the admin's eyes the transgressions aren't sufficient to warrant more than a warning, not that you haven't provided information. Blackmane (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi. I have been accused of vandlaism by an administrator over on the main page but I can't go in there to defend myself because its locked and I don't have an account. How can I go about giving my side of the story?64.230.233.209 (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No you were blocked for sockpuppeting, which you denied in the investigation, and then you removed the block notice from your userpage. Legacypac (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2014

Admin [User:Bgwhite|Bgwhite] was involved in a dispute at the Sri lankan presidential elections 2015 article. He had reverted the article 5 times in a period of 24 hours. He removed my contribution including the banner, to which weight of certain reported issues was disputed. I asked for his assistance here [[User_talk:Bgwhite#Sri_lanka_Press_Polls] User User:Obi2canibe later got involved in the dispute and removed my contributions that was properly sourced and cited. I attempted to resolve this issue by asking here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Removal_of_content_by_another_editor I added my material back in, and left messages on the comments section as here User_talk:Obi2canibe#Conduct_section and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lankan_presidential_election,_2015 I received no response and other user reverted my work. As I originally added the work, I reverted his edit and advised him to add his contribution and to discuss his objection to my material in the talk section. This revert caused Admin [User:Bgwhite|Bgwhite] issue be with a block [[7]] The admin used profanity against me and was clearly involved in the dispute. see here [[8]]

After reviewing this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Review_and_removal_of_adminship I am right now making a request for comments at the dispute resolution center for consideration of referring the admin to the arbitration committee.

How do you think we can help?

I make a request for comments for consideration of referring the admin to the arbitration committee.

--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 11:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I doubt a referral would be successful. (Of the less than 20 cases the committee accepted in 2014, I'm the filing party in two of them regarding misuse of the administrator user access level). While Bgwhite's conduct has not been perfect, that's accepted here. Secondly, as a newly registered Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, any filing would have to overcome a great deal of scrutiny. I'm sorry your initial efforts to help build the encyclopedia have been frustrating, but the most likely outcome is that continuing to pursue this will leave you more frustrated. NE Ent 12:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Without evaluating the merit of your complaint, the correct place to complain about 5 reverts in a day is at the 3RR Edit Warring notice board which is liked in the box at the top of this page. Legacypac (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Lost 116 Pages

I am not sure if this is the correct place. Requesting Admin assistance with regards to the Lost 116 Pages article. Dispute is regarding the question of noteability. There are 2 small sections, one favorable and one unfavorable to LDS perspective. I am not the author of either section, but propose mutal inclusion or exclusion. Another alternative would be to have references to both sections included the see also section. — This unsigned comment was added by Mormography (talk • changes) on 01:26, 17 January 2015‎.

We've never had an article here by that name. I think you're referring to the article on English Wikipedia. This is the Simple English Wikipedia. You need to ask for help on English Wikipedia. Sorry we can't help. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormography (talk • contribs)

As this appears to be a content matter, the best place to raise this is Talk:Lost 116 pages Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Gordon B Hinckley Edit Warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Requesting admin assistance. Users ChristianMJ and AsteriskStarSplat are making multiple reverts with out discussion.Mormography (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You left out the fact that you have reverted as much as Christensen and Asterisk has only reverted once. I have left a warning on your talk page and protected the article to stop this edit war.

Also, for future reference, matters like this should be reported to WP:RFPP and/or WP:AN3, not the talk page of the admin norticeboard. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block evasion?

It appears Paway2 might be the blocked editor Paway. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if he's not, his user page is a confession of a WP:NOTHERE vandal. I reported them at WP:AIV. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. With such poor inventiveness in creating new names, we may have to use a filter when it reaches Paway10 or so — I don't know how to do that. Bishonen | talk 19:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC).

Lowercase sigmabot III

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lowercase sigmabot III — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Archival Parameters

Frequently threads have had to be moved back to WP:ANI from its archives that were archived before discussion was finished, or when discussion was finished but without formal closure. In looking at the parameters for archival, it appears that the bot is set to archive any thread that has had no additions in 36 hours. That is a very short period of time in which to archive a thread. While it is true that WP:ANI is large, it isn't so large that it causes real paging problems. Could the archival parameter be set to either 48 hours or 60 hours so that fewer discussions get archived and then restored? Archival and restoration of discussions of disruptive editors is itself disruptive of the process of dealing with disruptive editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's set for 192 hrs. or 8 days. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I misread the parameters, but something sometimes threads to be archived in much less than eight days. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe Robert McClenon is correct. The archive settings on WP:ANI are 36 hours (the settings on this page are 8 days).

I agree a longer setting would be helpful. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Then I did read it correctly after all, and Mlpearc was referring to WP:AN. I can see the confusion, because WP:AN and WP:ANI share a talk page due to the peculiar way that subpages work, but archival often happens too soon, before the topic is truly stale. The parameter of 36 hours is absurdly short, in particular for threads involving real disruptive editing that only affect a segment of the community, so that not everyone piles on at the same time, and many threads that have not either been resolved or really become stale get archived. Archival and restoration of threads is disruptive and confusing. Is there a really compelling reason why the archival time has to be 36 hours rather than 48 or 60, so that the disruption of premature archival really is worth the price, or is this something that can be fixed? Do we need an RFC to change the archival parameters? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter if it has been officially closed before archival, people can close archived discussions officially regardless of what page it is on and thinking otherwise is just BUREAU. Archives are "protected" in a way that all editing is prohibited, they are protected in a way that suggests no further discussion should be had (and closure isn't discussion, it is summation). This page does sometimes get too large even with archival set at 36 hours to a point where it causes issues on smaller devices and I would object to increasing the sizetime unless the community could agree upon a bot that would monitor the size of each section/discussion and if it hit a certain size threshold move that discussion to a sub-page and update all links to the discussion leaving a {{Moved to}} on the main page in the discussion's space. Those sub-pages would never need archival and it would keep the size more manageable on the main page. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• An RfC sound like the way to go, IMHO. I would certainly appreciate a longer time period, but I can sympathise with the size problem. Some of us may be following several open discussions, may go away for a couple of days, etc. Searching for an open discussion that has been moved is a right pain. Archiving it may technically not close it, but that would be the first "not-an-archive-yet-honestly" archive that I ever met - if any suggestion is open to charges of bureaucratic fiddling, it is surely that. I do like the idea of a sub-page for every discussion though: ANI itself could then just list the un-archived discussions. This would also allow us to watch selected discussions without watching the whole page, something that I for one would find very useful. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sort of relevantly, I notice these edits in incident archive 873 to a discussion about, ahem, myself. I'm a little surprised not to see any instruction ({{aan}}?) at the top of that page not to make any change of this kind (cf the very top of Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 18). The edits therefore seem legitimate -- but they go against the notion of an archive as I (mis?) understand it. That impersonal point aside, as the person being freshly complained about in that thread, I'd be happy if it were moved back on to WP:AN/I, for anyone wishing to vent to be free to vent (with diffs but concisely), and then for an admin to resolve this matter (or non-matter) in some decisive-looking way before rearchiving. -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You aren't supposed to be continuing the discussion into the archives. If it is still a fresh issue, move it out to the main page. KonveyorBelt 00:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that somebody other than me should decide if it should be moved; and, if it should be, should then move it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it and explained to Catflap how to unarchive the thread if he really wants to add that comment to the discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

About comments in Talk pages

Hello, Just a question. Does a user have a right to delete another user's comments (although there is no personal attack or insult in that comment) in an ongoing discussion just claiming that it is off-topic. If no, please see this and this. Just I don't want to be involved in an edit war. Thanks in advance, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

3RRN report

There's a 3RR violation report that needs attention: [9]. I don't want to make a big deal about it, hence posting here rather than on the main AN page -- but I do think it needs attention beyond the usual cadre of admins that usually deal with reports there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It needs to be closed. Atsme☯^Consult 02:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I closed it yesterday.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Requests for Closure

The number of Requests for Closure has gone down from about 50 to about 10. Was there an extraordinary closure initiative, or have the rules changed about when Requests for Closure are listed? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Just a happily working archive bot : ) - jc37 05:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to start enquiries about an ANI I raised (Jytdog: Protracted uncivility and harrassment) which in my opinion was closed far too prematurely and without a request for closure. Is this a necessary part of an ANI? Where do I raise the issue of premature closure?__DrChrissy (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI possibilities - adding more structure

I recently started a post on Village Pump to discuss the possibility of adding more structure to ANI posts to help keep discussions on track. If anyone has thoughts on specific solutions, or the idea in general, it would be great to here them.Dialectric (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

There is a discussion related to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 16#ThePhantomBot reporting to noticeboards. PhantomTech (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

How is archiving of ANI done now?

Hey, we have 73 ANI threads, some of which were closed weeks ago. It doesn't seem like Legobot is archiving anymore. What happened? Admittedly, Legobot was often too quick on the trigger, but that could have been easily adjusted with parameters. Now it seems that archiving is strictly manual, optional, voluntary, and random/haphazard. Is there not a happy medium that can be achieved? it's a bit hard to peruse or navigate the page when there are so many (lengthy) closed threads on it. Softlavender (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Closing discussions

As we all know discussions seem to get long and drawn out here, so I was wondering what everybody thinks about hatting closed discussions, kind of like what's done at the DRN, to make the page shorter and a bit easier to read. Kharkiv07^Talk 22:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems a reasonable way to reduce the overall page length. Its easy enough to open it and look at them if needs be. Amortias (T)(C) 17:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The premature closing of discussions on AN/ANI is IMO a horrible recent development. Unlike other noticeboards, many discussions are not always required to come to a resolution, benefit the huge range of experience in the audience even after the fact, and should not be closed unless there's a better venue or it's getting off topic. Likewise, hiding discussions with a hat will reduce not just the input but also the readership, and you'll get more duplicated content with less informed admins. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Anglicanus - constant hounding

Dear Sirs - for a long while now I have been confronted by Anglicanus' constant interference. It is becoming difficult to introduce new info without him challenging my edits or MOS - I have tried to explain as best I can about how some info doesn't always sit (or fit) well with this MOS policy. However should Anglicanus & others wish to adapt the narrative to Wiki's current MOS then that is fine by me, but from my point of view I simply wish to represent the facts.
Since there are very many articles which are substandard I fail to understand why Anglicanus engages in such petty disputes with me (which could so easily be avoided - eg I provide info & he can correct the MOS, if that is his wont). Anyway please issue a decree as to what should happen going forward - he & I are locked in a constant argy-bargy - I trust Wiki prefers to have genuinely good content introduced & not forsaken for MOS? I am sure you can think of a solution to this mess. Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

PS. perhaps you can guide me ref MOS?

Justice of the peace article is a perfect case in point - it makes no sense to me how some proper nouns are capitalized and others are in lower case, qv Crown & Lord Chancellor versus justice of the peace. It makes no sense to me since it is inconsistent - what is the policy? Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

for your guidance, it should really be: Justice of the Peace, qv: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/25/contents

• Mabelina, you're at the wrong venue. Read the notices at the top:

As numerous other editors have come to realise, User:Mabelina refuses to have any respect for MOS editing principles and constantly adds multiple MOS errors to numerous articles and then engages in edit wars even when the links to the MOS guidelines (and / or quotations from them) are provided for her to read and learn about. This has happened time after time after time for years. Mabelina seems to think that she can edit articles in whatever ways she pleases. When her MOS mistakes are pointed out to her (even very politely) she more often than not just becomes belligerent and / or very uncivil and decides to keep reverting articles back to her MOS error-riddled versions. Her comments about her adding information and me then correcting the MOS is laughable. Nice idea in principle but she rarely accepts my MOS corrections, even minor ones, or those of any other editors. If any administrators feel inclined to "issue a decree" then it should be about Mabelina's constant problematic editing. Anglicanus (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I have stated over and over that Wiki is a broad church & there should be space for all folk to input good info (according to their knowledge & skills). I have already pointed out numerous times that I believe Wiki's MOS is severely flawed, however I am resigned to the fact that I am not in the majority on this matter, so if it is at all okay I simply wish to introduce good factual info on topics where I am proficient - I have pointed out above that your recent edits to Justice of the Peace are not consistent throughout the article - so why lecture me on MOS when you haven't got your own house in order. Moreover, please do not contact me again or interfere with my edits for an agreeable (perhaps self-imposed) period - how does that sound? I am not ruining Wiki with my info (unlike many others) so let's have a truce & stay away from each other... M Mabelina (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no inconsistency in my edits to the Justice of the peace article. If there are any inconsistencies then they are already in the article and I have not yet attempted to edit the whole thing. This is a good example of the kind of problem you keep creating over and over in articles when you fail to understand that when used generically the names of such positions are not capitalised. Anglicanus (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't pin this one on me! In the end I'll get blamed for everything...! Simple facts are that I endeavor to the best of my abilities to introduce correct facts/info to Wiki - what you do with it afterwards is up to you. M Mabelina (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Mabelina, you're at the wrong venue. Please read the notices at the top of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrators' noticeboard page. This is not the page to report problems to administrators, or discuss administrative issues." You need to report problems with another editor at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please move your discussion there. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks - noted. M Mabelina (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, Mabelina, when you do so, remember to provide diffs to demonstrate the activities or behaviors you are talking about; otherwise, anything you say is just a vague accusation with no proof or evidence. Softlavender (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated your advice Softlavender M Mabelina (talk) 08:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Image needed

I just noticed the noticeboards have no images. I propose the following for the header:

Dig in!

