Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 17

What to do with the Detailed Indices of this page ?

What should we do with pages like :

  1. User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (later described as MDI)
  2. User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive1 (circa 230 of them, later described as DI)
  3. User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/A (circa 30 of them) (the Alpha pagesRF)

In fact, there are three questions.

  1. Why should we do something, rather than do nothing ?
  2. Why should we fix these pages, rather than simply delete them ?
  3. What should be done technically, to fix the pages (to be asked later, if #2 is answered by fix rather than by delete).

For the first question. File MDI is obtained by trancluding the various DI. Presently, the MDI is on overflow and appears at Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded‎. Only the first part is displayed. Moreover, the table is not really useful due to how the transcluded DI are written. (1) many dates are missing ; (2) the table cannot be sorted by date -- e.g. Firefox doesn't sort this table by date ; (3) many links are poorly formatted, and therefore are poorly displayed in the last column. Finally, pages A,B, etc are empty, have to be empty, and in fact, should even not exist.

For the second question. With some little work (but not that much), the MDI can be split in several parts and the DI can be rewritten, leading to User:Pldx1/Master Detailed Indices/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard-Part 1. And so is the question: in your (informal) opinion, are you rather interested by the existence of this kind of pages ? Or maybe by a page grouping the last 100 archives ? Or would you be rather indifferent to the suppression of these pages ? For the moment, my intent is to see how the wind blows concerning Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and perhaps Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Not other pages. Thanks.

Special ping to: User:Cobi (from ClueBot III), User: Wbm1058, User:Francis_Schonken (from User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_202#Conspiracy_Unveiled) and User:Rich_Farmbrough (from Category talk:Pages where template include size is exceeded). Pldx1 (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

  • The existence of {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}} should be noted. This results into /Archive index, dealing only with Archives 1-9. Pldx1 (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I cleaned up User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/User talk:Jimbo Wales, which was experiencing similar issues. There are a few types of section titles that CB3 doesn't handle gracefully, and I fixed it by refactoring those section titles to something that CB3 would handle well. A more robust fix would be to upgrade the CB3 code to better handle these special cases. While Jimbo's archive index is still inside the template limits, it's still a very big page which takes significant time and resources to load. So the need for an index split at some point is apparent. As it seems the Administrators' noticeboard archives are larger than Jimbo's they may have already passed the need to split. Same for the BLP noticeboard archives.
CB3 is still not archiving Jimbo's page, while we wait for the Job Queue to clear the backlog of backlinks caused by talk-page BLP templates. See HERE for the status. Once it's cleared, I'd like to turn CB3 back on at Jimbo's page and see how it works there and elsewhere. That is, if it's still running. The source code doesn't indicate any updates since 19 June 2015. Cobi hasn't publicly talked to us since he left a couple of messages on Jimbo-talk on January 29. If anyone knows more on the CB3 status via emails or chats, please give us whatever updates you can. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Dear User: Wbm1058. You are introducing another question, namely how links should be keept in sync when a given section is moved to an archive. For this problem, there is no need to ask about usefulness (but the technical requirements are more difficult to fix, due to a complexity problem). Concerning indexing of the pages, I have some clues about how to improve the process (see User talk:ClueBot Commons). But the first step is to know if the users have or not any interest for maintaining a global index of Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. Pldx1 (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • In my answer just above, I missed a key point about CB3. The building of all these indices is not the reason why CB3 is on trouble (and, additionally, this feature could be separated from the rest of CB3). Again, the question is about the usefulness of the indices. Pldx1 (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


  • I have addressed similar issues with the indexing of archive pages. I'm not sure why you say the Alpha pages need to be empty - they might well do better not to be in User: space. Most of the search issues are well addressed by the "prefix:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard" search.
The MDI may need to be split, I had the same problem with my talk-page-mega archive some years ago. It partially defeats the purpose of course. An alternative is to subst: many of the older pages, which are unlikely to change. A third method is to reduce the size of the sub-pages: For example if this page were moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive and the archive-pages moved to titles such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/100 the archive links could just be /100#12.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC).
  • Once more, to be sure. Pldx1 (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Two weeks later

And now my opinion is done: users of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard aren't waiting for such an index. Therefore I have deleted User:Pldx1/Master Detailed Indices/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard-Part 1 and the sequel that were build to give an idea of how some improvements could look like. This suggest that the same should probably done with many of the User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/xxx, but this is another story, and another discussion. Pldx1 (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Żojiłkaśoj

My artickle about polish cakes was deleted for no reason , so I am making a protest. my artickle must be re-in-stated plvase. --Sagbortio (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Should boomerang proposals require that the target be notified on their talk page?

I know technically someone who opens an AN or ANI thread is leaving themselves open to a boomerang and should already be aware of goings-on in the threads they started, but if after some time going one way, a thread suddenly turns against the OP, should they be informed that a request is now being made for them to be blocked/banned/somesuch, so that they can defend themselves? I'm pretty sure this is why we are required to inform other users when we open AN and ANI threads about them?

This is more a general question about the philosophy of these noticeboards, since I'm usually pretty well on top of threads I started, and I usually make an effort to ping someone, and warn them well in advance, if I am the one proposing a boomerang against them.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

My sense of fairness says we should notify them in some way (at least pinging) if there's any chance they stopped paying attention. My sense of justice is laughing because if they're going to push for action to be taken against someone on AN/I, they should keep paying attention until the issue is resolved. (AIV and to a lesser extent 3RRNB and RFPP, I get that people just leave reports and don't follow up because there may not be much for them to do beyond the initial report).
I generally use my sense of fairness rather than my sense of justice, because the latter is admittedly maladjusted. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm with Ian on this.--v/r - TP 07:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Only if the thread had either been closed or archived. It shouldn't be someone else's job to notify an editor of updates to a thread they started. If such a proposal were to be incorporated it would become just another thing to argue about Oh, no it wouldn't be fair to sanction me for bringing my own poor attention to a noticeboard, because I stopped watching ... NE Ent 11:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I think making that a policy or even a guideline is way too problematical -- it gives someone an out from a sanction if someone else didn't "notify" them. The drama boards are already full of frivolous filings; in my opinion we want to make the burden on the filer to well and truly make their case more stringent, not give them more outs for misbehavior and time-wasting and vendettas. Besides, if someone actually gets a TP notification, that's probably going to make them waste even more of our time by endless defending. I don't see much if any good coming of this to justify whatever "fairness" it may encompass. Usually there are pro and con people on any thread, and if the filer seems asleep at the switch one of their camp can always nudge them in the case of a serious boomerang proposal that is gaining traction. Softlavender (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
ANI needs to be focused more on conflict resolution than being a dumping ground for admins - "here, you deal with this". I don't think notification of a boomerang action is necessary or warranted. The filer should follow through any complaint they make to the end; it needs to be evident they are making attempts to resolve the conflict rather than just defer the matter to an admin.--WaltCip (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Rfc needs closure at Time Person of the Year

Howdy. May we have an un-involved administrator close an Rfc which was opened on February 20, 2016? GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: You've already made a request at the proper place (i.e. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Time Person of the Year#Rfc: Elizabeth II). A recent request I made on January 10th wasn't handled until April 7th.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes indeed. I did make a closure request back then :) GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Oh, someone already attempted to close it. Now I understand why you're posting here. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Yep, we need an administrator there. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Archiving issue?

With this edit, a number of threads were moved to an older archive page, instead of the latest one. Can someone determine what configuration changes, if any, are required to ensure that threads are archived appropriately? isaacl (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any other threads being moved to the archive - just the one, and it's subthread (=== level). It had been closed and tagged for 8 days at that time. SQLQuery me! 16:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Editors using the one-click archiver have been moving threads to Archive 10, instead of Archive 12. (In addition to the link in my original post, see [1], [2], and [3].) I'm guessing it might be related to the MizraBot configuration being read by the archiver, although the page had been archived by ClueBot III for a period of time? isaacl (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
One click archiver uses MiszaBot/Lowercase Sigmabot's settings to tell it where to move threads to. As of this typing it says |counter = 10. There's your problem. I will change it to 12 as soon as I am done here. ClueBot has been down for quite some time now per its talk page. It is highly recommended that users of ClueBot switch to the MiszaBot configuration for the time being. While I will change the counter code to correct the one click archiver I don't want to change the entire archiving configuration unless other editors agree to that. --Majora (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
And of course a few hours after I post that ClueBot seems to be working again --Majora (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

A friendly reminder about WP:WALLOFTEXT might be helpful?..

...as an addition to the 'How to use this page' advice. Maybe it's always been this way and I've just recently noticed, but it seems over the past month or so there's been a recurring problem with users posting pages long posts here.

Of course this is unhelpful in the sense that few are going to take the time to read so much, and after all, there may be legitimate concerns that get buried in TL;DR. But I also get the feeling that this contributes to increased frustration on the part of often new editors, often coming here because they are already frustrated. It's understandable given that some of these diatribes must have taken damn near an hour or more to write, and apparently they feel strongly enough to commit that time, only to run into essentially "your post is bad and you should feel bad". TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

AN-Notice template

When this template is substituted onto a talk page, an external link, possibly spam, is displayed. See the following example:

http://www.farandulaya.com/marcado/Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Spam removed. Editor warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion archived without closure

I was brought to ANI on 1 May 2015. The discussion is archived by bot and has no closure. Pinging the involved admins who would let us know what to do with this user? @Yamla, Sphilbrick, Worm That Turned, Liz, SpacemanSpiff, and Ricky81682: - Vivvt (Talk) 07:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Generally, someone pulls it out of archive and brings it back to the page. In your case, I would highly suggest you leaving it alone instead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: By "leaving it alone" do you mean to say that we should give him one more chance and wait to see if he abuses anyone and then restart the discussion? - Vivvt (Talk) 09:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I would support that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
"Closure", in the sense of someone adding a little colored box and a summary statement about the discussion, is not required or necessarily even helpful. It happens at ANI in maybe half of the discussions. The main use is when an admin action was taken, and the admin who took the action wants everyone to stop talking about something that's already settled. (Imagine many discussions in which an admin blocks a user, and comes back the next day to discover more people demanding that the user be blocked, because they didn't realize that it had already been done. The blue box serves as a visual signal that no more comments are needed.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I've been watching the situation generally recently, people on both sides came very close to a block. If there are further complaints, feel free to bother me directly regarding them. WormTT(talk) 16:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll second that. As I noted, I had half a mind to grant the block based on the editor's own support. I don't suggest reviving it as it's one of those discussions that aren't going anywhere soon. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I will leave this for now. Will report back if required. Krish! Just so you know, you are being watched! - Vivvt (Talk) 09:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Vivvt, your post above is an example of what Worm That Turned (IMHO) meant by bad behavior on all sides. —SpacemanSpiff 15:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@SpacemanSpiff: I dont understand how that becomes an example of bad faith when other person is being informed about being discussed here. Nevermind, I'll leave this discussion here as is. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Revision history of ANI

What's up with the revision history of ANI? The first edit, here, dated 4 January 2003, contains a bunch of other threads with signatures dated no earlier than 29 January 2005. In fact, the first post listed clearly comes from this post at AN dated 29 January 2005. Moreover, the "previous revision" link is lit up, and hitting diff gets you this. The next revision in the page history shows no "previous revision" lighting up, but is clearly mangled because it contains all the text from the revision dated January 2003. Theoretically speaking there's an attribution issue there, though the bigger question is why that first revision's date is messed up, and whether there are other, similar problems. At the very least, this suggests that trying to look at any revision on ANI from its creation until this revision dated 29 January 2005 will get you something incorrect.

Sorry if this has been asked before, but it's just so weird I have no idea how to even begin searching for it in the extensive talk archives. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The noticeboards were a favorite Willy on Wheels target, and have been moved, re-moved and history merged so often their histories are almost certainly scrambled beyond redemption. ‑ Iridescent 14:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Who are the admins?

Why aren't the admins labeled as such on Wikipedia so people can tell who they are (I'm pretty sure I'm correct in stating that they're not labeled)..and why are non-admins allowed to weigh-in on this particular page? it's a page to notify admins and get their responses....are there simply not enough admins to handle things?68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. Most admin have some sort of indication on their WP:USERPAGE that they're an admin. For example, if you go to User:Sergecross73, there's two little icons in the upper right hand side that say "admin" to some capacity. (The "mop" icon also indicates admin status - as in, they clean up messes, FYI.)
  2. This is a page where non-admin often come asking questions for Admin to answer. There's no way to limit it so that regular editors could only post questions and not respond to them, so it'd have to be this way. That being said, there are plenty of experienced editors out there that aren't Admin, that can still often answer Admin questions pretty well too, so we wouldn't want to limit it anyways. Besides, if a non-admin was consistently giving out bad advice, that'd likely be addressed and fixed anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 16:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Here is an automatic List of Administrators. Most admins will self-identify on their user page though it is not required, and some tools (e.g. WP:POPUPS) add an indicator whenever you look at a user name. As far as non-admin participation, that's always been allowed. While admins are empowered to act unilaterally in a variety of cases, there is also an expectation that they will ultimately follow the consensus of the community (both admins and non-admins alike), and for some issues having a broad range of opinions is almost essential. You might enjoy reading WP:Administrators for more background on what the role of admins is within Wikipedia. Dragons flight (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks..it seems there might be utility in having them labeled as admins within their signing statements, particularly on a page like this..I'd be surprised if something like this hasn't been discussed in the past...perhaps there's a philosophical component in terms of the appearance of singling them out as being more important etc..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I think the problem with labeling an admin's edits as "admin" is that most of their work is on articles and such, and adding the label "admin" would give the statement a false sense of authority. When you and I are editing an article, I have no extra authority. In fact, if I'm editing it, I can't act as admin on that article at all, as I am WP:INVOLVED. Admin are vetted a bit to see that they understand basic policy and can be trusted to use the tools wisely, but they aren't "experts" by virtue of being an admin. I know because I am one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Note The OP's question / comment stems from this AN/I thread. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't have it handy, but there is a script available to highlight admins' names on Wikipedia so you can see comments/edits by an admin. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Very unsatisfied with process. Could changes be made? (Better for Community Pump?)

This proposal would entail a significant change to policy. This is an administrative noticeboard and administrators do not decide policy. As others have told you this is not the correct venue to change policy. We have a central location that can be used to get a wide input from the community in regards to policy changes. Try bringing it up there and see what people think. HighInBC 16:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

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.