Any opposes? Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This is trolling, right? If not I object of course and was about to roll you back for vandalism.--MONGO 03:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I hate popcorn. But I don't care if you add the picture. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

At best it's pointlessly decorative on a board that doesn't need decoration, contra the heading. At worst it's offensively offputting, suggesting that discussions have just entertainment value. So I oppose any image in general and this one in particular.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

John, are you familiar with Carmen Hermosillo? She was one of the first online users to make the argument that Internet discussions are based around entertainment value. Something can be both accurate and offensive, btw. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd file this one under "belated April 1". Samsara 00:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Page is reaching near 750KB and going towards 1MB as of how it is increasing now

This may cause surprising amounts of data usage to mobile users that go to this page using their data plan and not knowing the size of this page. Please try to remove any soved conflicts to decrease the page size. Doorknob747 (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

One reason for this is people commenting on threads that had essentially died days ago. Every time a new thread is edited, it pushes the archiving bot back 48 hours from that time. (You've commented on a couple of essentially dead threads today yourself.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

People with bad enough dramaboard addiction that they can't resist looking at these pages with limited data plans should either upgrade their data plan or (preferable) get a life. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wondering how we can remove those shoved conflicts (if that what you meant)? We can undo an edit though, but that wont decrease its size. Or am I just misunderstood the whole situation?--Mishae (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

As for the comments mentioned by @Floquenbeam:, maybe Wikipedians should focus on deleting, rather then archiving their threads, or if we are talking about editors that are not active, we can delete them from our system (unless they have died, and didn't have time to create their user page as a commemorative one, like it happened with one editor here who was killed during Euromaidan).--Mishae (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I and I think at least a few other editors have a "one-click archiver" option here. It apparently works on all pages, although I haven't tried it on anything but my own user talk page here. Maybe we should ask people to archive closed threads more or less upon closing? Would that help at all? John Carter (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: That certainly will, but some editors might not know how to do it (me included).--Mishae (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If a thread has just closed it's not always a good idea to archive it. People need to be given a chance to log back on after a while and see what the result was. In some cases, someone should be able to dispute the close. The bot's default of 24 to 36 hours for ANI and 36 to 48 hours for AN seem reasonable to achieve this.

The real problem is zombie threads that get one edit every other day for a couple of weeks, keeping them from being archived. Especially if they have many subthreads; if all but one of the subthreads have been closed, edits to the one remaining unclosed subthread prevent the entire thing from being archived. You don't want to close down an active thread early, but when a thread is clearly over and seems likely to become comment-bait for drive-by commenters, it is helpful to actually close the thread, IMHO.

When clueful people with the One click archiver see these zombie threads and put them out of their misery, it is very helpful. However, I fear an influx of unwise people getting that tool and doing it to newly-closed threads that shouldn't be archived. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I just archived the few threads which have been listed as being "resolved". There weren't many, and it probably didn't help much, but if we have admins add archive boxes when such separate discussions are closed, it might make it easier for me and others like Floq above, who knows this sort of thing a hell of a lot better than me, to purge them more quickly. John Carter (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Specifying editor involvement

We all know that cases at WP:ANI can go off the rails pretty often, and it can be difficult to gauge consensus under WP:CBAN of uninvolved editors easily. Would it be worthwhile to add somewhere prominent that editors voting on action should specify if they are involved? If this would be done, I'd think it would be better to have involved editors say something like, "Support/Oppose. (involved) . . ." I'd prefer to not have that added burden (if one could call it that) of remembering to add that extra bit. On the other hand, uninvolved editors tend to have cooler heads, so I could see involved editors forgetting to specify this and more drama being kicked up about who's involved. Maybe it would just be better to have everyone specify whether they are involved or not. Either way, just specifying involvement immediately after the "vote" could be helpful. Any thoughts on if any of these approaches could be helpful or something we could actually get people to follow? Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Archives problem

About three hours ago, User:ClueBot III archived "7 discussions to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive270". A few minutes later, User:John Carter made four "OneClickArchiver" actions, each archiving "1 discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive255.

Note the disparity of the archive page numbers: 270 then 255.

Can this be fixed; and prevented from recurring? Has it happened here before, or elsewhere? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I see two problems: something apparently wrong with the archiving tool, and possibly premature use of it to archive threads that may not have come to a conclusion just yet. Although I am sure this was done in total good faith I think John Carter should put thoe threads back. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The sections I archived were restored some time ago, although I don't know how to address the apparent issue of them evidently going to the wrong archive if someone tries it again in the future. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Technically wise, that was caused by someone attempting to disable the miszabot config but not realizing it doesn't work that way for bots and scripts. That version of 1CA is not maintained and is superseded with Technical 13's (Original by Equazcion) OneClickArchiver (Original) script. Why was miszabot disabled on the page in the first place? Should people be 1 click archiving ANs in the first place? Please ping me with replies and I'll happily try to accommodate any changes to the new version of the script. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 05:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter, Beeblebrox, and Technical 13: - Do we have any resolution on this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

My late post

I apologize for posting at the ANI after it was closed; it was inadvertent — I went to the page and hit "Edit" without scrolling down to that section first. It was accidental. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Archiving ANI

At WP:ANI, the page is getting pretty long. I noticed the bot's configured for 60h while the "how to use this page" dropdown is still saying 36h. Which is it supposed to be? ― Padenton|✉   16:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

At WP:AN, it says that it is archived after 48 hours. As to what the archival parameter should be, see the comments above about zombie threads. Also, why do both WP:AN and WP:ANI both have configuration parameters for two different archival bots? Is one of the sets of parameters a relic that has been turned off? Also, there is an inconsistency, in that WP:AN says that it is archived by Lowercase Sigma bot, but it is not configured for archival by that bot, only by ClueBot and by MiszaBot. Should we get consensus on what the archival should be? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I noticed the issue, but my attempt to help out was unsuccessful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Archiving ANI

At WP:ANI, the page is getting pretty long. I noticed the bot's configured for 60h while the "how to use this page" dropdown is still saying 36h. Which is it supposed to be? ― Padenton|✉   16:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

At WP:AN, it says that it is archived after 48 hours. As to what the archival parameter should be, see the comments above about zombie threads. Also, why do both WP:AN and WP:ANI both have configuration parameters for two different archival bots? Is one of the sets of parameters a relic that has been turned off? Also, there is an inconsistency, in that WP:AN says that it is archived by Lowercase Sigma bot, but it is not configured for archival by that bot, only by ClueBot and by MiszaBot. Should we get consensus on what the archival should be? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I noticed the issue, but my attempt to help out was unsuccessful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

hello

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

hi their i am noticed about this user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MShabazz who delete the sentence in this article "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia&oldid=663341476" that saying "The law in saudi arabia required all the citizens be muslim" although there is a reliable source from the cia site that saying https://www.cia.gov/Library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html "non-Muslims are not allowed to have Saudi citizenship " and yet he delete it im only want to enter facts into the article can you please block him for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.150.169 (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: An identical message was posted to WP:Administrators' noticeboard, which is probably the more appropriate place to discuss this. I propose that this section be closed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, closing as a duplicate discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

i would like to report a user

i would like to report this user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RolandR he undo what i deleted here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Albert_Einstein#The_formation_of_a_Jewish_state after i gave two reliable sources right here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_views_of_Albert_Einstein#einstein_and_his_support_for_jewish_immigration_into_palestine. he is twisting wiki facts and deleting every thing that is not fit to his opinion please undo him the The Cambridge Companion to Einstein, Volume 1 and Einstein on Politics: His Private Thoughts and Public Stands on Nationalism, Zionism, War, Peace, and the Bomb consider to be one of the most reliable books on einstein. any way please block him for undo me after i gave two reliable sources how this books are not reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.62.149 (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You have posted to a page whose purpose is discussion of the administrator’s noticeboard. This is not a place to file a report. You would be better off filing the report at wp:ANI--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Premature archiving?

I'm not sure how the archiving works on AN/I, but a case I've an interest in has been archived without admin closure, and it looks like a couple of other incidents have been prematurely archived without closure, too. Can it/they be moved back to the live page? Or is it normal that that might happen? The case I am interested in is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#User:DylanMcKaneWiki_and_the_Celtic_Phoenix_article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It is normal that this happens when no one posts in the thread for a few days. The archiving is set to 72 hours I believe, which is reasonable. However, if you feel the case merits more attention, you can unarchive it and leave a comment that you did so.--Atlan (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Atlan, will do! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Incident resolution

I would like the incident related noticeboard to be moved from:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident resolution

as per the example of: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Personally I think that there is too great a focus on judgement rather than on conciliation, appeasement, placation and, when appropriate, directive behaviour modification. Editors who have issues with each other do not talk and are not encouraged to talk and I think that the proposed subtle change of wording may, to some extent, help things move in a more conciliatory direction. GregKaye 07:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be supportive. I think that would more clearly indicate what this board is attempting to achieve. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose inconsequential aesthetic change. --Jayron32 18:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Support I support the intentions behind this change but any change like this will receive pushback from editors who are used to the way things are. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Jayron32 the "aesthetic change" is to change a title that effectively presents "problem situations" so as to instead effectively present "solutions in relation to problem situations". There is a huge difference here and I think that this may help contribute to a more involved and holistic approach to dealing with incident situations. If we want to keep hold of Wikipedia editors while helping the community then I think that its best that we move on from a purely "crime and punishment" approach.

Liz ty. My worry here is that the way things are unnecessarily facilitates a fall in editor numbers. GregKaye 09:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per Jayron32. GregJackP Boomer! 18:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't necessarily oppose this but I do disagree with the premise that it would be a meaningful change. I would also suggest that if this is a serious attempt to rename a well-established, long term noticeboard there should be a formal request for comment, listed at WP:CENT. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Interaction requirements and not just bans

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

In the context of the Wikipedia community I am more than a little perplexed by tendencies to use sanctions such as Ibans and to work in often speedy judgement cases that give no encouragement involved parties to constructively speak. One party brings a case against a second party and, very frequently, the reaction of the second party will be to attack and undermine the first party. Time and again I worry that this does more harm than good. I would hope that there might be a requirement for more talking and more reconciliation rather than less. GregKaye 07:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This page is for discussing general issues wi the admin noticeboard and it's subpages. If you you want to discuss this sort of thing you should go to the relevant village pump. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Henrik

Dear colleagues, User:Henrik seems to have left his long-time parttime Wikipedia for a prolonged period. That also stopped the production of Wikipedia statistics, e.g. this one from 23rd of May 2015. The service was used by many users who now wonder, if anybody is going to pick up the torch and lighten the way to meta-statistics. Henriks talk page is now slowly filling with x versions of the same request: Would you please restart the stats?

Since I assume him gone for good: Will anybody please restart the stats? Kind regards. Yotwen (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A statement at VPT (permalink) includes "I work on the WMF's analytics team and this is our top priority now", so the issue appears to be in hand, although it comes with a disclaimer about "hardware resources". Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoever did it, the stats are online again. Thank you for bearing with me. I would close the thread myself, if I knew how. Yotwen (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Who reversed my updates? They all are based on the existing IMF and UN sources...

I updated the numbers regarding GDP based on the links it already was using... There are wrong numbers in the article... I updated them based on the old references (that updated their numbers)....

Look at here:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2010&ey=2015&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=39&pr1.y=8&c=429&s=NGDP_RPCH%2CNGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a=

The GDP is far exceeded $1.336 trillions while the article says $1.26 trilions!!

Some other resources of IMF and UN already updated their numbers.... I tried to fix the values with referring them to the existing links but somebody reversed all of my updates!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielaram (talk • contribs) 10:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Danielaram: This issue should best be taken up on the talk-page of the article in question, which appears to be Economy of Iran. The page history will give you some clues in the edit summaries as to what happened. - 220 of ^Borg 09:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Help Needed with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran main article updates

I've moved this section to the talk page of the Iran article. Blackmane (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Instructions to admins

Could someone please direct me to the page/s which advises admins on the procedure of how to close AN/I topic bans and what the closure summary statement should contain. I remember reading some specific instructions once, but I can't find them anywhere now. Thanks in advance.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Generally, IIRC, you summarize the results of the discussion using a template like {{archive top}}, you notify all involved parties, and you log any topic bans or other restrictions enacted from the ban at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, linking to the diff of your closing summary. I don't know that there are formal procedures beyond that. That's what I've always done. --Jayron32 17:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I thought I had read somewhere that the reason for the ban should be included in the closing summary, and that the banned user should be advised in the summary of where they can appeal. - by the way, good cool-headed comments on the Reference Desk/Science today...you must have counted to 10 several times!DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Kaynbred

I'm not quite sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but there's a user on here called User:Kaynbred who it seems is Adam Lanza (see the page on the sandy hook elementary shooting). Proof: [10]. You guys should delete the user from wikipedia as the guy committed suicide and is therefore obviously not going to be able to control his page anymore.--InterPersonalAutomaton (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that it was Lanza (which has never been conclusively proven, as far as I'm aware), what exactly would 'deleting the user' achieve? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have to sound quite so grumpy? It was a request which would achieve things any kid could think of. It would achieve not making wikipedia a memorial site for people who idolize serial killers. It would achieve not having some sicko turn an entirely unprotected page into a memorial. Need I go on? --InterPersonalAutomaton (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I can see little evidence that anything of the kind has happened so far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It's about prevention. Also I believe other accounts where people killed themselves have been deleted. I think theres a wikipedi policy somewhere regarding it. But I don't remember exactly what it says. Don't you think at the end of the day that it's better to delete the account, rather than have other family members move onto the same ip range as the wikipedia page he had and possibly get threatened by others because of having the same ip? That's a real danger where wikipedia is concerned. We should respect his unfortunate remaining family members in that little town.--InterPersonalAutomaton (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

How can anyone possibly ascertain the IP that this contributor used? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't admins and sysops have the power to see the ip addresses of people who hve signed up on wikipedia?--InterPersonalAutomaton (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Only the small number of editors with access to the CheckUser tool can see editors' IP addresses, and they're only permitted to access this data in certain circumstances. Regular editors and admins cannot ever see this information. Nick-D (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, fine. Fair enough. I admit I may have overreacted to that page because I know people who live in Newtown personally. Feel free to lock this discussion.--InterPersonalAutomaton (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

giving notice (moved from ANI)

I wonder if the notice/notification that wikitext like [[User:Tarc]] produces should be considered adequate; why not edit our rules to allow that, rather than requiring {{subst:AN-notice}} on the user's talk page (which I will do momentarily)? The notice there could serve as a notice to the community, except policy says it can be removed by the user at any time, IIRC. Thoughts? --Elvey^(t•c) 18:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Users may have notifications for mentions turned off, and triggering them can be tricky (I've seen plenty of experienced editors forget to sign.) The only sure way to notify a user is to leave a message on their talk page. — Strongjam (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I would oppose that. The only notification you can't turn off is the web-based alert that you have a new talk page message. Any other ways to try to get someone's attention may or may not work depending on their settings (which the alerting user can't see or verify). —Darkwind (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• This has already been discussed elsewhere when it first came online. The answer was a strong "no". The goal is making sure they know they were taken to ANI, not to make it easier for the filer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this was discussed before and the result was a strong no. I think it is worth revisiting. Is not a legal requirement that we notify editors involved it is polite and appropriate and are to be encouraged. That said, with built-in a working notification system. Early on, there were some bugs, and at that time I was not opposed to those who felt that this notification alone was sufficient. However, I believe most of the bugs have been worked out. I understand that some editors may turn it off but if they choose not to get notifications I don't think we should burden filers with the extra work just because they've opted out. If they want to opt out of notifications fine but then the burden is on them to make sure they keep themselves apprised of things that they might trigger notifications.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Imagine the number of notifications that somebody like User:Jimbo Wales must get every day (there's another one just there). I expect members of ArbCom get high volumes of similar mentions too, as must highly-active admins and editors involved in intense discussions. Even if they don't disable notifications, the sheer volume of them must make it very easy to miss an important one like being reported at ANI. No, the default notification-by-mention mechanism is not sufficient, and people reported at ANI deserve to be specifically informed. It's not like it's an arduous task to paste a simple template on their talk page, especially as the exact text is provided when you edit ANI. Mr Potto (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that there are subtle issues with the notifications. For example if you sign in one post and then add a ping later it does not trigger a notification. This is something many of the newcomers will not understand. Posting a message on the talk page makes sure it is seen. Chillum 13:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It's also not totally, every-time, reliable -- anything like that will have the occasional glitch (or bug) happen (even if it only affects a segment of users in the entire network), and perhaps resolve itself; in the mean-time - and perhaps anon, there is no notification. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Is my memory playing tricks?

I know senility is not far away, but I seem to recall mention some time ago of possibly creating something similar to {{User Ten Year Society}} for those who have been admins for 10 years (like me this very day). Maybe it never eventuated because I can't find it if one exists. Not a biggie, but would be nice for user pages of those who might be proud to display it (even inactive ones). Moriori (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Well done, six months to go for me (Jan 2006). Guy (Help!) 09:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to remove unrelated GIF's from an incident notice?

An editor replied to a post on ANI with an animated GIF. The GIF is not related to the topic so I removed it (another editor also removed it previously). The Subject of the ANI has added it back. I have reverted this change (that might be 2RR on my part). Is it appropriate to remove it as it does not add to the topic and does distract the conversation? Springee (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The edit restoring File:Bomba atomica.gif is diff. The section is here at ANI. Posting "levity" images should not be encouraged, and that image should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems reasonable. The poster who restored the image is quick to chastise editors for not following what he considers to be the rules of RfC's so it seemed hypocritical to not demand the same of an ANI. Springee (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Tribscent08 and Universal Medicine

Universal Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an Australian cult. Tribscent08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been credibly identified as associated with that cult, but does not acknowledge the COI. 100% of Tribscent08's edits are related to that article, and many of them are endless repetitions of rejected demands. Neutrality requires the involvement of multiple points of view, but it's my view that Tribscent08, one of a series of WP:SPAs involved wiht that article, is not helping. I suggest that a topic ban would be in order. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: I assume this was meant for either WP:AN or WP:ANI, and not the talk page? Jenks24 (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Arse. Too many windows open. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

What's the proper venue ...

... for a dispute about "Wikipedia talk"-namespace refactoring? WP:RFM, WP:3O, and WP:DRN are all limited to article content disputes. I don't see this as a "complain about and slap the hand of this user" issue, so WP:ANI seemed out of scope. It's a matter of dueling guideline interpretations and "what are talk pages for?" vs. "do I have a right to never have my posts touched by anyone else?". Seems unlikely to rise to WP:RFARB attention level, and I prefer it when ArbCom stays out of WP and WT namespace disputes. It's been suggested to me that "WP:AN or WP:ANI" are proper venues, but surely one is preferable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

What is the "issue" in question exactly? Refactoring general talk page comments (which can be discussed at WT:TPO)? Or the purpose of a specific Wikipedia-space page (which can be discussed on its talk page)? Or is this about more specific WikipediaTalk-space page(s) on which user comments are sometimes removed/refactored by a clerking team (such as SPI or ArbCom-space)? Help me understand what the problem is, and then I can counsel you on the best place to discuss it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP:AN is only for administrator related issues, a direct call to ban/unban and similar issues, not general problems. This sounds like an ANI problem if someone is just refactoring your words against policy. Of course, you should start with their talk page first, like you would be expected to in any situation, but you already know that I assume. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
• @SMcCandlish: if the disagreement is over the fundamental meaning or jurisdiction of a guideline, the best bet would probably be to start an RfC on the relevant guideline's talk page. WP:VPP would also be an acceptable place to discuss the issue. If you ultimately cannot figure out the appropriate place to discuss something, there's always WP:VPM. Swarm ♠ 00:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm. It was a dispute about whether party A's insistence on forking a thread with two separate topics being commingled "trumps" or is "trumped" by party B's insistence that their own comments not be touched. Unusual factors were that party B was certain that their comments about issue 2 remaining in the thread about issue 1 was central to their response to issue 1; meanwhile in party A's view, the issue-2 comments had no effect but to derail discussion of issue 1, meanwhile issue 2 was not properly explorable with half the material being stuck in another thread about issue 1. I'm being vague because the issue in question is now old news and moot, while both threads died and have been archived without resolution, so it is not worth re-raising this particular matter as if an ongoing dispute. (In this particular instance it turned out mainly to be a personal matter of offense at being refactored without being asked first, though this raises the problem that it would be impossible to refactor any significant thread with a lot of participants if it were required to seek individual permission from every single participant.)

    I'm thinking, based on the responses above, that in the case of another dispute of this sort, if it can't be resolved between the involved editors, is probably an ANI matter, framed as a "how should this be resolved?" question, not as a complaint. It doesn't seem to be generalizable enough to be a guideline wording discussion for the guideline talk page, except in the abstract (i.e. clarify the guideline to more clearly not imply that anyone has a "right" to never have their material refactored, and/or to more clearly discourage any refactoring if a single person objects in any way, or whatever consensus might conclude). Pings: Salvidrim, Dennis Brown, Swarm  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is embarrassing. SMcCandlish: just stop editing these pages before you get in too deep. You do not represent what the community wants. You cannot even distinguish friend from foe. You are certainly no expert on detecting "behavior patterns" of uncivil or disruptive editors. Take a Wikibreak. At least from the drama boards. You are out of your league. Doc talk 06:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Boomerangs and warnings

Am I correct in believing that Boomerangs can be used on this page? If this is the case, is there a warning of the potential consequences of posting on here? I can not find one.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"Boomerang" is not a formal process. But yeah, if someone posts here and it turns out that instead (or in addition) they are themselves misbehaving, then they can be sanctioned. That principle holds all across Wikipedia. There's no venue where someone can take a free shot at another editor while being exempt from scrutiny themselves. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this clarification. My reason for raising the question is that there is a warning on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring under "additional notes" but apparently no warning on AN or AN/I. I am wondering whether we should be consistent in warnings to editors.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The edit warring noticeboard (WP:ANEW) is a special case because remedies are often handed out rather brutally and without much thought about the underlying issues. An editor might know that certain text is unsuitable per numerous prior discussions or even arbitration cases, yet edit warring to remove it, then reporting the brand-new account who is trying to add it without discussion might get both editors blocked by a rule-bound admin—even if the good editor did not exceed 3RR. There is no need to put a notice on other pages because we hope people have some clue and understand that a discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI might involve looking at the problem, rather than what the reporting party states is the problem. In general it is not desirable to spell out everything that people should or should not do because that is not possible, and because it leaves the impression that so long as someone follows all the written rules they are untouchable. That is not correct—people who don't help the encyclopedia are removed every day. Johnuniq (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Diffs vs revisions

In cases involving talk space behavior, is it allowed to provide permalinks to threads instead of diffs? That would not only be far easier, since it would require only one link for the entire thread, but it would put the comments into context. When the complaint is general combative and tenditious behavior, that behavior is usually evident in most or all of the user's comments in the thread. Browser Find could be used to quickly locate each of the user's comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly "allowed", because it has happened with no sanction. Whether it is preferable is more open to debate. I, myself, would rather see diffs, as they show up more easily with Popups, so i can more quickly understand what is being shown me; with a permalink i need to open another browser tab, harming the performance of my machine, or navigate away from the page, perhaps losing the thread slightly. But that's just me. I expect that responses and opinions can be found for both arguments, and i further expect that both techniques will continue to be used as both are useful. It boils down to, Do what works for you. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. "Do what works for you" certainly works for me! I'll add another point, if the user adds a comment and then immediately amends it, you now need two (sometimes more) diffs to show the comment as read by others. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Why can't you provide a single diff of the two edits in this case? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, that didn't occur to me, but I assume the two (or more) edits would have to be consecutive in the page history. A different editor could easily slip in an edit to the page, in that thread or another, making said diff impossible. Regardless, that was a relatively minor point. The biggest considerations are context and effort, in that order. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

On third thought, you really only need the diff of the last edit to show the comment as read by others, assuming no paragraph breaks in the comment. So I'll retract that relatively minor point completely. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Diffs focus the point you're trying to make, clearly show authorship, and the reviewer can easily click to thread view if they want. NE Ent 11:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding photo and link

Hello I just wanted to add my photo of Jack Mundey plus news of him being Patron of the Friends of Millers Point, but was unsuccessful with a website link I copied and pasted to begin, and photo was also not displayed. I took the photo and am happy for it to be freely available. Regards John (dawesleigh) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millers Point Community (talk • contribs) 23:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

User:InedibleHulk's unilaterally edit warring.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user InedibleHulk have made this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this edits. In those edits he removed ton of content without any consensus reached. His claim was that those incidents listed in the list are not sourced but refused to discuss about each individual incident, trying to justify his unilaterally moves. --Bolter21 00:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This guy's been told by several people several times on that talk page that claims need to be verified. It's not "my" rule. If it's a list of terrorist incidents, the least the sources can do is say something to that effect. Removing unsourced material is not a bad thing, especially when it's calling people terrorists. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Bolter21 a look at the edit history of the article shows that you are edit warring to insert unsourced material. At this point you may want to read WP:BOOMERANG. MarnetteD|Talk 00:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't insert those attacks, I didn't insert any of the attacks until June, I wanted to discuss each attack to see if it is needed to be deleted. --Bolter21 00:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Reverting a deletion is the same as an addition. Each thing I deleted was not called a terrorist incident, attack, act or anything of the sort. There's no point in saying that for each entry individually, unless we're trying for a filibuster. Do you want to take this to the actual noticeboard or not? I feel like I'm stuck in limbo here. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed this material as well, as it is simply not sourced.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

And Bolter21 restored it citing an ongoing discussion. There comes a point when there's nothing left to say, beside "Claims need sources". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: how do you "unilaterally" edit war? Does that mean you keep reverting yourself? Surely, there must be someone you are edit warring against. LjL (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why this is here. Bolter21, if you want admin action please post to WP:ANI. If this is a content dispute, please look at WP:DRR for other options. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Formatting problem

A coding problem has been introduced by recent edits which prevents material at the bottom from being displayed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Fixed. (I closed a hatting on ANI with {{hat}} instead of {{hab}}. Softlavender (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Closure of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Alternate proposal: Postpone action until the block is lifted

User:John Carter is insisting on reopening his failed proposal when several other editors have suggested that it is complicating matters and should be closed. Perhaps someone else can explain to him, as I'm not going to edit war. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what to do here. They seem to be going around expressing how "disgusted" they are with various people. Given that I took a contrary view in the debate I can sort of understand their message on my talk page. But you are an uninvolved admin who closed a discussion with the only obvious answer, after all zero people have agreed with the proposal so I think the comment on your talk page seems was far from fair to you.

This seems like a case of someone not liking the result of a proposal. We could leave it open to humour him, it will do little damage. Though I see little point in doing so other than John's satisfaction. HighInBC 15:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

What you should do, HighInBC< is stop engaging in the counterproductive behavior you have already been chastised for. And, Martin, show me where any consensus on a proposal which has yet to get a direct response to, the full proposal I made only this morning, can reasonably be said to have not received a consensus when it hasn't even been directly responded to yet? Frankly, HighInBC's conduct in this matter probably does more to justify in the minds of many Kumioko's complaints about this place, and, honestly, the preemptive rush to judgment and rather arrogant nature of it displayed by Martin is no better. If the goal of the two of you is to basically prove to Kumioko that his complaints regarding the admins of this site are justified, you have my compliments, you've done a great job of it. John Carter (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again John, this is now the 4th place you have tried to discuss my behaviour. My talk page is open to you if you want to talk about this, I have already asked you for diffs there, this is not the place. My advice is to take a day off, you are getting very aggressive. HighInBC 15:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, he certainly seems extremely unhappy and aggressive; I can only wonder why. Leaving it open a bit longer would do little harm, but on principle, I am loathe to allow one editor a veto on closing their own proposal. I propose to reclose it in 24 hours, assuming the proposal still has not gained any traction. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• As a someone who volunteered to close the discussion I can't see a reason to close it early. It's a valid proposal as is the ban discussion above it, and closing one and not the other could send the wrong message. If it really has failed then it won't get many, if any, further comments. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Well, WP:SNOWCLOSE, of course. That said I think the path of Least Drama here is simply to ignore it. With zero supporting votes, it's not even worth the effort to oppose. NE Ent 03:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yep. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to defer to your judgement on this Callanecc. HighInBC 04:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Page is no being archived

Hasn't anyone noticed that ClueBot III is not archiving this page? We have even discussions as stale by 7 days lingering on the page. I tried to archive manually many times, but each attempt resulted in a browser crash. 103.6.159.86 (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, see [11]. Unfortunately due to page setup the One Click Archiver doesn't seem to work. NE Ent 15:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I have reversed 103's manual archiving because it did not seem they were putting the removed text anywhere. I am sure we can figure out how to archive this page though. HighInBC 15:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

OneClickArchiver seems to work for me. I just archived a section with it.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if this point has been raised before

...but the template that explicitly states that we must notify all editors when a post is made to ANI is lacking information on whether the ping tool counts as an explicit mention or not. It is of no concern to me, but the template should explicitly state whether or not the use of ping tool qualifies as notifying editors/contributors/admins/etc that they have been mentioned on the ANI page so as to clarify this apparent loop hole in the mandatory notification criteria given for the page. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any loophole, it says explicitly that you must leave a message on the user's talk page. A ping is not sufficient because users can disable notifications in their preferences. DrKay (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Stats again

Hi there, a surprisingly great number of users accesses the statistics provided under stats.grok.se. The original author has left the project, so has his successor Henrik. Every now and then, the programs need a little twiddling to keep running. Unfortunately, Henrik did not make certain, there was a stand-in for him. So now, the problem bounces about until someone finally picks up the nuisance and fixes it for a while.