For context: Over one week ago I sought quick real-time help for the disruptive behavior of an editor...He had behaved against policy in a reference desk thread with another, apparently banned user, and I collapsed their back and forth..he then basically edit warred to uncollapse it over and over again (another thread “we need an adult” was initiated just a few days ago by another user complaining about him doing the same kind of thing elsewhere) ..Anyway, I came here for help. He then filled this thread up with endless nonsense. The thread was open more than a week but an admin never came around to either A. put a quick end to his general behavior or B. declare, I suppose, that there was nothing wrong with it...Instead, all we had were a few non-admins addressing things in what seems to me not a particularly competent manner..the thread ended with him declaring that I had been blocked in a way to clearly suggest that I had been blocked for the thread, thereby somehow vindicating himself (which is entirely untrue)...a non-admin then closed the thread and repeated the claim in the closing statement that I had been blocked in a way that clearly suggested I had been blocked for the thread..this is an entirely misleading closing statement made by a non-admin..(I was blocked for policy of “canvassing” in regards to an unrelated AfD..I notified an editor who had done research relevant to the AfD which seemed to support deletion..that's a whole other story).

Admins are admins because they are theoretically competent editors..I would like to see A. only admins be allowed to close threads and write closing statements B. for there to be some kind of requirement or concerted effort for an admin to address within a certain time frame every thread and either end it appropriately or state more input is first needed..C. Somehow reduce non-admin activity at this board, as it is a notice to admins board and D. have admins be identified as admins in their signatures at least on this noticeboard...

It is hurtful to the Wikipedia project if people are running into a process like I describe above, as it will chase editors away..Thank you in advance for any replies/thoughts..(the thread in question was called simply “disruptive behavior” and was archived just a couple of days ago...I don't know how to link to just that thread)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

This is the wrong forum--you should indeed try WP:VPPOL or WP:VPI. --Izno (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't doubt you might be correct about this..I'd like an admin or two to verify this (and perhaps even they move it where it needs to be).68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Why would it take an Admin to tell you this is the wrong venue...? It doesn't take an Admin to know that. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
As is a common retort elsewhere, your belief that an admin has any higher social status is a false one; any user may answer a question such as this. That aside, Sergecross above is an administrator and therefore has fulfilled your incorrect request. --Izno (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
my suggestion, however, is advocating that admins indeed have a "higher status" on this board so....(also, I'm not sure policy discussion like this can't at least begin on the talk page....??)68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I would oppose literally every one of this with all of my being. Admins are not supposed to have special rights excepting what their tools directly allow them to do. Admins ONLY special privileges are to block, protect, or delete. We are not your mommies, and we aren't here to solve your problems or make people be nice. We're here to protect Wikipedia article content from those who would disrupt it. That's it. Including what goes on at this board, problems are to be solved collaboratively, with input from any person in good standing to be used based on the soundness of the contributions, and not on their status or not as an admin. --Jayron32 14:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how this makes sense...the very reason for this noticeboard's existence is for admins "to solve your problems." this is an admins noticeboard (ie a special place witin the Wikipedia universe related to admins)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The very reason for this noticeboard is to catch an admin's attention because their tool needs to be used. Problems are solved by bringing on board uninvolved people without a personal stake in "winning" a conflict so that a consensus way forward can be worked out. That doesn't require admin tools at all. --Jayron32 15:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
okay, I can agree with this..but how about my specific lettered proposals...aren't they an obvious improvement (except perhaps maybe C)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
A) Why? Can't someone without admin tools summarize consensus? B) Admins are volunteers, and all entirely free to work on what they feel like, just as non-admins are. You can't compel any admin to do anything they don't feel like doing. C) I think we've covered that. D) Can't see what that gains. The comments made by admins are not more important than those made by non-admins, so there's no compelling reason for admins or non-admins to identify each other. --Jayron32 15:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
because this is a unique, special space related to notifying admins...admins are theoretically competent editors...they should, therefore, be exclusively involved in closing/penning closing statements to avoid incompetent ones like I described above (which is just generally bad for Wikipedia)...it's helpful to identify admins for people seeking help to know that they are hearing from theoretically competent editors..I've seen a lot of incompetent nonsense on this board from nonadmins...but this is confusing to people seeking help who may not be able to tell the difference etc..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
No offense, but I think you need to slow down and learn the basics before you start going around lecturing people on the purpose of various things. (Case in point, you thought this was the correct avenue for this discussion, and you still seem to be confused on the actual roles of Admin on Wikipedia...) Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not yet convinced it's not...my understanding is that policy discussion can begin locally on a talk page..and perhaps move to a bigger forum? idk..this isn't a proposal to change something all across Wikipedia but just here...you may be wrong about this..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
You're missing the point. It would fundamentally change how the Admin and their noticeboards work. This would impact the whole website. And its coming from someone who doesn't understand the current system. If you don't even know the full scope of issues that current occur, I'm not sure how you could expect to address them with new proposals.Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I tend to disagree but would need others to advise...this is a localized discussion, I think, related to only this page...Wikipedia wide type discussions are generally more along changing things that would potentially affect all pages..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I'll move it then...is there a way to alert the regulars of this forum of its existence once it's been moved though??68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I really think you ought to learn more about Wikipedia before making massive proposals for change like this. I'm pretty sure the reaction is going to be similar to Jayron's above regardless of the avenue. I think you need to learn more of the basics so you can put together a plan that's more practical and enforceable. Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I think my post is well reasoned and clearly articulated. what would be difficult about only allowing admins to close/pen closing statements? what would be difficult about putting forth a concerted effort to have every thread addressed within 48 hours by ad admin as being either closeable or in need of more input? these are clearly improvements (the only problem is if there are not enough admins...which I don't know if that is the case)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
There's a lot of reasons, that I think you'd understand if you spent more time understanding how website runs. I'd explain it out to you, but you seem to dismiss everything experienced editors say to you in favor of the notion that you somehow already know better. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
you don't seem to be particularly addressing my ideas and my reasoning but just trying to assert you somehow vaguely get Wikipedia more than me..and I'm not sure your understanding of where this discussion should be is even correct..so others will hopefully advise to clarify this..68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I think what Sergecross is trying to get you to see (and maybe you're starting to get it) is that admins do not have any more social standing at Wikipedia than anyone else. All an admin is, is someone with a few more technical tools than the average user. The ethos of Wikipedia is that good ideas are good ideas regardless of who comes up with them, and we don't prevent people from expressing good ideas for any reason. All of your proposals seek to elevate the status of "admins" to be above that of others. That concept would violate a core belief at Wikipedia, which is that we don't care who you are. If you have something to do to be helpful, you're allowed to be helpful. --Jayron32 16:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
generally yes, of course...but again, this is a unique space...and admins do have a heightened status in certain regards, this is why they are admins, this is why there are admins..so it's a bit odd to just dismiss things because admins are no different than anyone else..(see my response to you above too)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:08, 26 May 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.

Village Pump Discussion

the above thread which contained a few different ideas for ANI was moved over here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Very_unsatisfied_with_process._Could_changes_be_made_that_would_improve_Wikipedia_ANI.3F_.28Better_for_.27Proposals.3F.27.29 I figure people who watch this page and are active on ANI may not pay much attention to where it is now so want them to know about it..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

General thoughts/ideas

I noticed this current discussion that is taking place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Time_for_50-100_new_admins_ASAP.3F I agree from my limited experience that ANI seems to be a bit of a zoo currently...I made a few suggestions above that may or may not be good (discussion was moved)...but do people have thoughts about whether there is/is not a problem currently...or any general ideas for improvement (I imagine this is okay for this talk page as what is this talk page for otherwise? But advise if somehow not...)68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended content
Why are you writing this here? You're not going to get any additional exposure on the talk page of the noticeboard you're already writing on. (If anything, these noticeboard talk pages seem to see much less traffic/edits. I mean, 4 of the last 5 discussions started on this talk page are from you, and that takes us back 10 days. That should be a sign that this isn't the biggest traffic area for discussion.) It'd be best not to splinter off discussion here, and just keep the discussion centralized there. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
so would it better to post this in that admin noticeboard main page? I'm wondering what people think generally...and if others have any potential ideas...the discussion over at pump is entirely focused on what I put forth...where can a general discussion like this occur?? seems here is best, no?68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
what exactly is this talk page for?68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm saying if there's already an active discussion (the one you linked to), then you should just comment there, as should anyone else. There's no need for a second discussion anywhere, when the first one is active and on-going. If people have general thoughts/ideas, they should leave them there. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
but that's just related and talking specifically if more admins are immediately needed in general..this is a different discussion about ANI specifically..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Look, I'm getting tired of you fighting against me every step of the way on every thing I inform you on. Don't agree with me? Fine, feel free to watch this discussion fizzle out to nothing, or turn into editors telling you to keep similar discussions centralized. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I think it's a worthwhile conversation to have and clearly different than the other conversations...it might be better simply on that main page if no one comes around here...perhaps few if any people pay attention to this page...I'll see if anyone comes around..if no one does I'll collapse this and state that it has been moved..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

^collapsed discussion only related to where this thread should be (will remain here for the mean time)68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Length of discussions

What is the current practice on how long an AN/ANI discussion proposing a topic-ban or something similar should remain open, when the editor in question has had the opportunity to participate and the consensus seems to be clear? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

there's likely no current practice as ANI is a bit of a zoo currently and there are not enough admins addressing things...see above..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Our banning policy requires at least 24 hours for a community ban discussion. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 04:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I can suddenly no longer edit this noticeboard

I am unsure why but I can suddenly no longer edit this notice board on an incident report of which I had initiated. New England Cop (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@New England Cop: SQL archived your discussion section to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive281#JzG admonished three times. Is he out? because Bbb23 had closed the discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 17

Topic ban appeal pending RFCs outcome, request for dispute tags

Now moot. Begoon talk 13:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

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 have agreed to abide by a recently imposed topic ban at least until the outcome of two RFCs, and then only for requesting mediation. I hope that an appeal will not be necessary. In the mean time I plan to work on systemic bias issues off-wiki. During the ANI discussion in which I was topic banned, there was no answer to my question about why dispute tags were removed from the RFCs' articles. May I ask that those dispute tags be replaced on the articles, please? Would someone please post the links to those two RFCs so I can use a permalink to this section to try to increase the visibility of the RFCs? A greater number of editors attending to them wil most likely improve their outcome. EllenCT (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You're posting here (arguably in contravention of your topic ban) to get someone to create something you can link to off-site in your campaign against "systemic bias" (whatever that means here), to canvass off-site for people to come and comment/!vote in the RFCs you are t-banned from? You must mean linking off site, since linking here would certainly infringe your ban. I... don't think this is the best idea you ever had. Dropping the stick would, however, be a fine plan. HTH. Begoon talk 12:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
They are not actually properly formatted (or even remotely close to) RFC's as well as containing the usual misrepresentation that caused the topic ban. I have closed them accordingly. If someone wants to reopen them with a properly formatted and neutral RFC I doubt there would be an objection. If EllenCT wants to appeal her topic ban to Arbcom or on AN, there is no impediment. Lets not drag this out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
In that case it seems there is no issue here. Thank you for dealing with the matter so promptly. Begoon talk 13:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Were the RFCs closed at [4] closed properly? Why or why not? Should dispute tags be on the articles involved? EllenCT (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You know when you get topic banned broadly construed? This means you do not talk about discussions in which you cannot participate. You do not discuss the tagging of articles in which you are banned from editing. If anyone who is actually able to work in the topic area wishes to re-open them in a valid format and neutral manner to discuss the content, they are welcome to. However you cannot participate. Also this board is the wrong place to raise any issues related to content. This talkpage is for raising issues about the Administrators noticeboard. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:34, 24 June 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.

Please do not One-Click Archive threads until at least 24 hours after close

I'd like to remind One-Click Archive users that threads on noticeboards need to stay visible on the noticeboard at least 24 hours after closing, in order to accommodate all time zones, sleep/wake schedules, and wiki log-in habits. The best and easiest way to refrain from too-early archiving is to Google utc time, subtract one day from that, and then avoid archiving anything that was closed later than that. Thanks very much. Softlavender (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend that OCA should only be used if the bot hasn't archived it automatically or if there has been no further activity after at least 48 hours, perhaps even 72 hours. Blackmane (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I personally disagree with that in that I think that removing closed threads after 24+ hours is useful because one reason ANI lacks sufficient input from administrators is because there is way too much text to wade through. Keeping the deck cleared helps people see what still needs to be addressed. When there are 70+ threads and millions of bytes of text, often only the brave have the time and energy and focus to wade past all the purple boxes and all the 70-odd threads to spot the threads that need attention but may go unnoticed and under-responded to. Many of these important but incompleted threads get bot-archived without attention because there is simply way too much clutter on ANI. 24 hours provides an adequate window for anyone actually truly interested in the thread to re-view it when they wake up and log in, no matter what their time zone or work schedule. Threads get auto-archived by bot after 72 hours of inactivity, but that is too long to wait for closed threads because the board quickly fills to 80 or more threads. Lastly, anyone who for some reason misses seeing the close result can find it in the archive after that 24-hour window following the close. Softlavender (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Minimum experience on thread closing

Recently we had a new editor with (supposedly) less than a month's worth of experience closing and archiving ANI threads. In the case of this editor (FAMASFREENODE ) there's evidence to suggest that he's a troll, but this brought up a point of discussion that needs to be discussed.

Without going into the whole issue of the editor in question, the basic gist of what happened is that we had someone with an account with seemingly little experience trying to close and archive ANI threads. Some of his archives were done incorrectly and in the case of the one close he did, it looks like he did this prematurely since as Only in death put it "Consensus was shfting/heavily leaning towards changing the block to indef - and Fam had closed/archived it based on their already being blocked for a week."

Now disregarding that he might likely be a troll, what we had here was someone with little to no working experience of ANI matters trying to perform actions that would be best left to either an admin or someone with enough experience to be able to interpret an ANI thread and consensus. Wnt posted on my talk page recently to state that there is no actual written rule that prohibits new users from actively closing or archiving ANI threads and that it would be a good idea to propose that this be added.

My proposal is this:

  • Users without administrative rights should have at least one year's worth of active experience in ANI and editing matters before closing or archiving threads, as determining a proper close can be difficult for inexperienced or new users and archiving a thread too early may result in involved users not easily seeing the outcome.

This needs some tweaking and re-writing, but the gist is basically to keep new and inexperienced users from making an error that could result in a discussion being closed far too early and not getting the full discussion that it should've received or receiving a close that improperly determines consensus or guidelines. This would also avoid them prematurely archiving discussions that should remain on the board for a little bit longer in order to give involved parties a chance to read the outcome - thus ensuring that people can't say "but I didn't know or hear anything so I thought the matter was dropped because it was instantly gone". (Plus honestly I think that the archive bot should be the one to archive discussions except in certain situations that would likely require someone with more experience.) It would also give us a little extra protection against trolling, since we could point to a specific guideline.