Is it possible for us, to show some of the same spirit as in the early years and find some knight in shining armour with the requisite skills to

a) monitor the process and twiddle the software, if it flukes?

b) change the information on the page to indicate that change?

Thank you, for bearing with me. Yotwen (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be appreciated, no doubt; stats.grok.se stopped providing data as of 12 October. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 22:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 141#Pageview Stats down again. That's where you're most likely to get any sort of answers, but honestly I wouldn't hold your breath. Jenks24 (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Concerns about two articles

I am new to Wikipedia, and hope that I'm in the right place. I felt that two articles:

"Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War"

and:

"Omar Barghouti"

were extremely one-sided. Note that I say: "extremely."

My minor efforts to provide a modicum of balance in both have been reverted, a second time, by Altenmann

Wikipedia, I'd like to believe, is an encyclopedia, striving for objectivity. Both articles could be written by Netanyahu's spokesperson, and totally failed to give a balanced view. Isn't it curious that both were reverted by the same individual?

I actually left both biased articles as they were, and merely inserted a slight correction in each case giving the other perspective. I am not even sure what the actual facts are, but just wanted to give some balance, in an effort to improve the overall quality of Wikipedia. That was my sole goal. I came across these articles by chance.

Here is one example, from the Russian article: All kinds of American media are cited, but why not cite the Russian media as well, at least once? Aren't Russians human beings?

Why not give--and that is the only correction I made in that article--Putin's rationale for the invasion too? Is Wikipedia an American encyclopedia, or a global one?

Why, just for curiosity sake, can Altenmann revert both of my minor corrections, but, when I try to revert his, I get all kinds of warnings? Aren't we all equal here?

I'm probably naive, but I find all this deeply disturbing. I joined what I thought was a wonderful, democratic, enterprise, only to find out that nothing is as it seems on first sight.

Well, here's hoping that this appeal falls in the right hands, and that attempts such as Altenmann's to prevent Wikipedia from achieving its mission will be censored.

With many thanks, Brachney (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)Brachney

I've created a section for your comments. No opinion on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, two questions. I see you raised these concerns (as a vebatim copy of your comment here) on Altenmann's talk page - but that seems to be your first interaction with that editor. You're gonna want to have a look at WP:AGF, which requires editors to assume good faith on the part of other editors. Your first comment to this editor is to accuse them of paid editing on behalf of these organizations? That's not quite how it works. Second, you've made exactly zero edits to the talk page of either article - why? If editors disagree with your proposed edits, your next step isn't to report them to the administrators. Your next step is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, explain why you believe your edits improve the article, provide sources that support your position, and development a consensus one way or the other. By rule, Administrators will not rule on content disputes - and that's what this seems to be, a question over the tone and content of two articles. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

BulgariaSources

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive903#Disruptive editing by BulgariaSources was added by me to ANI a few weeks back, archived once, re-added by me once again to ANI, and then archived again. I am not sure if the archiving is simply due to a lack of interest, but the issue does not seem to have been resolved either way. Moreover, BulgariaSources (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back editing as before on multiple articles and has blanked their user talk page of all warnings and notifications without commenting at all. They seem to login, make a bunch of edits (pretty much all of which get reverted fairly quickly), and then disappear for a few weeks before logging in again to repeat the process.

For reference, Erpert, Sir Sputnik and Chris Calvin also commented in the ANI thread and requested that something be done, but still nothing from an administrator. If this is something better discussed somewhere other that ANI or if there was a problem with the original ANI request, then would an administrator please respond and clarify. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Was it ever actually confirmed whether s/he has been socking? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

They were blocked based upon Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BulgariaSources/Archive. Even so, it seems to me that the edits they are making using BulgariaSources have crossed over to being disruptive since no edit sums are ever left and no attempts are made to discuss things with others despite being invited to do so on numerous occasions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Other notifications

When reporting at ANI a pattern of misbehavior in an article, is it allowed to notify other participants at that article who might wish to comment? If so, would this be better done on the article's talk page, or on multiple user talk pages? 72.198.26.61 (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Berber article massive vandalism

Hello ladies and gentlemen, you might want to take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berbers&type=revision&diff=691151151&oldid=691143209. The concerned user is: Tsarisco. Thank you. Honnest regards
signed
41.249.81.36 (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Tsarisco is harassing me.

Take a look at this. this is unacceptable. NotAlpArslan (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Berbers#This_is_a_prestigious_encyclopedia.

This is so pathetic, I only talked to you one time, telling to stop vandalizing the article. Tsarisco (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: This thread and the one above it are related. Both the IP and NotAlpArslan have mistakenly posted here. Do you believe that one or both is Historian19?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no time today to look. Doug Weller (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The IP is clearly NotAlpArslan. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

NotAlpArslan, I've explicitly warned you about characterizing good-faith edits as vandalism. Please be aware that you are very close to being blocked again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: why don't you think that this IP is NotAlpArslan? Hint: He is but I'm interested to know why you think he isn't. :) The 41.xxx complaints below are him, too.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: I agree with you Abbott. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking one week for the master, ditto for IPs and some article protections may help. I'll do some protections if you want the user and IP blocks. I do have the proof but per BEANS it is best not to lay it out there.:)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked NotAlpArslan and the latest IP for one week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Block extended to one month for continuing to sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not Historian19 and this guy above vandalized the article many time by putting false informations Tsarisco (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

NotAlpArslan, massive vandalism some report him please

Hi, this user keep vandalizing this article on changing the data related to the number of berbers around the world, by deleting the source that I provided <<Native Peoples of the World: An Encyclopedia, Ed. Steven, L. Danver, M.E. Sharpe/Mesa Verde Publishing, 2013, p.23 >> that confirm that there's 36 million of berbers around the world. This user also changed the number of berbers in Morocco and Algeria by putting ridiculous and totally absurd numbers without any convincing sources, he also deleted the 7 seven sources that I put that confirm the population of berbers in both countries. Even after I asked this article to be put on << semi-protection >>. Please someone report this disturbing user. Tsarisco (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

User giving order instead of proposing his view

Hello ladies and gentlemen. A user The Banner was impolite toward me by telling me basically what to do. This is untolerable, take a look at his: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irish_people&action=history. Please to take necessary measures. Thank You
Honnest Regards
Signed 41.248.186.227 (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is otherwise. And other mentioned your work here: Talk:Irish people#Ethno-national nature of article compromised by recent edits. And if it was just a layout thing, you also change most of the portrayed people. And you do that without any discussion. The Banner talk 23:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Ow, and don't forget to tell that you have been pushing this as least nine times the last six months and that every time you were reverted, and not only by me. You have never ever tried to discuss it, you just hammer it in. The Banner talk 00:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, you can look at this: Talk:Irish people/Archive 5, where there was extensive discussion NOT to go this way (after the votes of multiple sock puppets were dismissed..) The Banner talk 00:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Some user removing vital info

Hello ladies and gentlemen, Some user by the name of Gyrofrog (talk · contribs) is removing a vital info concerning the Amhara people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. The Amhara people are semitic, i added this information but he keeps removing it.Please to take necessary measures thank you. 41.248.186.227 (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A) This is a content matter and needs to be discussed on the talk page for the article. B) G has only made one edit in this situation so there really isn't anything that admins can do at this time. IMO this thread should be closed. MarnetteD|Talk

Firstly hi, it was many times actually, honnest regards. thanks41.248.186.227 (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It was once today and once over two months ago. Both time the edit summary explained the the connection to Semitic people is explained later in the lede - which it is. Again you need to discuss this on the talk page for the article. No admin is going to do anything at this time. MarnetteD|Talk 23:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2015

Hi, I am an old user of Wikipedia. But after coming back now, I have forgot the email id and the corresponding password with which i had created my previous account (had got a barnstar for my contributions as well). The username of my previous account was 'Kesangh'. I want to continue contributing to Wikipedia using my previous account (with username 'Kesangh'). Kindly help me get access to it. PhoenixMode (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes there is such a user: Kesangh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) They last edited in March 2012. But if you can't remember the password or the email, then you will not be able to recover this account. There is nothing to stop you linking to this account on your new user page and stating that you are the same person. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand this

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why is this called Administrators noticeboard if anyone can make decisions such as section closure? 178.148.5.47 (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NAC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

? that's an essay! I can write dozen like that, opposing.. so what? 178.148.5.47 (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It reflects what we all know to be the consensus approach on en.Wikipedia. You're opposing essay wouldn't and would be ignored. DeCausa (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

it appears your we excludes at least me. likewise, i ignore that essay and there may be many more.. you can't know that. in fact, if it really had consensus, it would not be essay, it would become a guideline or policy by now. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The page generally is notification that pages need to be protected, editors need to be blocked, etc., stuff that administrators should be notified of. A lot of discussion result in no action, something that non-admins can decide as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A lot of discussion result in no action.. I agree with that. However, one cannot close a starting discussion and not let people discuss it! 178.148.5.47 (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless a discussion requires specific admin-only actions (such as deletion, blocking etc), it can be closed by non-admins. Becoming an admin does not magically endow a user with consensus-judging powers. Generally admins are more experienced editors and have been here a long time, so they do tend to have the experience to close a discussion correctly. But that doesnt mean they are the *only* people with that experience. Many editors have been here years and are perfectly capable of judging consensus and closing a discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I see. If I start doing the same, it will be o.k. My perception till now, after 10+ years of editing, was different. Nice thing to know. Thank you. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It would not be OK. We allow non-admin closures for registered editors, not for IP editors.--Atlan (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Burn. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

in fact, relevant guidelines don't even mention word registered so you are wrong there.. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

From the, yes, essay WP:NAC: "However, there are several situations in which a registered editor who is not an administrator can close a deletion discussion." Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, WP:NAC is only an essay, and besides, it is about AfD, not regular talk page discussions. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know which "relevant guidelines" you refer to, but WP:NAC says so right at the top, in bold letters. The anonymous nature of IP editors makes it hard to determine what their involvement is in the discussion. I could for instance log out and close this discussion and you wouldn't know that it was me. So having IP's close discussions is not acceptable.--Atlan (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who you are either way, so don't understand the difference. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the "9/11 was an inside job" people are 99% loons and idiots. While I'm sure you're in the remaining 1%, you're at quite a disadvantage in any discussion, because almost no one is going to take you seriously, nor fret too much that you're not satisfied with the outcome of a discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter in what percent I am, what matters is that WP:V is not being observed. Personal (dis)like of a theory should not have effect on arguments and WP rules. Interestingly, non-loons and non-idiots seem unable to find a satisfying reference for the statement that has been in the article for years! And violation of WP:V doesn't seem to bother them. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it true that jet fuel can't melt Wikipedia policies? I've often wondered. Dumuzid (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

[12] 178.148.5.47 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

To answer your original question, "Why is this called Administrators noticeboard if anyone can make decisions such as section closure?" This isn't a board that the administrators control. It is a board to post things that are of interest to admins. From the top of the page "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators". There is nothing that says non-admins can not close discussions or that only admins can close a discussion, so non-admins can close a discussion here. -- GB fan 17:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I understood that part.. not that it makes much sense though.. kind of beats its purpose.. :( 178.148.5.47 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Why does it beat the purpose of the board? Back at the top of the page it says that "Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices. Most of that requires no administrative tools to accomplish. Other than block reviews that require unblocking where are administrative tools needed? -- GB fan 17:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

indeed, you are right for the WP:AN, however, we are at WP:ANI 178.148.5.47 (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually we are at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents also redirects here, it does not have its own talk page. Your original post was talking about Administrators noticeboard not Administrators noticeboard/Incidents and I am responding based on your question. If you are talking about something else you should make that clear. -- GB fan 18:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

striking comments

WP:TPO is pretty clear "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." I'm not sure where this trend of striking comments made by editors after they get blocked started, but it's fairly pointless and silly. NE Ent 01:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Common sense? I'd call leaving a blocked troll's comment untouched so that new readers would take it as face value "fairly pointless and silly". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You are aware that we also strike blocked socks' comments in active discussions, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia discussion board readers now need someone else to tell them how to interpret a remark? And I certainly don't strike blocked socks remarks, I simply remove them, because striking through things just gives them more attention. NE Ent 02:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty commonly accepted practice because it prevents confusion. It's definitely a net benefit to the project. Note that the strike throughs also had a comment appended with an explanation. Only the dense would have trouble with that. The practice is usually limited to non-constructive trolling comments, comments by socks, and !votes which must not be counted/considered. We don't want to feed the trolls.

It should not be used for mere differences of opinion or borderline cases. It's a less drastic action than complete removal. Removal is a very serious action of total censorship (which in very extreme cases, such as outing, can be justified), while striking through shows disapproval of the comment, and is a more transparent signal and action. (A reply would feed the troll, but silence can be interpreted as approval, which leaves striking through as a good option.) It's more nuanced and less extreme than the binary approach of deletion.

Removal of the strike throughs is a clear signal to the disruptive editor that they have friends here. Such action literally spoon feeds the troll and gives them more energy. It's also very offensive and uncollaborative because it's a slap in the face to experienced good faith editors. Even if you don't agree with the action, never take the side of a troll.

If you disagree, then quietly and civilly discuss the matter on a private talk page, away from the troll. Discuss there why you are siding with a troll. If a mistake has been made (such as if the person really wasn't a troll), then let the one making the strike through remove it themselves. Show good faith and support for fellow good faith editors. We can all make mistakes, but we should still be united against trolls, sock puppets, and blocked editors. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing comments which have replies causes more confusion. Strike-throughs indicate the comments shouldn't be considered when judging consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am not siding with a troll, I'm simply saying we should follow long established policy. (WP:TPO) If ya'll want to change it, please go start an RFC. Striking through is just grandstanding in my opinion. NE Ent 10:50 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Confusing to who? When I see strike through, that means editor who made the comment is striking because that has been the practice for years. I'm totally not getting why this is suddenly becoming complicated? Stupid, trolling comment -- ignore. Post in evasion of block or ban, remove (and remove replies, if applicable). This did not used to be a hard thing. NE Ent 03:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

As long as you don't edit war to enforce your opinion on something that's been done for years, we'll be fine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:TPO is pretty clear "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." -- that's been policy for years. NE Ent 04:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a different type of striking. This is for a different purpose and accompanied by an explanation. Removal still sends a signal of support to the troll and is very offensive to the rest of us good faith editors. Whose side are you on? Why not just mind your own business? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You also proposed removal rather than striking. Removal of comments which have been replied to creates confusion. We never do that. What is unclear about that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Remove the replies also (see [13]). Have you ever read The Purloined Letter? To hide something, "hide it in plain sight." Consider the paragraph:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."

which phrase stands out the most? The one that's stricken, because it's different. You actually reward the troll when you take the time to apply the strike and make a comment about the trolling. NE Ent 04:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If you're fixated on policy, you should actually read WP:BANREVERT. "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason..." Doesn't actually apply in most socking/trolling situations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason why I chose to strike the comment over reverting it altogether is because other editors had replied. Reverting it would have caused confusion to others reading the comment or the replying editor who would suddenly find their edit in limbo. Furthermore, while I have suspicions as to the original account of the editor whose comments I had struck, I felt that the trail was a bit stale for SPI. However, I do know for sure that this editor has been stalking another editor usually on ANI but the IP editor is not actually subject to a ban, apart from a topic ban, as far as I know. Therefore, my decision was to strike the comments over reverting them.

As for the edits of Wowitmoves that I struck, the motivation behind that was to avoid the risk of other editors replying to their remarks thus derailing the thread, which was obviously the thrust of their edits. I won't edit war over the striking but will stand by my edit. Blackmane (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't understand why this has been blown out of proportion and turned into some form of pop psychology-based 'problem'. There are multiple RfCs and general discussions that have been usurped by socks, meat and evaders of all descriptions. Where the thread has been disrupted and led off-topic, it is useful to be made aware of where it's been derailed by simply striking the evader's comments, but leaving AGF responses in order to allow editors to work through that which is relevant and that which is not. This is of particular significance for uninvolved sysops and experienced editors in evaluating and closing an RfC, RM, AfD, etc. I've yet to encounter such striking as promoting any sense of reward for trolling. In fact, it's quite the antithesis. I think any experienced editors, when striking comments, leaves a comment within the discussion noting that 'user Y' has been identified as a sock of 'puppetmaster X'. How can it be construed to be a rewarding experience for a problem editor who's been banned to see all of their arguments struck through? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a very worthwhile and insightful conversation that should keep going for a long, long time. Also, this is absolutely the correct forum for this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Wot? This isn't the Anal board talk page? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know what started this discussion, but NE Ent's interpretation is the correct one, if we look at history and the traditional interpretation of policy. The only exception has been RFA where sometimes someone will strike a sock vote instead of revert to keep all actions in the open. Striking is reserved for the editor who wrote the text, via "refactoring". You can revert a troll or hat/collapse a troll (sometimes including the replies of others) and these tell the reader that the words are removed. Striking is not removal, it is a method of communication, usually saying "I have changed my mind" or "Never mind" which is why only the original author can do it. Consensus can change of course, but that is what I believe to be the consensus interpretation now, and in the past, certainly has been. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • While this is generally true, I do think there are more exceptions to it than the one you mention (RFA). In general, I find that striking is often useful in contexts of !vote-like procedures (i.e. anything where people prefix their statements with bolded things like "support" or "oppose"). For example, I often see sock/meatpuppet votes struck at AfDs. Striking gives a potential closer or fellow voter the quick information that "this !vote statement should be ignored when assessing consensus", which is quite useful when quickly skimming a discussion for overall quantitative distribution of opinions; at the same time, unlike outright removal, it preserves discussion contexts intact in cases where a sock statement has been responded to by others. In non-!voting environments, I agree that striking as a means of visually marking a contribution as illegitimate is pretty useless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Good examples and I agree with the entire comment. Basically, we strike and leave in place so others may scrutinize our actions, and so it is clear we aren't shutting down minority opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Because Wikipedia is five million articles and numerous noticeboards, et. al., no one of can truly say from personal experience what "community" practice really is at any given point. Given the comments here I've updated WP:TPG to reflect the Afd et. al. practice with discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Sockpuppet_comment_strikes. Sock puppetry and trolling are different types of disruptions with different motivation; as the former attempts to tilt a vote, striking has value; since trolling simply seeks a response, any response, striking is counterproductive troll feeding; the long standing practice of WP:RBI remains the best way to address trolling; if editors feel uncomfortable reverting good faith replies to trolling along with original trolling, I recommend simply ignoring the trolling. NE Ent 15:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree that this is the consensus interpretation now. Striking with a comment is done on all kinds of talk pages and if it's clearly a troll or sock, no one has any issue with it (except for the sock/troll if they're still unblocked). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    • You're saying no one has issue with it, but this discussion makes it clear that some do. As for it being done on some pages, WP:WAX kind of applies. All I can say is what I've observed for the almost 10 years I've been here, and the others can do the same. It part of the instructional guide WP:SOCKHELP that I wrote some time back, that covers the different methods to remove info for socks, but would apply equally for trolls. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Dennis, you wrote "You're saying no one has issue with it." Well, before your comment above, NE Ent was up against a rather clear consensus, based on multiple editors' and admins' experiences. Many of us have seen and used striking for this wider purpose, and always accompanied with an explanation (to avoid confusion). You have been discussing one form of striking, but this discussion is about a different type of striking not addressed in the guidelines. This is for a different purpose and accompanied by an explanation. It works quite well. I have never encountered any objections or confusion before this discussion, and only from one editor. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have never understood striking the comment of another. If it is a problematic statement then just remove it. This goes for personal attacks, block evaders, sock puppets etc. If I think my action needs review I will post a small note with a diff. The only reason I would strike anything is if I wanted to disown something I have said without hiding that I said it. HighInBC 15:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, removing posts often makes replies look confusing or nonsensical. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Then hat that portion of the discussion, with the reason in the header. You can still read it, but it is clear that it can be ignored if chosen. Striking makes it look like the editor themselves had a change of heart, and others are dogpiling on them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And hatting doesn't stand out? And again, this type of striking is accompanied by an explanatory comment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Unlike virtually the entire discussion here, dealing with abstract concepts, let me actually point to a page where a sock's comments were stricken. See Talk:Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre#Sayeret_Matkal. Now, tell me, would the discussion have been understandable if the sock's posts were removed instead of struck? The sock was making some half-valid points. And people were replying to him. Also, he voted in an RfC. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• We aren't talking about concrete rules (there are none anyway), we are talking about best practices, to which there will always be exceptions. As for socks, either we are going to follow WP:RBI and hat the thread, or leave them alone in the rare case it serves Wikipedia best. Striking would be a rare, last option for the reasons above. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that my example isn't typical? For obvious trolling, racism etc. nobody would bat an eyelid if the comment was removed. I would argue that the scope of the policy is precisely for cases such as the one I gave. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm simply saying what my experience is over the last decade, and what policy seems to be saying, and I made sure make it clear that this isn't a concrete rule, it is simply best practice for most situations. If consensus has changed over the years, then maybe an RFC is in order, as policy seems to say "don't refactor" and striking is refactoring. Removing and hatting are not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I am puzzled by your definition of "refactoring". I can't find a formal definition of refactoring anywhere, but the essay WP:REFACTOR which is linked at WP:TPO states: Refactoring is a redrafting process in which talk page content is moved, removed, revised, restructured, hidden, or otherwise changed. I don't see why removing or hatting doesn't count as refactoring, while striking does.

• In a nutshell, the guideline WP:TPO says "Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." and lists the rare exceptions and how to handle those exceptions. If no one has complained, it could be that no one familiar with our guidelines has noticed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• "If no one has complained," it could also mean that this widely-practiced and widely-accepted practice should be included in the WP:TPO. It works fine, prevents confusion, and is much less severe than removal. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• We did that yesterday Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#sockvote. NE Ent 12:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Per WP:EVADE, if removing or reverting content changes to articles is acceptable but not required (i.e., this is a matter of discretion and wp:commonsense), the same (per commonsense) should be applied to talk pages where leaving commentary by socks will encourage REHASH, ADVOCACY, etc. while removing such commentary will misrepresent good faith editors and end up reading as deranged, contextless rants. Striking retains the context, which is surely preferable to misrepresentation. In my books, misrepresentation is by far a greater breach of policy than striking comments and !votes with a note that the commentary was made by a sock. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2015

TruthIsDivine (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Request block for user Gaijin42. He is evading his block from posting in gun control topic articles. has repeatedly been trying to add fraudulent statistics to the "defensive gun use" article, (claiming 33 million defensive gun uses, which is not stated in any reference, and is 33 times as many violent crimes as there are per year in the U.S.) he has previously been blocked from posting in the content area of gun control and is evading his block and he needs an immediate ban.

He's not blocked and you're on the wrong page using the wrong template. Best option is to user the appropriate article talk page to discuss. NE Ent 21:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2015

My Name is Michael Wade. I am an English actor, born in Brighton, England on the 2nd of July, 1946. On Wikipedia there is a Canadian actor of the same name who was born in 1944 and died in 2004. Some of the film work claimed on his CV were actually my work. How do I correct this and create my own page?I have tried three times but it always reverts to the Canadian version. Please can you help. Sincerely, Michael Wade. 200.152.99.92 (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for bringing this problem up. The best way to proceed will be to: (a) take this to the article talk page Talk:Michael Wade rather than here; (b) explain there, on the talkpage, which of the credits apply to you and which to the Canadian person; (c) after you've explained things at the talkpage, please just remove "your" credits from the article and leave the article to refer to the Canadian person, rather than trying to rewrite the whole page so that it refers to you, as you apparently tried to do earlier. Once that's done, we can figure out how to proceed further (i.e. decide whether the Canadian actor, minus the falsely attributed credits, is still notable enough to have an article, or whether a new article should be created for you.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Backlog

Why do we have {{admin backlog}} at the top of the page? It's a noticeboard, not a page with a list of stuff left to complete. Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I also do not think it is needed there.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it. I agree that it doesn't seem best to use it here. Mike V • Talk 18:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Might have been added because of WP:ANRFC which is transcluded at the top, but that page already has it. ansh666 04:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2015

The Wiki page for the Premier of BC, Canada has been vandalized with pornography. I don't know the correct procedure for getting this fixed but it is obscene and disrespectful to the people of Canada. Please fix it immediately, and please take steps to ensure that this does not happen again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christy_Clark

Darryl Gittins (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Darryl Gittins:

What am I missing here? The Christy Clark article seems fine to me (and hasn't been edited since 6 Dec...). What would you like to be removed? Also, it's not currently protected for editing, so there's no reason you can't make changes yourself.

_└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 17:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

There were a number of vandalized templates reported at AN/I. Maybe one of them was transcluded to Christy Clark and the cache hasn't been updated. clpo13_(talk) 17:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Where to request for Admin rights

Hi I am working on Wikipedia Since 2011 and I want Global Admin rights at least admin rights on English Wikipedia, Urdu Wikipedia and Mostly on Sindhi Wikipedia...Thanks.Jogi 007 (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello @Jogi don:. To apply for adminship on the English Wikipedia, you can nominate yourself at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship. I do not know what the process is like on Urdu or Sindhi, but you will need to obtain admin rights on the three language wikis individually. All the best, Reyk _YO! 12:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jogi don: You could also seek feedback on your chances for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll. You have received recent feedback from a respected admin and former Arbitrator Worm That Turned suggesting you are not yet ready, so seeking other opinions before launching an RfA would be wise. EdChem (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Archiving of AN and ANI

Editors have chosen to manually archive WP:AN and WP:ANI usually with OneClickArchiver. I reverted the archiving of 28 sections at ANI (a total of 282,974 bytes) because it seemed premature. The diff of my revert shows the text being restored—that text contains many comments dated 17 December 2015. What happened to the bot that used to archive? The bot also fixed links so a link to an archived section was updated. If manual archiving is desirable, is there guidance about how much time should elapse after the most recent comment? We don't need a bunch of rules, but the top of the page declares "Sections older than 36 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III" and that seems about right. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I was the one who performed the said archiving. It was mainly of sections where a user was blocked etc, so I considered it to be wasting space. But mea culpa seems to be in order I presume. I would However appreciate that ANI is added to the list of pages not to be manually archived and a notice is placed on the top asking editors to archive only if the bot fails to do so. Just so that others do not make the same mistake. Ty. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• AN is not currently archived by a bot. That is a problem. I've just manually archived a bunch of older threads. I don't use OCA (though I'm starting to thing I should). What happened to the archival bot? Also, AN/I has a lot faster turnaround and simpler problems, so archiving a resolved thread seems totally fine by me even if only a few hours old. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • It's great to quickly remove sections from new contributors who are clearly WP:NOTHERE, but those of us following ANI may want to see the follow-up to a section started yesterday (regarding, say, an established editor), so why make us hunt around in archives? I'm interested in certain kinds of problems such as spam, so I would want to see a report of a current flare up even if the immediate problem was quickly resolved. It is hard to say whether there is a problem with the bot—perhaps if people would stop doing manual archives the bot would work fine. The bot does a great job of fixing links to archived sections—I noticed this example in my sandbox. Rather than manually archiving, I would encourage closing sections so we can see whether the bot works. Perhaps a procedural close should be undated so the bot doesn't wait an additional period? I don't want to make a fuss about it, but I noticed that a section with allegations about a particular editor was manually archived by that editor with an edit summary claiming that some other section had been archived. That kind of problem, plus issues from the human tendency to be the first to archive a section, seems unnecessary. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

But ANI gets massive and if 75% of it is hatted sections which do not require any further action then we're wasting time. ANI is supposed to be the quick decision and action page. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Archiving 24 hours after closing would be fine. For simple cases, archiving 24 hours after opening would be fine. For extreme NOTHERE or trolling, immediate archiving or removal would be fine. However, other cases should be left on the page for at least 24 hours so others can see what is going on. At any rate, I hope we agree that the archive that I reverted (see OP above) was excessive. Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I've generally done some archiving using OCA myself. I generally adopt a policy of about 2 days before I archive unless it's a very cut and dried thread and the page is looking bloated. I have been noticing that threads have stayed open on ANI for quite some time after being closed. I archived a bunch a few days ago which were already into 2 days aging. Blackmane (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Page not in English

I was wondering through Wikipedia during this Christmas Eve Eve, and found that Szczawin Kościelny, Łódź Voivodeship was not in English. As I do not really contribute here, I think something should be done about it. Thanks. --Xenorhynchium (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I added a request for translation template and listed it on the requests page. It's a short article; I'm sure a Polish speaker can translate it quickly. freshacconci talk to me 18:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --Xenorhynchium (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Year of birth uncertain

The category should be displaying on the talk page but does not. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean to post this here? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2015

Could someone's please have a look at the talk:Martin mcguiness page, I have provided evdiance that the 'monarch' field is not appropriate however users are simply ignoring my argumentsOuime23 (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Ouime23 (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Added--Ymblanter (talk) 11:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is this page S-protected?