This would pretty much put into writing what's been an unsaid but generally recognized rule on ANI: that performing the more advanced actions of this nature requires experience. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don't see that this is needed. When closes are challenged (it's even happened to me!) - they get re-opened. Not a bad idea, just seems like an over-reaction to a single recent problem. SQLQuery me! 04:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I dunno - I think that it could be a good guideline in general, since it's generally expected that someone would have experience when doing this. It's kind of like how we expect people to have experience before being granted various user rights, only in this case the person doesn't have to request them. It'd also help prevent the well meaning editors from making mistakes, since I've also seen cases where otherwise well meaning newbies have made close type edits to ANI areas and gotten their heads bitten off. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a slow creep toward shifting tasks away from the average editor. Closes should stand on their merits, not on experience. A relatively new editor could make an insightful close, and a bureaucrat can still botch things up every once in a blue moon. Also, what defines "active experience in ANI"? If that means a non-admin regularly inserting themselves into reports they aren't involved in (and probably stirring up extra drama along the way), that's the type of editor who probably shouldn't make closes. Besides, do we really want to encourage hat-collecting editors to patrol ANI to earn the extra hat of being able to close threads there? ~ RobTalk 04:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
While in practice it's probably a good idea, the user would have to actually read that somewhere. Experience has shown, that new (and not new) editors are not prone to reading instructions on Wikipedia, even when they are in a large red box. Also I think you are missing the word "not" in your archiving proposal. --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Both pretty good points. My thought is more trying to avoid having to go through a long discussion with editors where we have to specifically tell them not to continue prior actions. This is in response to the recent editor interaction, but I've had more than one situation where I've had tenacious newbies repeatedly try to quote policy in response to warnings (from myself and others) that they were doing something that they shouldn't and doing it incorrectly. Adding it would be sort of a CYA type of deal since while some newbies do miss the content, there are more that do seem to read more than we give them credit for. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Outside of this particular case I don't think we have a problem with this. Any good faith editor likely takes feedback from a bad close of theirs and is unlikely to repeat it. Someone doing so for giggles isn't going to stop based on instructions (it didn't stop the editor from creating an RfA) and quite often the "ANI experience" is part of the problem and I'd hate to see editors being incentivized (for lack of a better term) to hang around these boards! —SpacemanSpiff 06:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I'd like to see WP:ANI renamed to exclude "Administrator" from the title. It's regrettable that newbies come on the site, somehow find ANI, and decide they can fill their insatiable hunger for power with the admin tools. There's no advantage to the current name over, say "Incidents noticeboard". ~ RobTalk 07:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree. I've only been here for just under four months, but I still believe that I am competent enough to close discussions. The decision as to whether or not someone should have the ability to close threads shouldn't be based on their tenure on the project, but rather their grasp of policy and knowledge of consensus. I've closed a number of discussions both here, at ANI, as well as in other areas of Wikipedia. Most of them have been fairly straightforward, but that's besides the point. Closes should be assessed on a case by case basis, and we shouldn't revert a perfectly good close just because someone is new to the project. The FAMASFREENODE incident was dealt with very swiftly, and this seems to be an overreaction in response to it. If someone, no matter who they are, is making improper closes or archiving incorrectly, then they should first be approached on their talk page. If they refuse to change their behaviour, then short term blocks can be applied. It's as simple as that. Omni Flames (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Personally I think there needs to be an addition to the header that says something along the lines of 'Please do not close or archive discussions unless you are familiar with the processes involved'. That way when someone does do it incorrectly, a swift trouting can be administered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I think there is something to be done here, but I am not on board with a minimum experience approach (sorry Tokyogirl79) but I do understand the motivation. I'm not in principle opposed to the concept but I see two major obstacles to implementation. One is the difficulty in precisely defining the minimum experience (if nothing else, it varies depending on the nature of the incident). The second, as noted by others is the likelihood that such a rule get missed particularly by those to whom it is directed. We have a notice requirement in bold red type, yet there's evidence that it's missed every other day or so.
I'd prefer to devote the energy to a positive rather than a negative approach. It might be helpful to have an essay on "considerations when closing ANI discussion". That would allow us to articulate best practices, which might also implicitly convince the reader that if they don't have experience they are not yet ready. I fully understand that such an essay is less likely to be read than a rule requiring experience, but it is not that big a deal to revert a bad close. I'd rather point the editor to a list of best practices than to a rule that more directly tells them they don't know what they're doing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support the OP's "Users without administrative rights should have at least one year's worth of active experience in ANI and editing matters before closing or archiving threads". The rationale that followed as the rest of the sentence is correct. This noticeboard is a place of some authority, and breakdown in decorum in administering it, by newcomers mixing opinion into calling of consensus, aka WP:Supervote, is not a positive contribution to the project.
I do not, however, disagree with S Philbrick, and I note that the existing good advice at WP:NAC would probably suffice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • You want people to spend a year in the worst location on Wikipedia to close a thread? Just because Omni and I closed a thread that was created by a long term harasser and banned editor evading a block? One that was disruptively editing and refusing to drop it after it was clear that the thread was going nowhere anyways? You really need to get your priorities straight. Also, that wasn't ANI. So saying people need to spend time there is ridiculous. And stop calling me a newcomer. It is exceedingly insulting. I'm not someone who just joined a month ago. --Majora (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I object to the opinions integrated into the closes by User:Dionysodorus (the RfC), User:Omni Flames and yourself. After an intial complaint, Dionysodorus improved his closing statement, very well in my opinion, but in doing so he highlighted in broad incorrectness of Omni's AN thread close.
This is not just about a single issue, but is a general observation of increasing frequency of poor closes, especially also at WP:RM. Evident in the close reviews at WP:MR.
WP:AN is more important to be closed correctly than WP:ANI. WP:ANI is about things needing a quick response, and ANI closes need be no more than a summary of what was done, or not done. WP:AN is the forum for WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, and it is a place that has often seen serious deliberation. It is a forum of some authority.
It is a fact that the poor closes are almost exclusively done by non admins, but that is not to say that all non admins are prone to poor closes. To Rob's point about occasional bureaucrat botch ups, the few very early promoted bureaucrats who couldn't maintain a very conservative decorum were pressured into resigning. Admins are afford moderate "admin discretion" alongside an expectation of admin accountability.
You here are exhibiting an emotional response not in keeping with the decorum and dispassion expected from good closers, especially when their closes are questioned. Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Pitfalls_to_avoid? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
If you actually want to challenge the closer, please discuss it with the closer first as is the requisite policy. The fact that Dionysodorus isn't an admin doesn't mean Dionysodorus shouldn't get the same respect any admin who closed the discussion would get. Otherwise, unless you can show a pattern of closures that have been challenged and overturned, I see no reason why Dionysodorus should be restricted from making closures. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Further, User:Dionysodorus' response to the challenge was exemplary. Not that he acquiesced to the complaint, but his tone and decorum was exemplary. I agree that Dionysodorus should not be restricted from making closures. In fact, all I argue is that closers close with neutrality, and caution, and that they are comfortable with the advice of WP:NAC, but I quite understand Tokyogirl79 proposal as a soft line, and with merit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, you still haven't even attempted to tell us why you think the closes were improper. You seem to have somehow got into your head the idea that if the closer is a non-admin, and they're "new" to Wikipedia by your standards, then it should be immediately overturned. You brought up the example of RM, that's completely untrue. Move review is in fact fairly silent these days with not a lot of discussions there. A lot of the closes at RM are made by non-admins like myself. Omni Flames (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, Omni, on your close I would say:

"Consensus is unanimous that the close was well within policy and a correct reading of consensus." was incorrect. It was not unanimous. "Well within policy" was not a line argued in the discussion. "a correct reading of consensus" (the original close) I maintain it was not. That discussion did not mandate draft deletion as policy. The second sentence was OK. The third and fourth are statements of opinion, with a tone of petulance, and not appropriate for a closing statement.

. However, we have moved on to the general. The admin status and newness of the account is probably an unfortunate thing to have mentioned, but it does correlate strongly. It is not a rule. I can immediately think of some very excellent non-admin closers. We can go through specifics cases at WP:MR if you like, but I think you are denying the obvious. Yes, WP:MR is fairly quiet, which is a good thing, and it should be noted that poor closes are the rare exception. But bad closes can be very disturbing when they do happen. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Restriction. We don't have the same requirements for closures anywhere else. If any particular closer is a problem, then we can ban them from making closes. I see no reason why AN or ANI should have an even more restrictive closure requirement than the general situation at ANRFC. There is no inherent reason why someone needs to have a time period from their first edit to today. Also note that the restriction may in fact prevent some admins who simply don't come here from closing discussion based solely on their lack of involvement at this board. I see no point to that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it is obvious that challenges to closes should be closed with more formality, and more restriction, than other things. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
What is "SmokeyJoe's restriction"? I have not proposed anything new. I am not the OP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see that it's exactly the same. I thought there was a distinction I missed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've closed a lot of threads at AN/I, AN, etc. as a non-admin. There are two things I don't do: 1) Use the {{Nac}} template, and, more importantly, 2) Close anything without being very certain that I won't catch a ton of flak. Because if a NAC is not on, the NA will be corrected, and they will learn. If they don't learn, they will not be allowed to close threads anymore. We don't need to make it more complicated than that. Doc talk 08:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    From what I gather, the NAC template is only used to close discussions that are deletion-related. I see nothing substantial about non-admins closing AN/I threads. What am I missing? Doc talk 09:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: My RfC close seems to have started a lot of this furore, so I won't !vote, but I think User:Tokyogirl79's proposal is a bad idea. Had it been in force, I would not have been able to close a very large chunk of the WP:AN/RFC backlog. If you like, forbid particular users from closing.
Also, if something like this were to be adopted, then - since it runs against the pre-existing guideline at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, established by consensus in an RfC at that you can't overturn closures just because the closer was a non-admin - I think it would probably require strong consensus established through an RfC, as for any policy change. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Dionysodorus, it was not your close that started this. With few admins active, increasing acceptance of NACs everywhere, this issue was completely to be expected, and it is broad. Broad but not necessarily severe. Please don't be discouraged from continuing to close things ready to be closed.
I am quite confident that "you can't overturn closures just because the closer was a non-admin" is well accepted by everybody. It is not a red herring, but it is not the central issue. Admins are held to higher standard generally, and RfA examines their ability to read and explain a consensus based on a difficult case, and so admins are usually not immediately scrutinised. We see it was a non-admin in a controversial close, "hah, non-admin" people cry. But it is the close that matters, not who did it.
The original proposal seems to be roundly considered overly strict. What do you think of my suggestion, that all closers, of RfCs, of discussion board threads, be strongly encouraged to read WP:NAC? Noting Sphilbrick's excellent point, I think WP:NAC is positively put? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
This discussion is about closing at AN or ANI here so I don't know you're criticizing Dionysodorus for. Dionysodorus didn't close an AN or ANI discussion, right? Otherwise if you want a reversal on general NAC policy for RFCs, WT:RFC is that way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Ricky, I think you are feigning ignorance, but I have no idea why you would do so.
WP:CLOSECHALLENGE sends RfC close challenges to WP:AN. That happened for Dionysodorus' close, that thread was poorly closed, and challenged under that close within the same thread. It is all consistent examples more broadly of the problem as stated by the OP.
No one is seeking to overturn NAC policy. (what is "NAC policy"? There is an excellent essay, WP:NAC).
I happen to agree with the OP, but further opine that:
  • the standards for closing WP:AN threads should be higher than WP:ANI threads, and
  • the problems with poor closes noted here are seen similarly elsewhere, including RfCs and WP:RM.
  • the advice of the essay WP:NAC should apply everywhere.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't agree with that at all. If we made the guidelines for non-admin closures of deletions apply to non-admin closures of RfCs, that would (a) be nonsensical, because most of the criteria at WP:NAC are specifically about deletion discussions, so the criteria would need rewriting if we wanted to do that. It would also (b) be a bad thing, because the "Appropriate closures" section implies, with respect to deletion requests, that generally non-admins should only close deletion discussions where the result is obvious, or pure housekeeping. That might be a good criterion to adopt for AN discussions, but would be a very bad criterion to adopt for RfC discussions - because why shouldn't a non-admin do a perfectly good job of closing controversial RfC discussions? I have closed several fairly controversial RfC discussions and done as good a job as an admin would, I think. All that should be required for closing RfCs is not being involved, a knowledge of the requisite guidelines and a willingness to discuss one's closing rationale, which is the existing situation. If you change that, you risk chasing off non-admin closers of relatively controversial RfCs, which would create backlogs and prevent them being cleared, since quite a lot of RfC closers are actually non-admins. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Dionysodorus, weird that you don't agree at all, then go on to say things that I agree with entirely. Some of the advice at WP:NAC is relevant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • We are not going to drastically change the entire policy at WP:RFC based on the fact that you want to take a discussion about AN closures and expand that into a discussion about all closures. If you want that policy changed, discuss it there and form a consensus. Don't take over Tokyogirl79's for your personal goals. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • RfC is relevant mainly because changes to RfC closes go to WP:AN. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I *hate* Country X

Dear admins, is User:عدنان حليم OK? I guess I'm testing the waters here; it is entirely possible that we don't agree at all. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the huge flag. The userbox, honestly, I can't really pass judgement on, but it's a little more justifiable at least. — foxj 01:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
This editor has a Moroccan flag on his user page. The WP:AN3 board has some Morocco-related disputes in which socks are believed to be active, so a brand-new warlike account with Moroccan interests would fit right in. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, EdJohnston, I saw that--as usual I'm riding your coat tails, and I'm cleaning up a bit after old Omar-toons. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I removed the inappropriate userbox and left a notice there for the editor. - jc37 11:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

British tabloid media as a source on British involvement in Iraq and Syria

Moved to WP:RSN Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

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.

These outlets have a history of outrageous stories like this and this. A user advised another editor to post here in relation to this being used as a source for SAS involvement in the recent Battle of Fallujah, so I figured I'd beat them to it. Note how these outlets cite other tabloid outlets making the same unverified claims. This is a constant in these sources' coverage of the war against ISIS. Tabloid sources using anonymous/unclear sources and/or citing each other, detailing the utterly secret operations of elite special forces in a warzone. This reeks of war propaganda. Eik Corell (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the place you actually want is here. And you post on the main page, not the talk page. This page is for discussions ABOUT the administrators noticeboard, rather than discussions that need to be lodged ON the board. I will move it now. Regards, Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:55, 7 July 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.