That's right - censor out anything a newbie might have to say, and retain your horrid admin clique setup. Unimpressed by begging (talk) 08:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

It was protected due to trouble from 77.97.248.60. If you would like to say something on the noticeboard today, you can state what you would like added here. Otherwise wait for 8 hours and it will be editable by new people and IPs again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a more experienced user, he/she are unhappy about the ads that appear on every page unless you are logged in. SQL^{Query me!} 07:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion and help with delete/redirect

Request received to merge articles: Wallatiri and Guallatiri, Chile; dated December 2014; Discussion >>>Here<<<. Can someone look this over? Is the Guallatiri disambiguation article even needed? Thanks in advance, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Wallatiri (disambiguation) is probably needed, for now, seeing as there are several articles named "Wallatiri". I've requested G6 deletion of Guallatiri so that Wallatiri can be moved there per my note regarding histories in the discussion; Guallatiri, Chile can be redirected then.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I've done everything required. Please let me know if there are any problems. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2015

Stupid user:2602:304:CDC0:D470:350D:DF14:1321:6BCB thinks I "don't have the right" to remove his vandalism from my talk page even though the rule is that we DO have the right to remove that crap from our pages! Please block this loser! 174.23.172.2 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC) 174.23.172.2 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Any admin looking at that will be tempted to block you for personal attacks. I suggest you politely direct them to WP:BLANKING. No, I'll do it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I was being uncivil with him because he was already being uncivil with me first. 174.23.172.2 (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No action will be needed by administrators. We were able to civilly resolve the issue. I apologize for the frustrations I caused to this user, as well as administrators. 2602:304:CDC0:D470:350D:DF14:1321:6BCB (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to the both of you, and merry New Year!

174.23.172.2 (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC), a.k.a. Mike

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2015

I am harassed and wikihounded by user:Munck. Please do something to it.188.67.7.217 (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

188.67.7.217 (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done We don't have enough information to identify either you, the harassment, or the user whose name you have misspelled. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2015

I dont have an wikipedia account, I would like to anonymously request check on vandalsim, disputes, and nominate certain articles for content addition.

61.1.201.29 (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: You can do that right now without registering. Just follow normal procedures for all of those things. Cannolis (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2015

Please add the following observation to the end of "Trolling again from Hengistmate":

I seem to have unwittingly blundered into this content dispute having made (what I believed to be) a legitimate revert. Judging from the discussion currently taking place at Talk:Plasticine#Spelling of Fuse there does appear to be a valid and proper discussion over the spelling of fuse/fuze. Without commenting here on who is right or who is wrong, on the basis that there is an ongoing discussion, I would suggest that this ANI be closed as no further action.

86.145.215.191 (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Done —^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2016

Further to my edit request above (request of 31 Dec), please strike my comment as I have changed my view. It is clear from the protracted discussion at Talk:Plasticine, that Hengistmate must be trolling to continue pushing over such a trivial issue. 86.145.215.191 (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Striking applied. I assume that your justification is not text you want to add there though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

SchroCat

content dispute

I hereby request your assistance in a conduct dispute. What follows is a discussion on the Skyfall talk page, to be found in Skyfall:Talk Archive 8. As you can see, SchroCat knows of various guidelines, but applies them to content disputes where they are not, in fact, relevant. Also, he never really provides any reason for his abject refusal to apply the duck test to some of the concepts involved in Skyfall. Instead, he simply says things like "no" or "not even close". I could make many other criticisms of his conduct in the archived discussion, but the main complaints are to be found in the archived discussion itself. Eventually, I abandoned the dispute because my contribution would have resulted in an overlong plot summary. If SchroCat had simply told me this one factor - the limit on plot summary length - then the content dispute would have been resolved much faster and without his absurd claims. I have seen many examples of SchroCat's conduct, and on his userpage and on countless occasions on other locations, he is condemning, or being condemned by, other Wikipedians. Like any other lie by omission, his userpage condemnation of Wikipedia contains some truth, but his conduct has some elements of the very things he himself condemns, and Wikipedia can sometimes be an extremely valuable resource. While he is hardworking, I am not sure if his hard work is on the whole improving the content of Wikipedia. To some degree he has become hypocritical.110.55.1.97 (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC) What is unencyclopedia nonsense? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skyfall&diff=656762352&oldid=656749891 I wrote this, and someone called it unencyclopedic nonsense, and told me that I am way short of the required standards here. Can someone tell me exactly what he's talking about? 110.55.0.3 (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC) I suggest you read WP:FILMPLOT, how to write a plot summary and copyediting essentials. This, for example, is nonsense: "The story is about workplace violence in retaliation to M's toxic leadership inside MI6, portrayed in the story as a British crime firm, and in the process, consummates the transformation begun by Licence to Kill and GoldenEye, of the franchise from a campy, corny, affectionately self-parodic bedroom farce to a smooth, stylish, muted, bleak, solemn self satire." It is riddled with inaccuracies, is utterly misleading, contains mostly information that is unconnected to the plot, and is more to do with your personal opinion than anything else. You may wish to try your hand editing here instead. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Add WP:EDITORIALIZING to the list too. Betty Logan (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Oh, I see. Let me see if I understand what you're saying. According to you, workplace violence with co-conspirators and unlimited resources isn't workplace violence, toxic leadership with unlimited resources isn't toxic leadership, and portraying an organization as at war against a former employee that the boss betrayed isn't portraying it as a crime firm. A brightly colored movie in which a lesbian has sex with a man claiming she'd never met a man before in a franchise in which the protagonist has lots of sex for no reason isn't a bedroom farce. The Bond villain's fake island dragon vehicle and his ill-advised plots for world domination are to be taken seriously. Craig-era Bond is considered the bleakest Bond ever, and Craig's Bond spends all of Quantum of Solace in some personal matter and storms an embassy, and spends all of Skyfall barely passing the entrance exam, M is in danger of losing her job, and Bond is fighting his former coworker the entire time. A condemnation of spy work at M's hearing is a microcosm of the movie, which is itself a condemnation of spy work, but none of that is self-satirical. So yeah, there are so many factual inaccuracies that I'd mistaken Disney's Elsa for Bond. As for being unconnected to the plot, workplace violence and toxic leadership have nothing to do with Skyfall. Something that walks like a duck, looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and flies like a duck isn't a duck when it's a huge duck with unlimited resources, duck minions (which aren't ducks either), and when it's in an A-movie. Does that sum up what you're trying to say, or am I just using a straw-man argument? If I were neither party in this debate, but a spectator instead, I'd say I'd have to look at the debate to see if it's a straw-man argument. People sometimes use straw-man arguments. If I'm using a straw-man argument, then you should probably tell me what, exactly, about my edit that is inaccurate, misleading, irrelevant, or subjective. 110.55.1.247 (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC) I will point you back to WP:FILMPLOT, how to write a plot summary and copyediting essentials and strongly suggest you read through those guides, which will answer your point. Nothing that you have written is sufficiently encyclopaedic to go into a plot summary of the film. A film plot on Wikipedia is a basic description of the events of a film's plot, not anything like you've written. Our articles aim to be neutrally written, your text is not. They should not contain original research of editorialise, and yours does. - SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Firstly, I hereby apologize for misspelling "unencyclopedic". Now let's get down to it: WP:FILMPLOT defeats what Jackfork was saying earlier and what you are saying now: that I need a source. "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." Original research is prohibited; the quoted sentence permits something. Something that is permitted is not original research. Therefore, the conduct thus permitted is not original research. There is no original research or editorializing in my contribution, and NPOV is a notoriously controversial, all-purpose accusation. You've claimed that nothing that I have written is sufficiently encyclopaedic to go into a plot summary of the film, but nothing you've written nor, contrary to your "pointing", anything in those guides is specific enough to answer my point. Instead, what you write is generic enough to be a reply to just about anything; you seem to be aware that you are debating a contribution to a film plot summary in a Wikipedia article, hence references to WP:FILMPLOT, and since we are debating something on Wikipedia, you reference WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The most attentive thing you've done is refer to WP:EDITORIALISING, but you have not identified even one "notably", "interestingly", "it should be noted", "fundamentally", "essentially", "basically", "actually", "clearly", "obviously", "naturally", "of course", or "fortunate", all of which are evidence of editorializing. You are making many generic, all-purpose, unevidenced criticisms that so not demonstrate comprehension of this debate. On your user page, you write uncivil things about your peers. Unlike you, I have some respect for my fellow Wikipedians, so I would ask if you would like to be called "sir" or "ma'am", but you seem to be a collective group, so would you like to be called "gentlemen", "ladies", or "ladies and gentlemen"? You respond proficiently to an entire group of situations generically without demonstrating alertness to its details; you seem to be a team of multiple people whose communication with each other is inadequate, mass-manufacturing your comments. 110.55.1.247 (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC) I have not said you need a source for the film plot. What you do need is to write it neutrally, and not put your personal opinions in there, as you have done above. workplace violence? No. toxic leadership? No. British crime firm? No. A connection with Licence to Kill and Goldeneye? Not in this plot. "campy, corny, affectionately self-parodic bedroom farce"? Not even close. Go back to the guidelines that have been pointed out to you and read them, because it's pointless trying to have a discussion unless you do. - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC) This isn't the right venue for this conversation - it's a content dispute and not something needing admin tools. But seeing as we're here: the key part of FILMPLOT is the bit that draws from the policy on primary sources - "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." A film plot should only describe what happens in the film, not whether what happens could be interpreted as bleak, or a bedroom farce, or evidence of a theme based around workplace violence. These interpretations, if they are correct, need to referenced to secondary sources like reviews or interviews with the writers or producers. I appreciate that makes a film plot a little dull - essentially this happened, then that happened. But that's the nature of articles on films - the interpretation has to be by third parties and not by what may seem to be a WP editorial assessment of the film. Essentially this is a paraphrasing of what SchroCat has already written above. We can't include interpretations of the film content in the film plot section. We would need reliable secondary sources that describe the film as "bleak" or a link between other films, or a bedroom farce or about toxic leadership etc, because while these may all be true, they aren't a simple plot summary in WP terms. -- Euryalus (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Shouldn't this be moved to the actual noticeboard? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else

Getting the odd error in that when I click 'edit section' it is taking me to edit the section above, rather than the one I want to edit? Or is it just me.... Never seen that before. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That can happen when the number of sections on a page changes, like if a section above the one you want to edit is added or removed, which usually happens when one is archived, between the time you load a page and the time you click "edit section". It happens because the "edit section" link leads to the nth section of a page, rather than to the exact section itself. That is, if there are 10 sections, and you want to edit the last one, the link has the effect of opening an edit window for "section 10" on that page. If someone creates an "arbitrary break" subsection in one of the discussions, then the one you want to edit becomes "section 11". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That will sometimes happen if someone archives some sections while you are reading and before you click the edit link. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Just sayin'

One anagram of Noticeboard/Incidents is Conceited on rabid snit. EEng 00:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

And Administrators' noticeboard --> Bastards merit co-ordination . Optimist on the run (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Incidents is also No conceited rabid snit too isn't it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Deletion or Translation

Not sure if this the place to ask. But we need a translation to english, the content of Anton Sandner, or an immediate deletion. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I tagged it as needing translation and listed it at the appropriate page. According to the speedy deletion policy, though, "coherent non-english content" is eligible for WP:CSD#G1. Nevermind, it doesn't... Missed a "not" in the sentence. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

RD swap.

Can an admin manually swap the "TVOS" rd. So that "TVOS" is the main article page, and TvOS is the redirect (per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_131#Talk:tvOS the previous change attempt was uncontested with any other editors). Thanks in advance. Jimthing (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

But there was also no consensus at the previous case, and the closer indicated what next steps should have been made.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The original submitter there failed to move it to "tvOS" and failed to respond back, hence "The editors did not respond within 48 hours." closing admins comment and no page move. Thus it's defaulted to cap first letter "TvOS", instead of following the WP guidelines mentioned by me both on the DRN board AND the article talk page on exactly why "TVOS" is used. Hence the actual page needs to be set to that. It's not my fault the original newbie editor didn't choose to argue against the current WP guidelines, so all I'm doing is straightening the page landing for now, and if someone wants to then make a new case, so be it. Thanks again. Jimthing (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Can't edit to respond

The latest Incident involves me from User:Ylevental and he is wrong about me being this Krazy Klimber (what a name). I know however where he's going otherwise and that I admit to. He's trouble with a capital T and is creating a reputation for himself as a troublemaker within the Autistic community. I am quite entitled to pull him up on it, particularly this COI issue which is valid against him because he is not an editor. He is a promoter, of Mitchell. He needs to be neutral and he hasn't been - ignoring totally the serious flaws that require verification (ie who calls him controversial?) and have to be included once a reliable source is found to show that not only is he controversial, he is disrespected to a very high level by many within the Autistic community. Ylevental needs to stop his promotion of Mitchell as Mitchell is not representative of the majority of the Autistic community as he seems to think that he should. He represents a by gone era that ended a generation ago and won't move on from it. Feel free to add to the ANI. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@203.17.215.22: You are making personal off-site accusations about me and that is against Wikipedia policy. On Wikipedia, I have never attempted to represent Mitchell as the majority of the Autistic community. Ylevental (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes you have. It's all over your article through it's lack of neutrality. You are putting him over as it's best representative. That is your intent. You don't want the negative stuff on the article, apart from what was said on Newsweek at least which you can't avoid. But you also know that there is a lot more than that and you won't allow it. Others need to deal with this. As far as your accusation of an account goes, I looked and Krazy Klimber claimed that he's not notable. That was never my claim. I was never happy with Newsweek giving him ink and that by itself gave him notability. My issue is and always has been with this article the lack of neutrality and your COI to which you have confessed to (baited by Krazy Klimber or not and you were and Krazy Klimber was raked for that and rightly so). Jytdog told you to stop editing the article and that should be that while others seek the neutrality required. 203.17.215.26 (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2016

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Requesting to block or warn 2602:306:3357:BA0:24AB:4AA8:161:17E4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for this vandalism. And requesting to unblock 85.178.53.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that has been blocked for 10 years now for the wrong reason, it is no open proxy, just a dynamic IP (maybe/probably it was different in 2006). I'm doing this logged out to show you that I am on the same telephone provider (O2 / telefonica.de, Berlin, Germany), those IPs are not open proxies. Thank you -- 85.179.81.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 16:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Copied to WP:AN

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page size

AN/I is so large that my browser cannot load it properly, and I cannot edit it. James500 (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you post what you want to post as an edit request on the talk page, or here? Be sure to explain that the page is too large for you to edit, otherwise someone will just tell you that the page is unprotected and you should edit it yourself. As for the page size, there are a number of users and bots who are pretty efficient at archiving stale threads to keep the size down, but unfortunately there are a lot of active discussions at the moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have started manually archiving sections which have been resolved, so that reduces around 100K of the size. I do it every alternate day. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Article-Stats

Hey there - Me again. It appears as if Henriks Stats-page is down since January 20th. Would a competent member please kick-start the engine? People are getting puzzled by reality not complying with their expectations. Yotwen (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This really isn't a problem that can be addressed by admins. However, this has already been discussed in many many places. But I guess it hasn't been talked about enough. Henrik has (seemingly) left Wikipedia. As part of the m:2015 Community Wishlist Survey the WMF is going to take over page view statistics. They already have a demo set up, it is working, and up-to-date. It can also be used to compare different article views with each other. See https://analytics.wmflabs.org/demo/pageview-api/ for the demo. --Majora (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Despite this being the wrong page, it yielded the correct answer. Thank you, very much. I'll try to communicate this to the others searching for an answer. Yotwen (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANRFC transclusion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I boldly removed ANRFC, and got reverted - so talk time! I propose we STOP transcluding WP:ANRFC to this page. There are plenty of places to check on the backlogs, including that dedicated noticeboard. I think this clutters up this page too much, and makes it hard to read, especially from mobile browsers. I would be in favor of some sort of "status box" (perhaps bot maintained) on WP:AN to make it easy to see the backlog. Ping to Lugnuts, who encouraged more discussion here. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• The alt. solution is for some admins to help out with tackling said backlog and this becomes a non-issue. Is there an admin around here who could help with that? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• I agree. That list is too long for transclusion on this noticeboard. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Offtopic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the time it has taken both of you to post here, you could have closed at least one of the outstanding CfDs. And here lies the problem. Plenty of admins around, but virtually none of them are helping out. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC) I literally laughed out loud when I read MSGJ's WP:RFA on their first reply to the first question: "Q What administrative work do you intend to take part in? A I would aim to help with any administrative tasks where help is needed or where backlogs occur". You could not make that up. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Ad hominem is not a good tactic to use to convince others that your point is a good one. --Izno (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Pointing out what someone said they would do to get an adminship is not an ad hominem. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC) In the context of discussing whether we should continue to transclude a page entirely separate from that discussion is. --Izno (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Well, it isn't. I see you want to be an admin one day (can't wait to see your RfA, BTW). Can you tell the community how many of the 50+ CfDs currently listed here, how many have you looked at in the last 24hrs? You don't have to have closed them, as some of them need admins to that. Obviously. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC) I have helped with the backlog before, yes, and you'll see the consequent edits in the page history of WP:ANRFC. You might want to be reminded that we're all volunteers. I recognize and have previous recognized and will continue to recognize your effort on ANRFC, but your response here is disruptive in your attempts at ad hominem. As I have already stated, I agree with the first editor that the ANRFC's continued transclusion on WP:AN is also disruptive. I'll decline to reply further to you. --Izno (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC) That's fine as you've been found to have done nothing to help resolve the issue. I guess it's easier to do that than help. You'll make a fine admin one day. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Lugnuts, you have no right to question or impugn what someone chooses to do with their volunteer time on this project. I too wrote that I would help with backlogs in my RfA. Since then, my available time to contribute unpaid work to the project has fallen off rapidly and I am not able to do much to help with backlogs. People come and go and do whatever they please here. This line of argument is distracting from the question at hand. –xenotalk 19:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Sorry, but you're wrong - I do have that right, esp. as that was the very first thing he responded with when asked why he wants to be an admin. That's one of the key points the community voted on to put them in that role. I agree, we all volunteer, but it seems at odds to the RfA to say they're going to do something then try to hide the very problem they said they'd help with, rather than addressing that problem. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC) That RfA was 7 years ago! Not everything stays the same, including the frequency and nature of the free work people donate to this project. –xenotalk 20:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Seeing as you have some free time right now, please can you help with the backlog in your admin capacity? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC) @Xeno: - Seeing as you have some free time right now, please can you help with the backlog in your admin capacity? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC) You don't dictate what I do with my free time, and although I don't owe you an answer as to why I'm not closing any of the outstanding RFCs: I simply don't have time right at this moment to make well-informed and well-reasoned closures at present. I did have a quick moment to reply to what I felt was wildly inappropriate demands made from one volunteer to others. Now, please stop with this ridiculous line of argument and inappropriate haranguing of other volunteers. –xenotalk 20:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Thank you - I was just asking the question seeing as you're hear right now. It's not a demand or inappropriate to ask an admin who is actually involved with a current discussion to ask them for help in the matter in hand. Thanks again. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC) It takes a lot less time and effort to fire off quick reply to an inappropriate demand than it is to actually dig in, review a lengthy discussion and make a defensible close. Now, since you're so concerned about administrative backlog, perhaps you want to throw your hat in the ring? –xenotalk 21:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC) That's your solution? Haha. Yeah, I will, once you've helped out to close some of them. Say the first 10. Now off you go. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Yes. Put your money where your mouth is and go apply for adminship. Now. (Looks like I'm getting the hang of making wildly unreasonable demands on other volunteers!) –xenotalk 12:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Have you done your 10 closures? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• I agree also. --Izno (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  Lets get an RfC going. And then point out the irony when it's still open 60 days from now and listed at ANRFC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  That would be putting the cart before the horse, also not an advisable argument strategy. --Izno (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  I like linking to things too instead of helping out. Do I get a fiver? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  You've made your point Lugnuts. And before you say it no, I couldn't have closed a discussion in the time it took me to write this reply. Sam Walton (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks Sam. You're another one who complains about the backlog, has the power to address said backlog, but so far as done nothing to help. Why is that? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  Why don't you comment at these discussions? That would helpful as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• There have been dozens of previous discussions. I still maintain that my proposal was a good idea when it comes to saving space: we could transcluse ANRFC under a collapse and/or with fakeheaders to clean-up the TOC. It would fulfill both goals of minimizing clutter and maximizing visibility. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  ANRFC is archived, so fake headers is out; collapsing doesn't fix the TOC, which I suspect is one of the reasons to do this. --Izno (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'll support an RFC but I think it should stay. I think it's dumb to have all the individual CFD listings there to me. That's already been expressed at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#CfD though, that's eating up a lot of the page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  I have removed 50 links to CfD discussions. We can continue to discuss the remainder. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  That helps, though copying this is still 1/3 of the page. Why do we need the same content on BOTH noticeboards? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to Ricky for helping out. I've reverted the removal of the CfDs, as this is still ongoing and we're looking for a consensus. Again, easy to hide the problem, rather than help out. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Lugnuts is now edit warring on WP:ANRFC to keep 53 CfD discussions listed. Consensus here is fairly clear and I've warned him on his talk page against disruptive behaviour generally. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Martin - I was restoring the status quo until a consensus is reached. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

And around and around we go, waiting for some more input here - there are always going to be backlogs, and yes they should be tracked and have a way for willing volunteers to work on them - that being said, making duplicate WP:ADMINBACKLOG has lots of things that can be worked on - double listing them all on this page takes away from the other coordination that should be occuring here. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there will always be backlogs, but it's only recently this one has grown to the levels we have now. Has there been a drop-off of admins who are around in the last 2 months? Yesterday, a CfD discussion from 7th December was still open, despite it being brought to the attention of this forum for some time. I'm only listing things that are more than 1 month old, hoping that most of the current open discussions from 24 January onwards will not need to be listed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

There's backlogs at AFD, TFD, CFD and MFD all approaching a month on all grounds. There's literally no reason that CFD should be so prominent. CFD is miserable because it's functionally impossible to Relist a discussion when you can't see a consensus. MFD is having a stupid fight about that and one reason admin's hate doing any of this is you just get shit on no matter what you do. The fact that even Relisting discussions gets me reverted and ranting as me for being a terrible person for doing that with no warning even is another reason why no admin cares about this stuff at all. Make it less of a stupid chore and you'll have admins dealing with these things. And listing every single CFD discussion is just doing more to annoy people not encouraging. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no AfD backlog (at least not more than one day), it has never been longer than a day for quite some time already.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Corrected. Either way, individual listings of backlogs aren't helpful to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks anway, Ricky. I guess it's easier for most admins to sweep things under the carpet, rather than tackle the issue. Hats off to them! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• So aside from Lugnuts is there anyone else that finds this useful as-is? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well it prevents my mouse scroll-wheel from getting gummed up... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Only Xeno and Walton. Still, you can't beat democracy. Blimey, that Requests for comment listing is getting rather long. Best get someone to look at that. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Based on this thread, looks like we've made a few adjustments - I've tweaked the RFCoRFC's section as well - but we have left a prominent notice at the top of WP:AN with counts and dates to drive anyone who is willing to work on closures to those pages - hopefully this works for most? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Lugnuts and Ricky81682 here, and JzG, Hobit, and Jc37 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive270#Should requests for closure continue to be transcluded on this board? that we continue to transclude WP:ANRFC on WP:AN.

  WP:ANRFC should be fully visible on the highly trafficked WP:AN. A partial transclusion makes editors and admins viewing WP:AN less likely to see requested closures they may be interested in closing.

  I think it is fine for Lugnuts to list 50 CfD discussions at WP:ANRFC to draw attention to the CfD backlog. I understand Ricky81682's concerns that it is a chore to update both WP:ANRFC and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure. However, closing admins do not have to update WP:ANRFC because Lugnuts updates closed discussions while he adds new ones. It is a net positive to post 50 CfD discussions at WP:ANRFC, which through its transclusion to the highly trafficked WP:AN, will draw far more admin attention to CfD's significant backlog than an easily overlooked note that there is a backlog.

  Cunard (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a net negative and it puts the CFD backlog way above the other backlogs. I have yet to see any indication that other admins want to touch the CFD backlog because someone has listed every single one separately. Most of the discussions have barely two or three comments so I personally would be happier if the people here spending time reverting to update and coordinate the backlog list just actually make an opinion on one or two of these discussion. You want admins to close these things? Get a good solid discussion there rather than a 50/50 of like 4 people where there's a guarantee of an argument after the fact. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that listing large groups of discussions like this actually attracts more admins to work on the backlog? The list gives me the MEGO effect. When large backlogs like this build up, it looks more like a procedural issue than a simple lack of attention. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Lugnuts will be better able to answer than I, but if the backlog has decreased since Lugnuts started listing these discussions, then it strongly indicates that his listing the discussions here is helpful. Ricky81682, thank you for your hard work closing CfDs.