ANRFC transclusion reappearance

@Cunard: Due to some archiving bot weirdness, the transclusion is back to its full state. As per the previous RfC outcome, there was consensus against this. I think the method you used to partially transclude ANRFC isn't going to work given the archiving oddity, but do you want me to start up a template that could be manually edited to basically function as the same partial transclusion? ~ Rob13Talk 16:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

what did the bot break? I still see the toc limit on the page. what else did the bot remove? - jc37 00:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
If you would like to "build a compact template that links to the oldest 5 discussions listed at ANRFC", that is fine with me. Cunard (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Pro-Trump POV-pushing the Donald Trump article by topic-banned editor

Wrong place. --NeilN talk to me 15:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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.

Anythingyouwant is an anti-abortion POV-pushing editor who was topic banned by a 12-0 vote on all "abortion-related pages, broadly construed" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Anythingyouwant_topic-banned). He is now POV-pushing Trump to be the next President per his agenda to illegalize abortion. Is there anything that can be done about this? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

1. Unless the edits are specifically related to abortion then no. Every US politician has a stance on abortion, broadly construing a topic ban that widely would be the same as topic banning someone from US politics. Unless Anythingyouwant is editing about Trump's stance or plans RE abortion, they are not restricted. If you feel they are not editing neutrally, take concerns to the NPOV noticeboard where they will get a more in-depth dissection.
2. This talk page is for issues about the Admin noticeboard, not for concerns that should be *on* the noticeboard. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Where is the talk page for Admin noticeboard policy? There is a huge difference between "Every US politician" and a Presidential nominee polling at around 50% in the polls who has provided a list of potential Supreme Court nominees and (according to the Political positions of Donald Trump article) The Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group, praised Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees as "exceptionally strong," while the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America called the candidates on the list "a woman's worst nightmare." Every US politician's would clearly not be an abortion-related page, while the Donald Trump page is likely the most abortion-related page on Wikipedia with regard to the future of abortion policy. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
This is the wrong place to discuss either content issues or conduct issues. If the editor in question is editing with respect to abortion in violation of a topic ban, the place to report them is Arbitration Enforcement. If they are editing disruptively about American politics, but are not addressing abortion, they can be notified of discretionary sanctions and then reported to Arbitration Enforcement. However, this is the talk page for the administrators' noticeboard, and is the wrong place to discuss conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 30 July 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.

Please do not One-Click Archive threads until at least 24 hours after close

I'd like to remind One-Click Archiver users that threads on ANI need to stay visible on at least 24 hours after closing, in order to accommodate all time zones, sleep/wake schedules, and wiki log-in habits. The best and easiest way to refrain from too-early archiving is to Google utc time, subtract one day from that, and then avoid archiving anything that was closed later than that. Thanks very much. Softlavender (talk) 03:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Bringing back this thread as it got archived. Also pinging EEng -- could you take a look at the above? Thanks very much for archiving -- please ensure you aren't undercutting the 24-hour window. (Unfortunately ANI does not have it's own talk page for some inane reason so I am told I need to ping people instead to alert them to this thread.) Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I usually wait 48-72 hours after the last comment (not necessarily the close, unless the close is itself informative) depending on the content, the level of controversy, and the extent to which there's something bystanders might learn. For example, a thread that ended with a block for an IP-hopper I'll usually leave to be auto-archived, because of the likelihood the issue will return. On the other hand [5] I archived relatively quickly because it was completely mundane. Have you seen any problems? EEng 04:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The ANI board usually averages at least 28 to 34+ threads, so when it suddenly dipped to far less than 20 that tipped me off that the most recent archiver (that would be you) was probably archiving too quickly. I checked the most recent thread you archived, and it was approximately 21.75 hours after close rather than 24+. So yeah, check UTC time when archiving. Anyway, I hate to ping people out which is why this stupid ANI board should have its own stupid talk page so people who have it on their watch list but do not have AN on their watch list can see threads. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Right, but again if you at that particular thread [6], it had unusually little chance of being of interest to anyone but the participants, all of whom had obviously seen the outcome. EEng 05:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I would argue that the best and easiest way to refrain from too-early archiving is to not use OCA at all, and instead wait for one of the archiving bots to come by. →Σσς. (Sigma) 04:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I personally disagree with that in that I think that removing closed threads after 24+ hours is useful because one reason ANI lacks sufficient input from administrators is because there is way too much text to wade through. Keeping the deck cleared helps people see what still needs to be addressed. When there are 70+ threads and millions of bytes of text, often only the brave have the time and energy and focus to wade past all the purple boxes and all the 70-odd threads to spot the threads that need attention but may go unnoticed and under-responded to. Many of these important but incompleted threads get bot-archived without attention because there is simply way too much clutter on ANI. 24 hours provides an adequate window for anyone actually truly interested in the thread to re-view it when they wake up and log in, no matter what their time zone or work schedule. Threads get auto-archived by bot after 72 hours of inactivity, but that is too long to wait for closed threads because the board quickly fills to 80 or more threads. Lastly, anyone who for some reason misses seeing the close result can find it in the archive after that 24-hour window following the close. Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, you could always change the archive age to 24 hours! In fact, I've gone ahead and done that - without prejudice to being reverted, of course. →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
No, that's a bad idea. Many threads should stay around longer. EEng 05:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Completely agree with @Σ: in not having any manual archiving here - let the bot do it. GiantSnowman 06:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I used to use OCA to only archive threads that have been closed and are still visible on the page many days later. Archiving open threads which have not seen activity for 1-2 days is not a good idea in my book. Blackmane (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree re hasty archiving. There's nothing wrong with archiving threads (say) 24 hours after they are closed, but archiving threads 24 hours after the latest comment reduces the effectiveness of these dispute resolution pages. Some issues require time for discussion before they can be resolved, and that means waiting to let all sides have a say. 24 hours after the last comment is not an unreasonable time for a closer to consider and resolve the issue, especially for those of us in faraway time zones, but this can only really occur if the thread is visible on the page.The alternative - vanishing open disputes into the archives - means no one resolves the dispute and it is left to fester. Mildly, I'm not convinced that a long ANI thread scares potential closers away, and there seems no other reason for the rapid removal of unresolved discussions. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

What is a troll?

Re: [7]

@RickinBaltimore: Per Internet troll, trolling does not include being completely wrong, or even showing a propensity for disruption or troublemaking. It's posting for no other reason than to get a big reaction. Since the term justifies a dismissive response (removal without discussion), the distinction is important. We can debate whether being patently wrong justifies unilateral removal, but let's please at least avoid the misuse of the term "troll". And the same goes for "vandal", BTW. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, this user IS trying to get a reaction, hence the trolling comment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
And for no other reason? I see no evidence of that. What I see is a person who is incorrectly feeling persecuted. And that is not a troll. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
However look at the SPI for this user. I am always welcome to assume good faith. I also know when, pardon my language, when the piss is being taken from us. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
If it's a sock, call it a sock, not a troll, for accuracy's sake. Even if the response is the same. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
No problem, sorry for the conflict! RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
We could also link to the SPI in the editsums of such reverts. Not everybody will know that RickinBaltimore is a 10-year editor who consistently shows fairly good judgment in these things, so we can accept his judgment at face value. I didn't. Takes another 30 seconds give or take, well worth it in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI playground for inexperienced users

Since the project page clearly states that ANI is for administrators and experienced users it's time to put an end to the constant disruption from inexperienced users here, with edits ranging from trying to give advice in fields they clearly know nothing about to NAC-closing threads almost before anyone else has had a chance to read them. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Is there anything in particular you'd suggest? The blanket removal of comments from users which aren't deemed experienced? I do agree that the NACing of threads can sometimes be a little hasty. Also, yes, AN/I's talk page redirects here - gotcha! -- samtar talk or stalk 20:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I suggest one or more admins keep an eye on new and inexperienced users posting in threads where they shouldn't post (check this thread), and tell them to go play somewhere else. And topic-ban them from ANI if they don't heed the advice (it has been done before, both telling inexperienced users to stop posting on ANI and topic-banning people from ANI, so it's nothing new). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe my below response conflicted, but yes the comments in that thread are just silly. I would hope a stern "please stop" would be sufficient, and that topic bans wouldn't be needed -- samtar talk or stalk 20:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Is there anything special about "inexperienced users"? My impression is that AN and ANI have always been perceived as a place where bad things happen, considering redirects like WP:CESSPIT. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it's a term which is too broad - some "inexperienced users" can make relatively logical and policy-based responses (though, I have no examples to hand!). I believe this thread shows the type of comment Tom may be referring to - the accusation of sockpuppeting here is just completely unnecessary, and was likely made due to an "inexperience" in Wikipedia's own brand of common sense -- samtar talk or stalk 20:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) They are more prone to giving well-intentioned but poor observations or advice. Not calling for any substantial change though. It's always been that way. --NeilN talk to me 20:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
It has always been like that, but not to the extent it is now. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I tend to agree. It behoves experienced editors to join in and/or point out when others are talking bollocks^W^W making mistakes. There's no other real practical solution. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
In absence of a couple of admins keeping an eye on these types of comments (which, to be fair, is just another thing to ask them to do), would a quick note on the inexperienced editors talk thanking them for their comment but noting that it was unhelpful/etc help guide these well-meaning editors? Failing that, a stern "please stop" would make the point I'd hope -- samtar talk or stalk 21:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Is the sky blue? :-) If experienced editors/admins would do this, that would be great. --NeilN talk to me 21:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright alright :P -- samtar talk or stalk 21:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
It's not as simple as "old vs new"; the really problematic people at ANI aren't generally newcomers, but old sweats who feel they've been around long enough that they're infallible; with overenthusiastic newcomers, a quiet "cool down" is usually enough. The undisputed champion for making really harebrained comments on admin boards and for making up non-existent policies and telling new editors they're obliged to comply with them has been around for nine years and has over 12,000 edits, and everyone who's watched a noticeboard for any length of time probably has half a dozen names they'd add to that list. ‑ Iridescent 21:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Surely a TB on ANI removes the level of protection that every editor on here deserves. There must be a better way. DrChrissy (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd hope it wouldn't have to get to that, a gentle mention of the unhelpfulness of their comment up to a stern "please stop" would hopefully stop most over-eager editors -- samtar talk or stalk 21:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
TB means "topic ban", yes? I wonder if a more general requirement for AN(I) commenters to have a degree of dispassionateness, judgment and intelligence would help, but to enforce that you'd need another layercake of process. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: judgment and intelligence - some would argue that the majority of the admin corp doesn't have that :-) samtar has it right. As a first step, address the issue on the user's talk page. --NeilN talk to me 22:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@DrChrissy: The topic bans on ANI that I have seen only covered threads that didn't directly concern the editor who was topic-banned, it didn't remove their right to post (valid) complaints, or comment in threads that directly concerned them. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the clarification. DrChrissy (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2016

The following section needs to be added.

 Done- MrX 16:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Antisemitism by User:2A02:C7D:21B:D600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74

This editor has been making grossly antisemitic comments on talk pages such as this, this and this. The nature of the comments is such that I think an immediate block would be in order. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

ahem?

https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/767078691100880896 https://www.facebook.com/jimmywales

edit Looks like hacking, might want to keep an eye on the other accounts.

83.233.147.191 (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Ownership behaviour

Non-actionable discussion on the talkpage of AN. Your issue will not be decided here like this. WP:ANI be thataway should you still desire to attempt to gain action. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 15:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

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.

Dear administrators, I am asking you to ban the User:Rhode Island Red. This editor seems to be engaged in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and negative WP:POV pushing regarding the article about Amway (and other MLM companies). He constantly reverts all edits I make, trying to keep only the negative information about the company and holding back important information from the readers such as the most recent one, which was my addition of upcoming legislation in India to the paragraph about Amway cases in India which got reverted with an explanation that "It's out of context, having no connection with the rest of the details in that section regarding legal cases against Amway India" which is not true and I explained that on the Talk:Amway. I have provided more sources that refer to Amway cases, but each time I add something to balance the biased information in the article, it gets reverted by the very same user using apparently fabricated arguments. I have experienced this type of behaviour several months ago. I have also noticed that the very same user has a long history of this kind of behaviour in many articles about MLM companies on Wikipedia including for example USANA Health Sciences, Protandim, Juice Plus, MonaVie... to name a few. His edits are characteristic by adding only negative information and not allowing other editors to add anything positive. He had been notified by other editors in the past about his behaviour, including User:Lord Roem, User:Wikiwiserick, User:Leef5... According to User:TraceyR on Talk:Juice_Plus, he has been banned previously (verified here: User_talk:Rhode_Island_Red/Archive_1#You_are_now_blocked). But I can tell I can see no improvement in his behaviour over the years.--Historik75 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC) — Historik75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As far as my label as a single purpose account is concerned - I believe that many newcomers start as SPAs (even User:Rhode Island Red started as one). When their edits do not get reverted, they move to other topics as well. But if every edit I make (even those that are sourced and relevant) gets reverted from the beginning, believe me, there is no motivation to edit other articles. And I believe there are many editors out there who were discouraged by this kind of behaviour in the past. I believe that when you present the relevant facts and provide reliable sources, then it should be irrelevant whether you are newcomer (SPA) or not.--Historik75 (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Wow! An Amway SPA/troll bypasses the talk page, makes no attempt to seek consensus or outside editorial advice, and charges ahead with a stealth campaign to have a decorated veteran editor banned so that they can resume their efforts to turn the Amway article into an advertorial unimpeded. Good luck with that doomed effort. The complaint is so baseless and ill-formed I won't even bother addressing it beyond what I've just said, aside from a warning that if the underhanded tactics continue, a block/ban will likely be in Historik's future. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
To reach consensus with somebody who is involved in personal attacks and is not trying to reach consensus (which was demonstrated during RfC in March) is really difficult. I tried it one time several months ago and it took us nowhere. Now the situation is repeating. I do not want to waste any more time. You are apparently involved in blackwashing all the MLM companies. In particular, we have discussed the Amway cases in India during RfC. Your recent edits keep all the negative information and at the same time eliminate all the relevant details that would explain the reader what was the real reason for what happened there. Now that 2 articles are out about the upcoming legislation and I have provided the sources, you have removed them as irrelevant. The article, as it is now, is strongly biased, non-balanced and the editors are not allowed to make any changes unless you allow it. You were successful in discouraging other editor(s) in the past from editing the article but perhaps you have forgotten that the article is not owned by you. If I have an information that is backed up by reliable sources why should I be prevented from publishing it only because you arbitrarily decide you don't like it? Am I supposed to make RfC each time I add some information only because there is one user who took over the ownership of the article and who doesn't like my edit and is not willing to accept any argument? If this is the way Wikipedia works, then I am not interested in editing it. But I hope that the rules here are different. --Historik75 (talk) 14:57, 24 August 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2016

I would like to be able to comment on this Incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#The_Relationship_between_Tyranny_and_Arms_Control I brought this incident up with the administrator who created the incident report, and he took the matter out of my hands by pre-emptively filing the incident report against himself, and now I can't even comment because the page is protected. Why is that? Polythesis (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • It was protected because of a disruptive IP issue a few days ago. I have unprotected it again, you should be able to comment now. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for addition to the page

Can any editor please add this to the page?


Attempted close at Talk:Abkhazia

I recently closed a RFC on that page. Unfortunately, my closure was directly removed(history). The only reasons given, however, were directed at me, the closer, and not on the close itself. If someone has a problem with a close itself, then they should voice the concerns. I would, of course, respond. Here, however, it looks like the reverters ignore that everyone can close a RFC. Further reverts would only lead to a disruptive edit war, so I am asking you all to evaluate the situation.188.174.88.23 (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You're almost right - almost everyone can close an RFC, except involved editors. As someone editing from an IP address, there is no way short of using Wikipedia:CheckUser to confirm that you are uninvolved. But that's just my two cents, will leave this template unanswered so if anyone else else checking semi-protected requests wants to move this, that's up to them. Cannolis (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
In other words, all of the reasons I pointed out to you on my talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
You say:As someone editing from an IP address, there is no way short of using Wikipedia:CheckUser to confirm that you are uninvolved.
 I say: That is ignoring WP:AGF, and it is ignoring that everyone involved could use a sockpuppet for the same(abusive) means. 188.174.88.23 (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Yep, I saw this coming a mile off, and I'm not going to be drawn into this type of debate. My response on my own talk addresses the AGF issue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: As Cannolis pointed out, closing as an IP user is a tough justification because of the potential for abuse by an involved party. WP:AGF could also be used to argue the IP user could be showing bad faith as well. I would suggest opening an account here if you're interested in this contested closure. -- Dane2007 talk 02:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio by an anyonymous editor

An anyonymous editor has been copying and pasting written content directly from sources in the Mosul offensive (2016). This is against Wikipedia:Manual of Style and is a copyright violation. His latest copyright vio edit is here. He has made many similar edits in the past as you can see after searching his edits in the history.

I have mentioned this many times in my edit summaries in the article and have asked him to stop copying and pasting content. I also did the same thing at Talk:Mosul offensive (2016)#Anonymous user copying and pasting content from websites and even asked other users to inform him about this whenever he comes online. However none of it has produced any result. Therefore I have made a request here to have this anyonymous editor be told by administrators to stop copying and pasting from sources. I request you to please help. Newsboy39 (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Diannaa and/or MER-C. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I have done a revision deletion on the edit, which is the only edit by this particular IP. There was one from Special:Contributions/2604:2000:1382:40D0:C801:CABC:629E:6E14 on August 23 as well. One on July 29 from 2604:2000:1382:40d0:4996:6971:fce0:8006. He is also using 2604:2000:1382:40D0:A9EE:4CD:8995:6211. If someone who knows how to do IP version 6 range blocks could have a look I would appreciate it. In the meantime I have protected the page for 2 weeks for excessive copyright violations. — Diannaa (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Range: 2604:2000:1382:40d0::/64 — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorted 3 IPv6 addresses:
2604:2000:1382:40d0:4996:6971:fce0:8006
2604:2000:1382:40d0:a9ee:4cd:8995:6211
2604:2000:1382:40d0:c801:cabc:629e:6e14
Total
affected		 Affected
addresses		 Given
addresses		 Range Contribs
1 /64 1 /64 3 2604:2000:1382:40d0::/64 contribs

Diannaa Thanks for removing the copyvio. But you said you protected the page, however I don't see any protection on it. Newsboy39 (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Copyvio by anonymous editor - again

A few days ago, I complained about this editor copying and pasting from sources. This is copyright violation. My earlier complaint is directly above this one. He has made another such edit [8]. An admin earlier claimed she had protected the article for 2 weeks , however the article isn't protected at all. I request you to either block the IP range of the editor or semi-protect the article so at the least he creates an account and he can be informed about him violating copyrights through his edits. Thank you. Newsboy39 (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Diannaa.
Range: 2604:2000:1382:40d0::/64
Sorted 4 IPv6 addresses:
2604:2000:1382:40d0:4996:6971:fce0:8006
2604:2000:1382:40d0:a9ee:4cd:8995:6211
2604:2000:1382:40d0:b962:5888:639f:11ce
2604:2000:1382:40d0:c801:cabc:629e:6e14
Total
affected		 Affected
addresses		 Given
addresses		 Range Contribs
1 /64 1 /64 4 2604:2000:1382:40d0::/64 contribs
— JJMC89 (T·C) 15:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but I must have somehow missed protecting the page; it is done now. I will try the range block as well, as there doesn't seem to be anyone else editing on this range. Blocked for one month. — Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this an alternative ANI?

Maybe I am misreading things, but I was not under the impression that this noticeboard was for handling what we might loosely call disciplinary issues. But that seems to be a great deal of what is showing up here. Someone let me know if I am wrong in my view of things. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I just think people don't care enough to move it. You can always move discussions if you want (as could any editor in good standing). Just use {{moved discussion to}} and {{moved discussion from}} and copy and paste. But you are right. AN is only supposed to be for a small subset of issues. ANI is for the conduct disputes. --Majora (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. My concern is that serious discussions like bans etc should be handled at ANI where they are likely to get much wider attention from the community. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Well...bans are the only thing that AN is actually more suited for policy wise. Per WP:CBAN AN should be the preferred place for ban discussions. Block discussions are ANI territory. All other conduct issues are ANI territory as well. --Majora (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah. I just moved a one such discussion. I may have to self revert. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
This is made yet more confusing by the fact that very many people consider "block" to be synonymous with "ban".--WaltCip (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this an alternative ANI?

Maybe I am misreading things, but I was not under the impression that this noticeboard was for handling what we might loosely call disciplinary issues. But that seems to be a great deal of what is showing up here. Someone let me know if I am wrong in my view of things. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I just think people don't care enough to move it. You can always move discussions if you want (as could any editor in good standing). Just use {{moved discussion to}} and {{moved discussion from}} and copy and paste. But you are right. AN is only supposed to be for a small subset of issues. ANI is for the conduct disputes. --Majora (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. My concern is that serious discussions like bans etc should be handled at ANI where they are likely to get much wider attention from the community. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Well...bans are the only thing that AN is actually more suited for policy wise. Per WP:CBAN AN should be the preferred place for ban discussions. Block discussions are ANI territory. All other conduct issues are ANI territory as well. --Majora (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah. I just moved a one such discussion. I may have to self revert. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
This is made yet more confusing by the fact that very many people consider "block" to be synonymous with "ban".--WaltCip (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI visibility issue

I don't know what just happened at ANI. All the versions from September 17, 2016 at 9:00 AM (EST) to September 17, 2016 at 5:38 PM (EST) have had their visibility changed and it doesn't show up on the logs. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The edits were suppressed with no previous revdel. Without oversight permissions, one cannot see the suppression logs. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 00:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
For what reason specifically? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
No idea. We don't even know who did it. -- Gestrid (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I honestly have no idea, and can only speculate that this is because the suppression log can contain details that were removed by the suppression but are now visible in the logs. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 00:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If edits have been suppressed, asking "why" isn't a good idea. Even if someone told you, then all the edits with that in it would have to be suppressed, and whoever told you would be trouted severely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • What at least I meant in asking why was "Was it a mistake?". It's not often you see 50 or so suppressed edits all at once, especially on a page watched by so many admins. -- Gestrid (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Unlikely a mistake. The problem with ANI is that there are so many edits so quickly. Supress one and you have to suppress every other edit that contains that information. Else you could still see the info. It is actually a lot more believable that 50 or so edits were suppressed on ANI as opposed to a less edited page. --Majora (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The 50 or so edits that were suppressed happened over the course of about 8 hours. I guess I figured admins there would pick up on it sooner than that. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Most of them probably thought it was innocent. I may have read the thread involved and if so, didn't think anything of it. Either way, we may be best off not knowing. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 01:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Admin can't suppress, only oversighters can. Sometimes, the reason something needs oversighting (or RevDeling) isn't obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I will add, sometimes these are Office Actions. Very rare do you see those, however. Such as from the Legal Team. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh. I thought admins automatically had the ability to suppress revisions. Or am I thinking of something else? -- Gestrid (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, there is oversight/suppression and then there is revision deletion. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 01:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
So, just to be even more specific about this. Oversight and suppression are not the same thing. Oversight is the historical term. Oversight was a database level action that was irreversible (only database admins could actually undo such an action). Suppression only came out later as a method to remove things from almost everyone's view while still having it easily reversible if necessary. The team that has this ability are only called "oversighters" because of the history of the action. But "oversight" is not actually done anymore. The differences can be seen on the FAQ. Just some wikihistory for you all. --Majora (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I was only asking because one of my edits was revdeleted (or suppressed, whatever the term is used in this case), which was only a comment to an ANI thread. I was not aware that asking why was not allowed. It just seemed odd to me. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Asking is allowed but you'll rarely get an answer :-) If you do, it'll be something like a terse "privacy issue". Me, I trust what the OS's are doing and move on. --NeilN talk to me 01:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Is repeatedly not sourcing material despite warnings appropriate to bring up here?

Hello, just wondering if this is the most appropriate place to bring up a user who makes (for the most part) constructive edits, but refuses to provide any references for their edits repeatedly, despite their talk page being flooded with requests to source their edits. Either they are not getting the message, or if they are, they simply don't care enough to start. But I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to seek further support on the matter. Thanks -- Whats new?(talk) 23:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  • If their edits are disruptive, then ANI. Be sure to notify them and keep it civil. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @Dennis Brown: Depends on your definition of disruptive. The edits are constructive and are likely accurate, but every edit the user makes is unsourced. It is more the fact that dealing with them means either reverting their edits or chasing a source to substantiate their claim, rather than there being something wrong with the actual content. Still appropriate to bring up here? -- Whats new?(talk) 00:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Have you tried to talk to them on their talk page first? Give them a link to WP:REFB? Walk them through an easy example with the {{cite web}} template? Citing things on Wikipedia is archaic and while the VisualEditor has made that a little easier it is still a challenge for newer editors. If they still aren't getting it after you try to help them and explain it to them, then we may have a larger problem. --Majora (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Yes, their talk page is almost nothing but repeated edit notices related to referencing from multiple users over an extended period of time, although not WP:REFB. They don't appear to acknowledge or reply to them from what I can tell. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Well an ANI thread may be necessary at that point then. If anything it will be a wake-up call that the notices on their talk page are not just for show. Hopefully they will respond to it. Make sure to notify them and to provide diffs. Sometimes, you really don't have a choice and a noticeboard thread is the only way to get some people's attention. --Majora (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
            • OK then, thanks for the advice. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI visibility issue

I don't know what just happened at ANI. All the versions from September 17, 2016 at 9:00 AM (EST) to September 17, 2016 at 5:38 PM (EST) have had their visibility changed and it doesn't show up on the logs. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The edits were suppressed with no previous revdel. Without oversight permissions, one cannot see the suppression logs. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 00:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
For what reason specifically? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
No idea. We don't even know who did it. -- Gestrid (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I honestly have no idea, and can only speculate that this is because the suppression log can contain details that were removed by the suppression but are now visible in the logs. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 00:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If edits have been suppressed, asking "why" isn't a good idea. Even if someone told you, then all the edits with that in it would have to be suppressed, and whoever told you would be trouted severely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • What at least I meant in asking why was "Was it a mistake?". It's not often you see 50 or so suppressed edits all at once, especially on a page watched by so many admins. -- Gestrid (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Unlikely a mistake. The problem with ANI is that there are so many edits so quickly. Supress one and you have to suppress every other edit that contains that information. Else you could still see the info. It is actually a lot more believable that 50 or so edits were suppressed on ANI as opposed to a less edited page. --Majora (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The 50 or so edits that were suppressed happened over the course of about 8 hours. I guess I figured admins there would pick up on it sooner than that. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Most of them probably thought it was innocent. I may have read the thread involved and if so, didn't think anything of it. Either way, we may be best off not knowing. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 01:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Admin can't suppress, only oversighters can. Sometimes, the reason something needs oversighting (or RevDeling) isn't obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I will add, sometimes these are Office Actions. Very rare do you see those, however. Such as from the Legal Team. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Oh. I thought admins automatically had the ability to suppress revisions. Or am I thinking of something else? -- Gestrid (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, there is oversight/suppression and then there is revision deletion. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 01:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
So, just to be even more specific about this. Oversight and suppression are not the same thing. Oversight is the historical term. Oversight was a database level action that was irreversible (only database admins could actually undo such an action). Suppression only came out later as a method to remove things from almost everyone's view while still having it easily reversible if necessary. The team that has this ability are only called "oversighters" because of the history of the action. But "oversight" is not actually done anymore. The differences can be seen on the FAQ. Just some wikihistory for you all. --Majora (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I was only asking because one of my edits was revdeleted (or suppressed, whatever the term is used in this case), which was only a comment to an ANI thread. I was not aware that asking why was not allowed. It just seemed odd to me. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Asking is allowed but you'll rarely get an answer :-) If you do, it'll be something like a terse "privacy issue". Me, I trust what the OS's are doing and move on. --NeilN talk to me 01:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Is repeatedly not sourcing material despite warnings appropriate to bring up here?