I've participated in five of the oldest CfD discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Cunard (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that needs to be compared to a control group first, since the backlog would presumably have decreased naturally without listing here. The question is whether the rate of closure was different compared to what it would have been otherwise. How many discussions were closed since listing here, and how does it compare to the number that were closed over the same length of time before that? Sunrise (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Cunard. The backlog issue has been listed on AN/ANI many times before, with little or no action taking place. A user will say there's a backlog. The backlog thread will stay a few days on the main AN page and a few days later, it's put into the archive as no-one replies to it or takes any action on the backlog. So what was the alternative? To start listing the oldest remaining CfDs on the request for closure noticeboard. I didn't just add anything that was 7 days past its end date, I started at the very oldest (one nearly 3 months old) and worked back, stopping at anything that was less than a month old. Does this work? Hard to say, but I think it does. Not only did I list every single outstanding closure, but I checked each and every morning for the ones I'd previously listed. And you know what? A fair chunk of them had been looked at and closed. I guarantee that they would not have been closed if they had not have been listed for closure individually. I even closed one myself (one about the Troubles in Northern Ireland - a touchy subject to say the least). I think the peak list length was about 60 discussions. It's now at around 45 or so. I do understand that we all volunteer our time (thanks Lugnuts for volunteering your time each day to check all the CfDs. Why, don't mention it!), but I don't understand that with 1,000+ admins that this gotten into this state over the last 3 months. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Remove transclusion if it can't be trimmed to a reasonable size. There is no need for individual CfDs to get this kind of prominent treatment. If you think there is too much of a backlog, please go to WP:RFA and nominate yourself or others until there is no longer a backlog. —Kusma (t·c) 12:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm waiting for you and Xeno to do a joint nomination of my good self, which no doubt will have the support of MSGJ, Xaosflux and Walton. But I can see you're very busy from your recent contributions to do that. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• So now we are back to having a huge page that is a copy of another page - providing notice that backlogs exist on some sort of page - sounds fine to me as an administrator, there is no benefit to copying the entire page. There are some administrators that for example will never work a CFD, just as there are some that will never work RFPI, CAT:UAA, etc - they focus in the areas they are both willing and comfortable to work on. Point is there is a place to track this work, and that place is not here. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Who are the admins that are both willing and comfortable to work on this backlog? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• There's got to be a better way: The status quo just doesn't work. The TOC and page itself is far too long for anybody using a non-high-res monitor, tablet or mobile device to scroll through useably. Moreover, if we look at this from a user experience perspective, I strongly suspect we'd find that most users either jump straight to the bottom of the page and read up, or don't scroll past the TOC. When you put a large poster on a bulletin board that people use for other things, that large poster rapidly blends into the background, and people ignore it. I strongly suspect that's happening here, and as such, argue that the status quo is self-defeating. Look, if we want to notify admins that there's an admin backlog on certain pages or noticeboards, a better answer is to just list those pages semi-prominently... or set up a selective/opt-in watchlist notice (similar to WP:GEONOTICE) that puts a notice on admins' watchlists when certain backlogs exist: admins who are interested in CfDs can get notified of a backlog there, admins who are interested in UAA can get notified if there's a backlog there, etc. What we have here just isn't functional. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Until this gets decided, I did shrink the Table of Contents depth, and am all for calling out long back logs as "go HERE for backlog X". — xaosflux ^Talk 15:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely, by Gawd, NO! I wish I'd seen this thread earlier. The problem isn't ANRFC. There are basically two problems. The first is that Admins as a class have allowed ANRFC to be hijacked by one or two non-Admins who are spamming it with a lot of junk, which is hiding the content that should necessarily be there – Admins need to rein in ANRFC. The second problem is that the Admin corps is dwindling, something that really seems to be accelerating lately (it seems to be a combination of many long-term Admins disappearing, almost no former Admins resysopping anymore (there have been none at all so far this year...), and some recent passes at RfA getting burned out (or distracted by life) very quickly which means even the some of the no0bs that we've been counting on haven't helped as much as hoped. Bottom line: backlogs seem to be getting worse, quickly. (I've been shocked to see what's going on a WP:RM lately...) But the second problem goes far beyond ANRFC (heck, it even goes far beyond RfA...), and isn't going to be solved here... But the first problem can be. If necessary, hold an official RfC on what is properly germane to be included at ANRFC, and let's rein the ANRFC over-spammers in... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The goddamn Germans got nothi'n to do wit it! Sorry, I've waiting a long time to use that, hehe. OK, looks like the TOC collapse (I think that's what happened) has worked. We can all see the list, but the TOC doesn't mess-up the screen. I also apologise for any earlier blunt comments, that's just how I am. Feel free to create the shortcut WP:CUNT and put it on my userpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

In what way has it "worked"? There's no edit warring on it? I'm honestly trying to figure out your definition of progress here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

We have now had comments from 16 editors either here or at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#CfD.

• Remove: Xaosflux, Izno, MSGJ, Opabinia regalis, Kusma, Mendaliv, IJBall, Sam Walton, Only in death
• Keep but collapse: Salvidrim!, Ricky81682
• Keep but "reform": IJBall
• Keep as-is: Lugnuts, Cunard
• No stated opinion: Xeno, Ymblanter, Sunrise

Apologies if this has over-simplified your position, but I think consensus is fairly clear at this point. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

If it helps, my stated opinion is that it serves no purpose other than to unneccessarily prolong how long it takes to get to the useful stuff so it should be removed. So I have moved my username above to the relevant section. If people want to deal with it, they know where it is. If they dont, it doesnt matter how much you wave it in their faces they are not going to swallow it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Note, although I think it should be removed, I think keeping "backlogs" TOC item on AN is useful, but keep it simple, just a list of (area of concern)(# items)(oldest). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: & @Xaosflux:, pardon me as an editor who did not participate in this discussion, but I think that tally is oversimplified. The consensus I see is to remove transclusion only if the list cannot be trimmed in some way to a reasonable size (which does not disrupt the contents page). The questions of whether it can be trimmed, and what is the best way of doing so, is what is outstanding. I don't see a consensus to just remove, which is what I understand from the tally. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree, this is not coming to a conclusion on how to manage the ANRFC page - only what belong on this page. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm "correcting" my vote above, because it's been misinterpreted. To be clear, I do not think ANRFC should be removed from WP:AN. What I want is for Admins to rein it in and remove a lot of the "junk" entries that don't belong there so it can become a useful resource for Admins (and non-Admins alike) again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kusma: @Mendaliv: @Only in death: @Opabinia regalis: @Ricky81682: @Sam Walton: - I don't know if I have misread, but are you in the "remove" or "keep but reform" or another category in MSGJ's tally above? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I would call myself "remove" because I don't see reforms as alleviating the problems I pointed out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not in the remove camp for ANRFC transclusion, but I do support removing CfD from ANRFC. Sam Walton (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• No, I'm a support keeping ANRFC on the AN page but removing the specific CFD listings (a generalized "there is a backlog" listing is fine with me). I don't want it collapsed, I want them gone. We do not list the individual listings for backlogs at other discussion sections and I do not treat the TOC exploding alone as a problem but the AN page itself. Again, using myself as the example of the last admin to actually tackle these CFD listings, the individual listings don't make me want to touch and in fact discourage me from bothering. I'd rather go to TFD or MFD than CFD if it's just going to be a bunch of non-admins who spend all their time writing and re-writing the listings rather than actually comment on the discussions or NAC some of them. Why not propose a change to CFD like TFD to allow for non-admins to close and G6 the actual deletions? That would actually solve a problem rather than create more make-work. --- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
• I'm indifferent between "remove entirely" and "remove specific listings and just use it as a general backlog log". As for CfD's backlog in particular, I'm not at all familiar with the procedures there but was going to suggest the same thing Ricky did - restructure the procedures to facilitate NAC closures of obvious deletes. If there isn't already a separate automated log of old discussions, like WP:TFD/O, that would also be useful. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
• Remove. I totally agree with Opabinia regalis (higher up rather than immediately above) about the MEGO effect of these huge listings. At the top of the page, too. It's been reducing the "normal" AN to a puny appendage. Bishonen | talk 23:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC).
  • Ah, yes, MEGO is the expression I was looking for. There's just too much all at once. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
• Any uninvolved party want to determine a consensus here? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • As this is not an RfC, I think that is a bit too ambitious - and it's probably better to have an RfC for changes on the scale I think you are proposing given it was transcluded this way for 4.5 years or so. But I think there is no doubt that there is a clear local consensus to remove individual CFD listings. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I started this section to request comments - and it did! My primary concern was the large expansion of the page due to all those individual CFD listings, both on the page and in the TOC. Barring any new developments, I plan to remove them in to a single line that CFD has a backlog, the size of the backlog, and the oldest date. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
      • In the circumstances, that is an appropriate response to bring this to a close. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
      • A link to the list of backlogged items seems appropriate also, which I presume exists. --Izno (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
        • See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Backlogs it is the first item. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
• Remove... it's a mess that serves no effective purpose. If somebody wanted to see the list, it won't kill them to go to it directly instead of going to AN. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• Remove. If after a month it's clear that nothing is being done at all, then put it back. But that won't be the case.  — Scott • talk 13:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• Proposer noted below that individual CFD listings have been removed per clear consensus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I've moved Ncmvocalist's close to here and re-opened the discussion as while it's true CfD listings have been removed, this discussion is also - and arguably primarily - discussing transclusion of ANRFC, not the CfD listings, and that discussion is ongoing. Sam Walton (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I've added an RfC tag so no argument is made in future that not enough members of the community had an opportunity to comment on this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• Remove. Fails the "Are you in the right place?" test - there's even an item for it there already. If I'm looking for a backlog to clear (and the ones I usually deal with are already caught up), I know where to find that page. What I don't know where to find is the start of the Administrator's Noticeboard, at least third of whose full page length is always taken up by this transclusion, and frequently two thirds or more. —Cryptic 17:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• Cunard has some two-dozen items currently listed on WP:ANRFC. I'm wondering why so many. I just looked at one, which was stale, and didn't seem particularly urgent. When you spam a list with too much "important" stuff, the effect is to make none of it important. Unimportant to-do items get put on back burners. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep transcluded. WP:ANRFC was created in October 2011 after this discussion, where DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) requested a separate board. WP:AN had served as the precursor to WP:ANRFC in allowing users to list closure requests. I listed closures at WP:AN as did other editors.

  Here is a list of October and November 2011 closures by the other editors: 1 2, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Someone, please close this RFC, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Closure of merge discussion, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Another merger requires an uninvolved party, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Outstanding AFD from September, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#An admin for closing a "let's just try again and again until they get tired" RfC, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RfC uninvolved closure request..., Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Closer requested, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Closure needed, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Poll in need of closing, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011 to close shortly, uninvolved admins needed to assess, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Overdue RfC, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RfC closure needed, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Close request, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Ditto, etc.

  WP:ANRFC is an extension of WP:AN (where closure requests had been listed in the past). It was created to be a centralized list of closure requests. It prevented closure requests from getting prematurely archived by a bot from WP:AN because they weren't addressed within 48 hours.

  WP:ANRFC should remain transcluded on WP:AN because WP:AN has a higher visibility. As Hobit (talk · contribs) noted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive270#Should requests for closure continue to be transcluded on this board?: "Yes they should remain here. While some may not need formal closure, it is very frustrating when no one seems to find those that do. AN is a good place for them to go as there is a high degree of visibility."

  As JzG (talk · contribs) noted here, "It also gets them done, albeit slowly - which is hardly a surprise since they would not be on the list if they were easy. As an admin, I like having the transclusion. It reminds me to go and pick a few off every now and then."

  Cunard (talk) 06:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cunard: you could also reduce drama by exercising some discretion. RfCs that are months old with nobody venturing an opinion don't need to be spammed, they just need to be closed. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I recently have closed several such RfCs that I am comfortable closing (1, 2, 3, and 4). Cunard (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cunard: you didn't directly respond to my query above, but from looking at Bernie Sanders#Democrat/Independent, which you weren't involved in, it appears that you are patrolling for RfCs that have run for thirty days. Please, per the WP:RFC instructions, if you feel that these need a formal, proper close rather than a de facto close, extend them beyond 30 days (re-list them) by changing the first timestamp to a more recent date. Undo the bot's automatic 30-day archiving if necessary. It is much more difficult to sort these out and respond to them after they've been archived. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

And please consider, for any of these that seem relatively easy or clear-cut decisions, making some (non-admin closure)s. Positive experience with that could be cited at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cunard. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

As I noted at User talk:Cunard/Archive 10#Adminship?, I have no interest in becoming an admin. I wrote to JzG above that I've closed several RfCs I'm comfortable with closing. I generally do not extend RfCs because the RfC bot will treat them as new RfCs and notify editors at Wikipedia:Feedback request service. I do not edit the talk pages to prevent a bot's archiving because I do not want to clutter editors' watchlists. Discussions in archives can be easily found by pasting the header like "Democrat/Independent" into the "Search Archives" bar like the one at Talk:Bernie Sanders. This search returns Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 6#Democrat/Independent. If closers cannot find the discussion through this method, then they usually note that in the closure request, and I or another editor will take a look. Cunard (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep transcluded with the (currrent) reduced ToC overhead. It was too much (especially CfD), now it's reasonable. I'll try to come back and start doing non-admin closes where I can. Note: I was notified of this discussion by Cunard's ping. Hobit (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh, just to be clear, having the list of discussions that need closing in one, highly-visible place is useful to the community. Hobit (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• Other options? Perhaps we can have alternative "views" of this board, such as at the test Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/b, taking advantage of untranscluding pages? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  I actually think keeping the toc limit to 3 mostly fixes the issues both of transclusion and sometimes lengthy sections further down the page. Not the page-size problem but the rest at least (findability most notably). --Izno (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep It's what gets me to close, any, ever. Admins and others need to start doing it, that will keep it short. Also, AN is where they are appealed, so it makes sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shortened WP:ANRFC transclusion

I discussed the close with BU Rob13. I have restored WP:ANRFC transclusion after modifying WP:ANRFC to transclude just the "Requests for closure" header and the "Requests for comment", "Backlogs", "XfD", "Administrative", and "Requested moves" subheaders. Within those headers, we include links to their sections within WP:ANRFC.

BU Rob13 wrote:

That would absolutely be supported by my close, yes. Basically, my close was that there was consensus against including the full transclusion, but consensus for including something, especially if that something is fairly compact but encourages editors to close discussions. There wasn't consensus for any specific alternative to the full transclusion, mostly because they weren't talked about enough. As an editor (i.e. not part of the close), I would even argue that your proposed compact version doesn't go far enough – information on how many discussions are awaiting closure in each section and how old the oldest discussion in each section has been open seems appropriate and doesn't compromise brevity. Just a couple of more lines under each heading would be enough to convey how urgently closers are needed.

I agree with adding more information such as how many discussions are waiting closure and how old the oldest discussion in each section is. But that information will fall out-of-date quickly if not updated. I don't know if there is a technical/bot fix for this. Cunard (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I've opened a bot request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Update number of closure requests and oldest closure request for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Cunard (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

As a side note, I've done some work on clearing out the backlog at WP:ANRFC over the past few days, and it's at a more manageable level. The backlogs are still there because I largely can't close those as a non-admin, but at least the RfCs are getting done. ~ Rob^Talk 13:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)