Hello, just wondering if this is the most appropriate place to bring up a user who makes (for the most part) constructive edits, but refuses to provide any references for their edits repeatedly, despite their talk page being flooded with requests to source their edits. Either they are not getting the message, or if they are, they simply don't care enough to start. But I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to seek further support on the matter. Thanks -- Whats new?(talk) 23:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  • If their edits are disruptive, then ANI. Be sure to notify them and keep it civil. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @Dennis Brown: Depends on your definition of disruptive. The edits are constructive and are likely accurate, but every edit the user makes is unsourced. It is more the fact that dealing with them means either reverting their edits or chasing a source to substantiate their claim, rather than there being something wrong with the actual content. Still appropriate to bring up here? -- Whats new?(talk) 00:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Have you tried to talk to them on their talk page first? Give them a link to WP:REFB? Walk them through an easy example with the {{cite web}} template? Citing things on Wikipedia is archaic and while the VisualEditor has made that a little easier it is still a challenge for newer editors. If they still aren't getting it after you try to help them and explain it to them, then we may have a larger problem. --Majora (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Yes, their talk page is almost nothing but repeated edit notices related to referencing from multiple users over an extended period of time, although not WP:REFB. They don't appear to acknowledge or reply to them from what I can tell. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Well an ANI thread may be necessary at that point then. If anything it will be a wake-up call that the notices on their talk page are not just for show. Hopefully they will respond to it. Make sure to notify them and to provide diffs. Sometimes, you really don't have a choice and a noticeboard thread is the only way to get some people's attention. --Majora (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
            • OK then, thanks for the advice. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Renewal of Charges of Vandalism on 2016 Hoboken Train Crash

Days ago, I raised the issue of vandalism on this article, which was admitted by one repondent to be valid. However, I received harassment and a thuggish response by virtually everyone who responded. So far, it does not appear that my initial allegations of vandalism have been adjudicated, and there have been further examples of vandalism on this article. My understanding is that a complaint here requires a genuine, sincere response, not merely a hostile rejection. Therefore, I renew the complaint. 71.222.36.10 (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive935#WWGB_vandalism_at_article_2016_Hoboken_Train. Pinging Bishonen. IP geolocates to same places as previous two IPs. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • This complaint is misplaced (doesn't go on the AN talk page), but I'll just as soon deal with it here, where I suppose the OP will be able to find it, as it's hardly of interest to anybody else. 71.222.36.10, I believe I gave you a both genuine and sincere response in my close of the ANI discussion here. Since you have ignored that warning and persisted in the BLP violations on Talk:2016 Hoboken train crash, I have blocked your range as well as your other IP. (I'm afraid I'm not prepared to try to add warnings or block notices on the user talkpages of IPs that shift as the sands of the seas, so I hope you see my notice here.) Even though misplaced, I hope people will please leave this thread unarchived for a day or so.Bishonen | talk 16:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC).

Lowercase sigmabot III not working properly at all

Lowercase sigmabot III isn't working properly at all. The archiving at WP:ANI has been set to 72-hours-old for years now, but there are currently threads on the page that have gone 5, 6, and 7 days without responses or archiving. I've seen countless other pages over the past several months with threads well past that page's "expiration" that Lowercase sigmabot III has failed to archive. It appears we need a replacement for this bot as it is failing. ANI in particular needs a working bot that archives stale threads promptly.

The bot's creator, Σ, hasn't edited in 6 weeks. Someone may need to email him.

PS: I'm posting this in a couple of places so that it is seen by those who can help. Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The bot itself is running on its normal schedule. It seems to hit ANI once a day around 02:00, for instance this edit today. Please point out individual threads that you think are overdue, and we can try to debug them. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Help please - Users Soham321 and Bastun side issue

The Users Soham321 and Bastun talk page disruption, disrespect for process, etc. issue was opened up at ANI by Mandruss, and I piggy-backed what I thought was a related issue in the Use of reliable sources subsection. I have very limited experience with ANI and it was several years ago. From the discussion in the Use of reliable sources subsection, it seems that my posting is related, but it may be outside the scope of ANI. Would someone please look at it and let me know what is the best way to handle this issue (e.g., remove it entirely from ANI, reframe the issue, other)? It would be very much appreciated, I am totally over my head and could really use your help.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that ANI section will produce any result—it will probably rage on until closed or ignored as unproductive so my suggestion is to ignore it. If the core issue concerns whether articles should include unsubstantiated claims of a candidate raping a 13 year old girl, I would recommend blocking anyone advocating that position until, say, 1 April 2017. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Johnuniq, Ok, good, thanks!
Mandruss, please see Johnuniq's response.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson: Couldn't sleep, I see it. I disagree that someone should be blocked for a content position. They should be blocked for disrespect for standard consensus-building process, accompanied by out-of-control AGF failure—along with some fairly serious WP:CIR issues as demonstrated in many of their responses in the ANI thread. I also feel that the tolerance for this kind of behavior is a fair explanation for why there is so much of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Mandruss, ok, well based upon Johnuniq's comments and what I think you were saying, I collapsed the resources issue. So, your original issue is still an open one.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

NPOVN posting removed - Resolved

** See below, never mind **

It appears that my detailed comments about this issue were deleted from the NPOV page opened by Soham321 and in response to a comment posted by Bastun, the two people named in the Mandruss incident posting, Users Soham321 and Bastun talk page disruption, disrespect for process, etc. . Here's what I posted on the article talk page.

I made this posting on October 22 going into great detail about the list of sources, why it was created, etc. and I am not finding it on the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. Is there a reason why my comments would be removed?
Am I missing something perhaps?--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I have tried double-checking three times to make sure I'm not missing something and I cannot find my posting. I've tried researching where to go with this and I'm not finding out who can look into this. How can I have this checked out?--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, they have been found! They were in a collapsed section - in the previous DTsma posting.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2016 for Complaint about conduct of User:Jarandhel section

Please replace this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tianmang (talk • contribs) 00:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


(Expansive edition)

To begin, there are multiple points to this user complaint. Specifically:

  1. Uncivil behaviour in a debate (what sparked off my investigation)
  2. Potential single-purpose account
  3. Conflict of interest in contents / Vested interest
  4. Multiple poor debate/article-writing styles including but not limited to:

First WP:CIVIL. This user has on multiple occasions, including right now (for which I have repeatedly pointed to the cause of incivility and requested it be ceased, but often it is followed shortly thereafter with more incivility - ranging from passive-aggressive behaviour to outright misusing refuted and retracted statements (by myself). This pattern of behaviour has been exclusively aimed at those who are in favour of Delete or Merge in this instance.

Second, it is very pertinent to address the behaviour of the overall account, having the appearance of a single-single purpose account in how it only is ever involved in the editing of a very small number of pages. This number of pages (although ignoring user page/talk) can be counted in this space without exploding this document's size:

  1. Otherkin
  2. Talk:Otherkin
  3. Elenari
  4. Talk:Elenari
  5. Wikipedia talk: What Wikipedia is not
  6. Talk:Indigo children
  7. Talk:Vampire lifestyle
  8. Talk:Reiki
  9. Talk:Raven paradox
  10. Reiki
  11. Clinical lycanthropy
  12. Lycanthropy
  13. Theistic Satanism
  14. Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance
  15. Talk:Theistic Satanism

This list may look diverse, but it must not be ignored two key facts: this list goes all the way back to 2005 and is exhaustive of non-user pages. Adding user pages would not be significantly more long. A third, more serious fact exists here is that in - at the minimum - 90% of edits for pages that are themselves not otherkin, it is for the singular purpose of editing links to, about or otherwise involving the otherkin page (to be abundantly clear, I was not able to locate any edits that did not pertain to otherkin, so I would assert based on that 100%, but reduced the number in case I missed anything). Furthermore, there is substantial evidence that in that this account only becomes active after long periods of time when there are "controversial" edits to one of the earlier cited pages, most notably otherkin which the author does not agree with. See also notes about conflict of interest which weigh in heavily.

  • 13 Oct 2005 - Initial activation, during which time he debated in Talk:Otherkin and later added, interesting enough due to current deletion debate, a reference titled "Lycanthropy--psychopathological and psychodynamical aspects". This activation continues on for the remainder of the month of October, but then quiets down through December until April 2006 when a single edit is made in the talk page again.
  • 8 April 2008 - Second activation, three years later (there is a single interlude in the midterm consisting of a single edit to Talk:Reiki). The editor makes a non-productive statement to the Talk:Raven_paradox page which strongly suggests a complete lack of familiarity of the topic; there are no responses to the question, since it is clearly answered in the remainder of the conversation as well as the article itself. Within short course, the editor is back into editing otherkin and the associated talk page as well as revisiting Reiki. This continues on as a storm through mid-April, but again quickly dies off terminating altogether in the first days of August.
  • 30 Oct 2016 - Fourth and current activation. The user showed up again, allegedly in response to vandalism on their page. This activation is the most pertinant, see remainder of complaint.

Hopefully, this assists in demonstrating a single-purpose behaviour within this account.

Now, I will address what I see as a significant conflict of interest by this author. As previously noted, this author outright declares upon entry into the arena that he is the owner of otherkin.net as well as anotherwiki.org. It bears noting that at times, these pages have been attempted to be used as sources for citations; at present, there is no direct reference (although there is a link to a DMOZ category which is headlined by AnOtherWiki as well as containing Otherkin.net), but the direct correlation between the author's ownership and oversight of these sites coupled with their disregard for wikipedia policies to maintain a page that only serves to validate their own fringe beliefs represents a signficiant case of vested interest on their part. Specifically, combatively going after the introduction of anything that might be seen as negative of the alleged otherkin subgroup demonstrates a defensiveness that negates from the potential accuracy and neutrality of the wiki article. In their place, often times there are placed in items which only lend to the suggestion of the "realism" of the purported beliefs.

Finally, I shall conclude with the multiple poor debate/article-writing styles which consist of [[the following:

  • Synthesis - I have noted the behaviour of the editor is to often bring into the debate what amounts to synthesis of multiple articles' perspectives in order to push their own perspective (interestingly, they also like to accuse of this at the same time). Take for instance the following clip from one of my arguments:
Quoting the Spirits of Another Sort article: "Another example of type maintenance occurs in an article by Th'Elf, who writes of Otherkin: It is a broad label that encompasses people who identify as elves, dwarves, dragons, therianthropes, angels, faeries, sidhe, gargoyles, and a whole mass of diverse folk. Some include vampires under the label and others don't, but there have also been disagreements about the inclusion of most of the member groups as well as the label itself. Hosts and walk-ins are also included, though furries are right out." Jarandhel (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Another source: Venetia Laura Delano Robertson. "The Beast Within: Anthrozoomorphic Identity and Alternative Spirituality in the Online Therianthropy Movement." Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 16, no. 3 (2013): 7-30. Full text available here: 1: "While there are Therianthropes who engage in Furry Fandom, the two are distinct subcultures and both eagerly encourage this differentiation, the former keen to disassociate the perceived frivolity of fandom and role-play from the spiritual solemnity of their relationship with animals." Jarandhel (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
and again later doing the action while at the same time slinging an accusation (and other errors noted below):
Your source quotes therian.wikia.com as its source of information. Allow me to do the same: "There are many different types of Otherkin, but some of them include: Therian (Earth based animals), Dragonkin, Vampirekin, Faekin, Merkin (Mermaids/ Mer people), Alienkin, Fictionkin, and Factkin." http://therian.wikia.com/wiki/Otherkin Again, as I've already explained to you and as was stated extremely clearly in the Laycock source, therianthropes are a subset of otherkin. There is no "contradiction" between that point in these articles, you are simply misinterpreting them. Even simply looking at the DMOZ.org Otherkin Category will show therianthropes are a subcategory of otherkin. Jarandhel (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
which commits the egregious error of utilizing entirely unverifiable original works, including citing DMOZ, which is not an authoritative source, merely an aggregation point along with the wiki (attempting to bleed the authority of the paper's citation as an endorsement of authority to the entire source). Of critical importance as I note in my first quote of the document is that the author, while citing raw text from the aforementioned wiki, actually sets out and articulates the concept in his own words - going directly in the face of the given definition in the previous document utilizing the term as well as the otherkin page itself, using identical language. All the while the author is utilizing a paper where he rejects the definition provided, but adopts the language of why it should not be merged into furry. At this point, the editor has not put forth further evidence why the page should be stand alone, but merely utilizes this two-paper synthesis repeatedly while also making aggressive uncivilly loaded and impatient phrasing.
  • Personal attacks - This is the most egregious offence by the editor, and I will take the time now to list off the worst, and ones with most possible consequence to the outcome of the debate as well. First, I will cite the introductory portion of the editor's text:
I actually found out about this nomination for deletion in a rather unusual way - a vandal on my wiki going by the name "Nafokramkat, Destroyer of Planet Substub" moved one of the pages there to Articles_for_deletion/Otherkin_(2nd_nomination) tonight. That seemed rather specific, so I took a look over here and found this AfD going on.
while this may serve as a somewhat harmless statement, it is clear that the editor's position is already loaded on the pretense of a negative situation. Shortly thereafter, I point out that he has intentionally introduced bias by starting with a claim of vandalism specifically which is in bad faith to the conversation
later followed by upon being pointed out
I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy or procedure which would allow the administrator of an unaffiliated wiki to report vandalism of their wiki by a Wikipedia user and have any action taken here. If I'm wrong about that, please point me to where I would do so. The evidence is easily provided: 1 2 3 4 5. I thought it was important to note what brought me here, as it is pertinent to my own biases in this AfD discussion.
then
I would personally be much more interested in administrators validating the IP of the user present in this discussion whose username (KATMAKROFAN) is actually an anagram of the username of the vandal on my wiki (Nafokramkat), if indeed there is a wikipedia policy that would allow checkuser under these circumstances. Jarandhel (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Where the editor in question now states a specific user by name. It is at this point replies cease in this thread, however, even after my additional followup, no effort or attempt is made to negate or otherwise remove the offending and loaded content in this vein or any other. Later on, I had my efforts to retrieve a paywalled article somewhat frustrated, so filed to have it retrieved and/or summarized by the appropriate parties to which I was met with equal measure of shock and gratitude when the editor produced the article for me, but felt it necessary to again take another chance to take a shot
I guess you didn't try simply searching for the title yourself? Full Text via archive.org Jarandhel (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
at which point I simply went with the typical advice, and allowed it to slide and thanked the editor while gently reminding the editor of conduct requirements. Unfortunately, this was not the last incident of the editor making use of these types of tacts, later in the debate becoming aggressive again when the circumstances demanded he provide further evidence to his point
From the first quote from Spirits of Another Sort by Laycock, AGAIN: "It is a broad label that encompasses people who identify as elves, dwarves, dragons, therianthropes, angels, faeries, sidhe, gargoyles, and a whole mass of diverse folk." I believe that firmly establishes the super-class/sub-class relationship, in what we have already established is a reliable source. Jarandhel (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Shorly after which I prepared this document since it became necessary to seek external remediation to this situation that I had been unable to satisfactory solve myself. (since the time of this last post, more has been posted, but it has been unremarkable. It contains not much else in terms of accusation, but more hampered logic which I again refuted, etc.).
At this point I would like to conclude by stating that I cannot suggest any course of action, nor comment upon my own behaviour as it would be inherently self-serving to do either; both to my side of this debate, which is on-going, but also to myself directly. I will state, in no uncertain terms, that I have presented the facts here with citations in the manner consistent with how I understand them to be, including the alleged fact that I did not participate in the behaviours that I am accusing the aforementioned editor of conducting, and have addressed to the best of my ability any short-comings pointed out to me in my own arguments and style. As such, by these circumstances, you're more then welcome and encouraged to weigh in on myself as well, and the argument if you have any points that can break the impasse which is as yet unresolved. I for one would like to continue on in this debate, however I also do not wish to be personally attacked any more - I want my points to be refuted coolly through sound logical reasons, not personal grudges, pet theories, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tianmang (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think I have ever seen such a long ANI submission. If you want anyone to even read this, let alone act on it, I recommend that you reduce it by at least 90%, since nobody is going to wade through all 7000 words. RolandR (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I second with RolandR. This feels more like a graduate thesis than a complaint. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
30,000 bytes removed, linked back to "expansive edition" for anybody who needs more context. Thanks for the advice @RolandR. Tianmang (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I've read it nonetheless. The matter should be dealt with at the AfD. (but I do have the impression that the poster may be wittingly or unwittingly trying to remove opposition to their view of the subject) DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that I did not request any specific action beyond the users' conduct be evaluated and acted upon to prevent the type of behaviour noted which is disruptive to the conversation. Anything else, by all means defer until the AfD has concluded. His arguments, while I disagree with, are fine and I will continue to debate him - but only politely. I wish only for such consideration be both ways. Tianmang (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Tianmang (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

ANI

User:Usernine has accused me and Cahk of bad faith editing and collaborating to deleted articles about his COI non-notable organisation. I suggested he reported me to ANI, but instead he's posted at the top of this page. I'm reluctant to move it myself since more accusations are likely to follow. Background is here and here FWIW Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Restoring archived ANI case

Hi. Is it possible to restore a case that has been archived in spite of it still being unresolved? I refer to the following case: Problematic Academic Dishonesty. Thanks in advance.--MarshalN20 Talk 03:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Generally, archived discussions are not unarchived, and are never edited (See Help:Archive). Instead, restate the issue and provide a link to the archive. Not especially sure though for this case, you may want to wait for a response from someone else. (Non-administrator comment) -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 02:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks ACN. I'm thinking that the best route here is to just let matters fizzle out. This issue has been going on for almost half a decade (if not more)—unfortunately, I'm sure it's going to end up back at AN/I again in a few months or so. Regardless, I appreciate the response; have a great day.--MarshalN20 Talk 03:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Re: "I think an admin is canvassing"...

Should I presume that the complaint I filed regarding Administrator Daniel Case (talk · contribs) is being handled quietly by fellow admins, behind the scenes? I brought it to the noticeboard regarding the canvassing, but other problems seemed to have appeared, but no actual admins weighing in on the matter. I'm not looking for the user to be se-sysopped or thrown in a sinkhole; I just want to be able to rest assured that the problem isn't going to repeat itself on the other child disappearance article he linked this one to using the See Also section, because that would suck. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I did actually see an admin responding. Unlikely guess would be that people are ignoring the complaint because sections whose header contain the word "admin" tend to be bogus complaints. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Not that it makes any difference but three admins did comment. It would be nice for Daniel to respond and say that he will take the concerns on board, but there is no way to force him to make any comment. In any case it serves as a clear warning and if future problems arise then I or another admin will take in consideration when deciding whether to block. Suggest we move this mini-thread back to the project page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. Most of the admins have that little icon at the top of their user pages denoting them as such. I clearly missed it. Jo-Jo, I used the word admin in the titles, to note that, because I was complaining about an admin it was something that needed to be addressed by other admins. I only asked here because sometimes admins settle stuff in chat amongst themselves, and I just wanted to make sure that something was occurring. Of course, this can continue back there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion archived without resolution

A dispute that involves me has just been archived, despite it being less than 10 days since the incident was opened here. There has been no resolution, despite a broad consensus in the discussion. Can the question be re-opened since the matter has not been resolved? —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

edit section button leads to wrong section

There seems to be some glitch, making you edit the section ABOVE the button you clicked, instead of the section at (under) the button you click (like every other page). Thx CapnZapp (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

CapnZapp, this happens when you're on a page and some editor/process has removed a section (usually to archive it) while you're on the page but before you click edit. If you look at the URL you'll see it has action=edit&section=# The section # is no longer correct for the "live" version of the page. --NeilN talk to me 16:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, nothing to worry about then Thx CapnZapp (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
It's essentially the same issue as an edit conflict, but it has a tendency to happen more on big ages ike this with lots of active sections. The easiest way to deal with it is to copy your edit (I make a habit of doing this whenever posting at AN or ANI because there are so many ECs in addition to this issue) and then bypass your cache, find the section again, and paste in your edit. That saves you having to type it again and potentially getting edit conflicted again. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Years ago it could also happen without recent edits on some pages with weird stuff in a section heading (don't remember details, maybe templates). I haven't seen that in a long time so maybe the software learned to handle it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Questions

Hello I've actually been a contributor to WP since maybe 2007. I had little knowledge and the rules and policies until I got a one week ban which actually compelled me to read and comprehend multiple WP policies throughout my block period. I've had multiple accounts here and it didn't matter to me which account I should use as long as I log in to any one of them. Sometimes I don't even bother to log in and contribute as an IP address. This caused my ban as I used many accounts to participate in a vote (which is why I now know why they call it sockpuppet) which of course I didn't know how grave mistake that was. Anyway now I'm back and I'm trying to be more responsible here and I have some questions.

1. All my contributions to the vote discussion was struke down, can I now, after completing my ban, contribute again to the discussion (don't worry I will do it all in one account) ?

2. Ive had contributions before my ban to many articles, which were well-sourced, however they were reverted because I was banned as sockpuppet, is this some sort of punishment or can I undo them ? ComebackAgain (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

What is the name of your main account? -- Euryalus (talk) 08:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
@Euryalus: I didn't particularly have a main account but they somehow determine user:GM25LIVE as my main A/C ComebackAgain (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Archiving of closed discussions on AN/I

Can we make it where when a discussion is closed (on WP:ANI) it is automatically and immediately archived? Many of these closed discussions take up tens of thousands of bytes and cause a lot of lag. I especially hate it because I'm on an iPad, and this page repeatedly crashes after I make any edit to the page. It would be nice if we had some kind of bot that archived these discussions immediately instead of several hours or days later. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. If I've been following a discussion, it suddenly being archived immediately on closing would make me think 'where's it gone?' It also would give no time for a bad close to be reversed, however rare they are. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we should at least make them collapsed by default, because they regularly lag and crash pages, especially on mobile devices. I've had trouble when I've used my PC as well. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Collapsed discussions will still load, so that won't solve the size issue. Discussions are archived after 72 hours. Is that really too long? Primefac (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Ditto that. It is too large, that even loading from my Wii U does not work properly. :I --B1 l T l C (C)2016 Brynda1231, Do Not Steal. 14:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Works fine on my BlackBerry. If it's really a problem on some devices, perhaps time for an upgrade. 72 hours isn't that much - particularly for discussions that are only inactive, rather than closed. Nfitz (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • They need to remain on the board for at least 24 hours, to accommodate the sleep, work, and log-in patterns in all of the timezones of all of the people who have participated in the thread and/or want to know its outcome. Softlavender (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not, no, because discussions are often closed prematurely, reopening is allowed, and nobody has the right to say "You all have to shut up now". See the section below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Closing - is it really always necessary?

Unresolved
 – Those responsible for closing/marking resolved have been sacked.
Resolved
 – per Juliancolton
Wrong venue. Please move to Archive

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.

Feel free to tell me I'm making up a problem where none exists, because this is just something that kind of annoys me and really not a big deal.

That being said, some people seem downright obsessed with making sure every section gets a formal close. It used to be that if you marked something with {{resolved}} that was enough for simple matters that only one or two users commented on, but now even after you do that, for some reason it seems someone always comes along and closes it anyway. It just feels like needless busywork that provides no benefit. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I saw you use {{resolved}} the other day and I like it. I will probably start doing that myself, as I have definitely experienced the "it's closed, but..." happening quite a bit. Primefac (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, {{archive top}} has been around forever, but it didn't really start being used a lot until about 2013, and now it's like it's the only tool in the box for closing AN/ANI threads when a large number of them don't need to be shut down with a closing statement. There's actually a whole giant stable of discussion templates at Wikipedia:List of discussion templates. Many of them are specialized for certain areas such as SPI but some, like {{NOTHERE}} are appropriate for other noticeboards as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I like {{wrong venue}}. That one definitely needs more use here. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I also think a number of closings are done too hastily. If the problem is brand new user making blatantly disruptive edits and all that is needed is for an admin to see it and block them, yeah, the discussion is probably over. But I'm noticing an attitude wherein any time an admin indicates they blocked someone, the next thing you know the thread is just closed. I don't think that's right as it makes it look like a block is a final, permamnent thing not open to discussion. And when there are objections, they either keep commenting below the closed discussion or have to edit it to re-open. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Premature closes are annoying as heck. A block is occasionally not the final resolution to a non-simple issue but only a stopgap measure. And sometimes the block is not the best solution or another editor has more information about the blockee (sock, paid editing, etc.) --NeilN talk to me 19:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Having returned after almost ten years of inactivity, I can tell you that routine closes are one of the most striking changes to ANI—and quite often not in a good way. It's true, that a closed listing can be re-opened, but often it discourages discussion, even if I can appreciate it ending dramatic encounters. It also tends to exclude those who are not around during the few hours before the close. Finally, it's often feels rather arbitrary, which thread gets closed and which remains open (because it is). El_C 20:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Not that I haven't been quickly closing threads, too, since my return. I just presumed this is how things are done now. But, indeed, let's work on old-schooling it. El_C 20:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

My impression is that it is often done by non-admins, who may be trying to get experience in admin-related areas as is expected at RFA, or are just generally over-eager. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Could be; I've been seeing a fair number of NACs lately. Primefac (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe they started to do the formal closes to prevent excessive pile-on drama. May have worked some of the time.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
That's probably at least part of it, and in some cases is entirely appropriate, but I think it's gone a bit too far recently. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Having closed a thread more than once, and prematurely so at least once, I'd appreciate some document giving at least some guidance on the subject. It would be better that flying by the seat of my pants, so to speak. When is a {{nac}} appropriate? To me, mistakes notwithstanding, if the close is completely uncontroversial, over and done with, but that's not always easy to judge and, as I said, I missed the mark at least once (and badly so). The appearance of a pun-cascade (or other forms of humor) is usually a sure sign, but still... If we allow it, there should be some guidance, some lists of dos and don'ts. Kleuske (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Beeblebrox, what precisely are you talking about? This board (AN), ANI, or what? Also, Template:Resolved is not really helpful for discussion boards, as it does not indicate what the purported resolution is/was, the date that that occured, or even the person who supposedly resolved the situation. It is mostly to be used on pages where a bot auto-archives within 24 hours threads marked with Template:Resolved. On actual noticeboards that are discussion boards, the template is more problematical than anything, as it is non-explanatory, non-specific, and non-discussion oriented. It forces whoever is reading the thread to actually take considerable time to determine if in fact whatever-it-is has actually been resolved, and how and when and by whom. Softlavender (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The Resolved template has a parameter for the summary, which can normally include a signature and timestamp. The only substantive difference between the two types of close is that 'archive' prohibts all further discussion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
However, people don't fill out the Resolved template, so it doesn't really resolve anything. Which is why in the end those threads (if we are talking about ANI) eventually need to be closed with a purple box and an explanation, signature, and timestamp. Otherwise the thread stays on ANI for three more days, and ANI fills up with 70 to 80 threads, which discourages any admin participation. Softlavender (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I think we should encourage more use of {{resolved}} over fully closing, at least for the cases where a discussion has come to a natural end. Archiving is useful when discussions have veered off-topic after the resolution of the original problem or just aren't going anywhere productive, and makes it easier to find ongoing discussions at a glance. But I agree with the concerns above that many discussions are closed unnecessarily and/or too early. Resolved is a nice middle ground in that you can say 'all done here, no more admin eyes necessary', while not technically restricting anyone from continuing a discussion if they want to. Sam Walton (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Why closing (with the purple box) is extremely helpful on ANI: One of the major problems with ANI is the lack of admin participation. Some threads don't get any participation at all, by anybody, and get bot-archived in 72 hours without resolution or comment. The reason so many threads get lost in the shuffle is because ANI quickly gets filled up with 70 to 80 threads if threads are not closed and one-click-archived efficiently. The purple "closed" box lets people easily see which threads need attention and which don't, which allows for greater admin participation and resolution. Without the purple "closed" boxes, ANI nears a millions bytes of sheer raw text, impossible for anybody to wade through to find what needs attention. The current convention is to purple-box close threads that have clearly been resolved, and then one-click archive them after 24 hours (24 hours gives all participants a chance to see the result regardless of their timezone, yet clears the deck much faster than the three-day delay of the bot-archiving). This method is the best way that we have found for keeping ANI efficient enough so that all threads receive attention; it keeps the number of threads on ANI down to 25–35 rather than 70–80. Without this methodology, too many threads go unattended or unresolved. If insufficiently experienced editors are closing threads, they should be gently encouraged to refrain or to be more careful; if a thread clearly merits unclosing there is no stricture against unclosing for a legitimate reason. Softlavender (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
    Softlavender, I think you're being a bit dramatic here. The point of this thread wasn't to say that we cannot use {{atop}} (and in fact on ANI I think it's the best option). I think (based on my own observations) that Beeblebrox made the post due to unnecessary hatting of AN (no I) discussions, when a simple {{resolved}} would have sufficed. Primefac (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
That's why I asked Beeblebrox what he was talking about (he hasn't seen my question yet I don't think). This talk page is actually the talk age for both ANI and AN. Plus people here are talking about ANI. So it's really not clear who is discouraging what, and where. That should be made clear. Also, ANI should have its own talk page, but since this talkpage is move-protected only an admin can fix that. Softlavender (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
On the whole, it seems more of an issue at ANI than AN. And I'm certainly not suggesting getting rid of formal closes, it just seems like they are a bit over-used and sometimes done prematurely. My purpose in opening this discussion was to see if I was just being a cranky old bastard or if anyone else saw this as a real issue, which as it turns out they do. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Can't it be both? --NeilN talk to me 17:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Get off my lawn, you damn youngsters! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)<
  • As someone who has done a fair number of NAC closings, I will say that I try to do so only when the thread has obviously been resolved. I make mistakes, of course, but I have no objection when one of my NAC closings is re-opened, although I generally don't re-open them myself if I think that my judgment about closing remains correct, and nothing has changed to alter that judgement.
    For my part, I find that threads having been closed with atop and abottom makes it easier for me to scan through AN and AN/I and skip over ones that I assume have been resolved, thus not wasting time on reading them unless the particular subject interests me - so that's the value I see in threads being closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Agree with User:Beyond My Ken, when an issue has already been responded to it is a real timesaver for someone to mark it closed (or resolved) so others don't waste time going through the diffs only to discover they're re-examining completed work. There's no need to close everything -- for example very short threads are self-explanatory ("OP: Reporting this vandal! Next person: Blocked.") But closes on longer threads seem to do no harm, and certainly make it easier to find the items still needing review. One thing I do disagree with is rapid archiving after a thread is closed - it's worth letting resolved issues stand on the page for a few hours so people can see what happened with them. But neither of these are very big issues - just offering some idle views. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anything "formal" is going to come out of this thread. Just a good reminder to editors to hold off closing for a while just in case cranky old bastards or sweet young sylphs have something useful to add. --NeilN talk to me 02:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Does that mean we can close this thread, then...? – Juliancolton | Talk 03:15, 20 April 2017 (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.
Can't believe someone closed the thread... on whether closing threads is useful... the irony is too much for me :) EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Third time is the charm? Primefac (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
to be fair, mine was actually a joke Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
So was the second one! Primefac (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I am so tempted to undo the last close with the summary: improper close, totally unnecessary ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Breaking News: half the admins on Wikipedia blocked for edit warring over a joke. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Ahh, but now we have the "resolve", "wrong venue" and "archive" template bundled neatly together to satisfy each and every customer. Who among us can't be pleased with such an outcome? Behold, the Triumvir of closers. --DHeyward (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • My first reaction on seeing this was "this better be a joke"... In any event, I happened to see a perfect example just now [9]. Note that I did not just tag it as resolved but explained why and signed it so everyone knows who decided it was resolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I saw that, but isn't that a perfect candidate for closing in 10 hours and archiving 24 hours after that? L3X1 (distant write) 21:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Must be a joke, right? El_C 00:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • So I'm going back to closing obviously finished short discussions following the appropriate time lags. L3X1 (distant write) 14:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • What is up with this prevailing impatience? Am I just behind the times and this is how things are now? Why does this talk page thread needs to be closed? El_C 18:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    The administrator noticeboards have a reputation for attracting pointless debate and bickering. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
If the new times are tidiness and ease of use. Softlavender and BMK said it above. It allows the plethora of small cases to be archived 24 hours before the bot, keeping the length of your noticeboard shorter, and provides at-a-glance determining of whether something rewuire further admin attention/community discussion. A nothing-to-see-here also can prevent drive-by commentary which contributes to AN/I being described as "toxic", "distasteful", and scary. L3X1 (distant write) 19:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I have no issue with archiving obviously inactive discussions that have already been clearly resolved. That's not what we're talking about so far as I know. What is being discussed is whether some of the formal closes are premature, giving the impression that once an admin has blocked one or more of the users involved, that's it and all discussion must cease. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Well part of the problem might be the disconnect between the {{atop}} instruction and widely accepted practice. The template should not say "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion." unless that's to be taken seriously. Assuming that we're not going to change the practice, I think we should change the instruction. If it's nothing but a suggestion, say so. If ANI's needs are different from those of other talk spaces, create a new template for use at ANI or make {{atop}} use different language at ANI. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
That is a good idea, how about this for an AN/I atop: This discussion is has recieved attention and is closed ? L3X1 (distant write) 18:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
If ANI needs to be 800K bytes in order to deal with ongoing issues than so be it. It would be significantly less so if there wasn't a cadre of editors who felt the need to pipe in and have their opinion heard in nearly every discussion regardless of the value of their input.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
IKR. I saw this on meta,
Resolved
, and think it might be what a better alternative to atop. It has a green check mark and the text This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. I still like the visual-ness of atop/abot over this template, though. I never really noticed a "cadre". There are too many drive-by comments, but that's why this discussion was held: atop and early archiving are supposed to prevent this. But now I'm regurgitating Softlavender and BMK. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 02:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here, but if you really can't see the cadre of editors who felt the need to pipe in and have their opinion heard in nearly every discussion regardless of the value of their input you may want ponder the fact that of the last 10,000 edits to ANI just five editors are responsible for more than 10% of edits, with yourself making more than twice as many edits as any other editor, and many (perhaps most) of those edits are at best of questionable value, and at worst outright pot-stirring and taunting. (The selection of diffs in that thread on my talk were only a sample from a one-week period, remember.) Per my comments on my talk, I don't believe you're acting in bad faith, but the atmosphere of any page on Wikipedia is naturally neutral, it takes toxic input to make ANI toxic. As Ponyo (almost) says above, to another editor (particularly one who feels they have a genuine grievance that isn't being taken seriously, as is often the case at AN and ANI), "this thread is closed, the opinion of anyone who hasn't commented isn't wanted" is just as aggressive as as straightforward "fuck off". Yes, there are occasions when visible closure or premature archiving is necessary, either to cool an escalating situation before someone says something they'll regret or to shut down a thread that's become a long back-and-forth between two users that would be better placed on a talk page, but those situations are rare; they're best handled by people with substantial experience of dispute resolution in Wikipedia's unique environment since it's virtually guaranteed to upset someone if not handled sensitively. ‑ Iridescent 15:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
↑This.↑ All day long.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

RFA

This RFA Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kharkiv07? --Marvellous Spider-Man 00:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Editor Imma redbull04 moved their talk page

Reporting user conduct

My posting regarding the conduct of another editor of the article Redskins (slang) was closed as a content dispute. I thought this noticeboard addressed conduct disputes, if that is not the case, where is the appropriate place?--WriterArtistDC (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There's a few steps you can take. Seek a third opinion or get help at the dispute resolution noticeboard. If those prove to be unhelpful, the final step is requesting formal mediation. The key to any of that is both parties must be willing to talk it out. —Guanaco 18:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
What then can be done if willingness to talk it out has not been achieved after three weeks? From my point of view, the other editor has been subtly insulting throughout, making progress towards agreement impossible; and even when content is discussed, personal interpretations of sources and wp guidelines are pushed rather than anything I have come to expect after ten years of editing. There also appears to be a Catch-22 in the guidelines which separate conduct disputes from content disputes: this case is both; and will not likely reach the level needed for formal mediation.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
You can have a look at WP:DISCFAIL. User conduct (and only conduct, not content disputes) could be reported at WP:ANI. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Also note that conduct issues take precedence over content issues at some notice boards so, for example, WP:DRN might not accept a case if the other editor does not participate. Edit wars can also be reported at WP:EWN. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Notification requirement

Why is there a requirement for someone to post a tag on a user page here? I've been here a while, and it's somewhat confusing to me. I can only guess as to how confusing it must be to a newcomer. 47.32.217.164 (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Because if you are making a claim against someone, they have the right to refute those claims or explain their actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Author Karen Dionne.png

Hi,
File:Author Karen Dionne.png has been deleted because no permission was provided. I just received permission with VRTS ticket # 2017050510009549. Could you undelete this file?
Thank you in advance, --Arthur Crbz (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Arthur Crbz: In the future, restoration requests should go to WP:REFUND. I'm skeptical of the permission ticket, please see my note within the ticket. ~ Rob13Talk 10:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Thank you for your answer, I wasn't aware of undeletion procedure on the English Wikipedia. --Arthur Crbz (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Abdelhak Nouri

Can you lock Abdelhak Nouri? When I arrived on the article it said he had died, someone has removed it but he's in the hospital so it's scary when people are writing that he died. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdelhak_Nouri&type=revision&diff=789671287&oldid=789670627 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:C3ED:38B0:E538:8935:3D84:9309 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Page semi-protected two days.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

User: Unfairnessdoctrine is vandalizing both article and talk content.

The user Unfairnessdoctrine is vandalizing article and talk content with non-NPOV content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.13.109 (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Urgent: Serious Vandalism of Article Mukesh Hariawala (Needs Speedy Deletion)

Moved to AN. GoldenRing (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that i want to ask for arbitration

I was in the discussion with User talk:Canterbury Tail.I don't want make him angry.Is there someone who can tell me why he is acting like this?.Sorry for my lack of English.USAthegreatest (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

He's completely right however, as your actions here can lead to a block, if they are deemed to be worthy of one. That goes for any editor, and how they edit. Nothing in what he said was remotely threatening or angry, and his only comment to you was extremely civil in its tone. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok,I got it.Thanks.USAthegreatest (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Usernames in ANI headings

It seems to me that section headings at WP:ANI would be more useful if they included the username(s) of the editor(s) who are the subjects of the complaints. I modified one on Saturday, but I felt comfortable with that edit only because the heading said nothing specific at all. That was a rare occurrence.

I don't propose a "rule" in this area, but I think editors who care about this should be able to do more than the occasional heading change without being seen as disruptive. For example I would change headings like "User continues to remove sourced material" to include the username, and I might be seen changing 10 or 15 such headings at once.

Comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see this usually only done to the vague headers, like "request for admin", and not something to do 10 or 15 at a time. Most of the time it doesn't really matter who the user is, and it can risk focusing too much on the user than the problem. Taking your example of "User continues to remove sourced material", I think it would not be helpful or add anything useful. On this subject I would like to see users stop adding {{u}} or any other templates to section headers, as this breaks the section links. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
The opposite should be applied. Someone surveyed AfbComm requests and found that including a username in those headings significantly increased the chance the user would be sanctioned. I'd expect that ANi would be worse. It sucks to be dragged through the mud and seeing your name heading an ANi thread every time someone posts is discouraging. It sets the table against the person named in the heading. Legacypac (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Correlation ≠ causation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Floq is correct. That survey was brought up recently at WP:ARC and shot down for the same reason. I tend to disagree with the rest of your reasoning, but I can kinda see how the increased visibility of names could raise the temperature a few degrees in an already hot environment. Cost might exceed benefit. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't "shot down" per se; parties whom one would expect to disagree with such a premise did indeed disagree with it. C'est tout. — fortunavelut luna 18:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I disagreed with it, albeit silently, and I am not one of those alleged parties. "Correlation ≠ causation" is really all one needs to say. The proponent of the argument failed to show the causal relationship B->C to the exclusion of A->B&C, so the claim was in fact shot down. Not saying the subject is closed, but it's closed in that venue. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • To circle back around to the original question, I think a descriptive header should be used, but if there is no username in the original header I don't think one should necessarily be added. Converting "admin help!" to "Help with user who refuses to listen" would be acceptable over "Primefac refuses to listen".
In thinking about it, it would also be problematic to change the header after more than one or two people have commented on it. Changing a header of a thread with 10-15 comments could confuse the previous editors who have commented. Primefac (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I just want to note that what Legacypac said is misleading at best. Causation has not been proven and likely runs in a different direction. It's far more likely that cases named after an individual were the result of significant behavioral problems with few mitigating factors (e.g. poor behavior from another editor, disruption in a topic area as a whole). This would obviously be associated with more sanctions. ~ Rob13Talk 18:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
That is Rob13's opinion at best. Yes many people are named because they caused problems, but not always and not very fairly. I've seen editors slam other editors based on that editor being named in the header - even when there was no case. The very fact someone is header named increased the focus on that editor's behavior. It's quite tough to turn the tables on the filer, even when their behavior is worse. Every experienced ANi or ArbCom participant knows in their heart how this works and the more "skilled" ones use it to their advantage. Legacypac (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I typically use a higher threshold than "knowing in my heart" when trying to make major systemic changes. I see WP:BOOMERANG pop up extremely regularly at ANI, which contradicts the idea that turning the tables on the filer is difficult. ~ Rob13Talk 04:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • It seems fairly obvious to me that causation is unproven here and that Rob's explanation is a very plausible one - though again unproven. But whatever the explanation of the statistics, headings ought to be neutral (per the instructions at the top of WP:ANI) and I don't see how headings like "GoldenRing is edit warring against consensus" are neutral. GoldenRing (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Address the problem, not the editor"
I would try and avoid this as much as possible. Only if it's tied directly to one editor, and it's a long-running problem with that particular editor, ought it to be done.
Ask why other editors need to read this name. Is their understanding of the problem going to benefit, or does it just needlessly personalise a problem? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Also consider the fact that when a name is put in a heading it turns up at the top of the results when you search for that name. Headings should be neutral and names should be removed, not added. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thread archived without comment

The thread I created was archived without comment (aside from one).[10] Can this be restored please, and some experienced editors comment on it? HampsteadLord (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Was it the Manny Pacquiao one? Further discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Manny Pacquiao steroid allegations and consistent edit warring and at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Manny Pacquiao. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is It is easier for a noob to leave wiki than oppose an unfair delete

Referring to the close of Daggafari where historic content not part of the AfD was deleted even after merger to Cannabis in South Africa, further I am being accused of SOAPBOX, POV and deliberately trying to evade AfD, all untrue, hurtful and frustrating that it really is just easier to leave Wikipedia (because I am too angry at the allegations and frustrated to understand the process for deletion review[and don't think it matters anyway as it has already been decided]) where racist history of cannabis in South Africa is clearly not welcome and considered a POV rather than the fact it is and verified so by reliable references.

Thus I stress it's easier for a noob editor like myself to just forget it, as can seen by the bombardment of processes on my talk page was either just innocent management of wiki or a clear bombardment to frustrate. However I am to believe that the users acted in good faith every step of the way. even though it may not be the case. Regardless, a sense of dictator ship as described in my previous breakdown because of cumbersome processes incurred just to see my attempts to address it was in vain and many of my contributions have been deleted where they could have been edited or updated.

Thus I ask anyone whom can view and lodge a deletion review in favor of the correct close which would be a merger of the historic content from Daggafari to Cannabis in South Africa to do so. Because at this stage the frustration has me careless and demotivated. Maybe the intention of some participants.

The word Daggafari can almost be replaced with dagga culture (cannabis culture) and it would be correct as only the Neologism was the subject of the AfD and NOT the content but somehow this is lost in discussion.

I believe the consensus of the AfD is merge but really don't care if Daggafari is deleted as much as for the valid historical data that does deserve space on Wikipedia and should never have been deleted because doing so is POV rather than a act of enforcing Wikipedia guidelines.

This will also be my last edit unless Wikipedia guidelines are enforced properly. I will check back in the future to see if anyone realised the mistake and corrected it maybe then I will reconsider contributing again. But am doubtful that some editor who may have POV against cannabis and cannabis users.

Happy editing,

Regards Mickey ☠ Dangerez 14:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Bye. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Your question means little: insofar as all you have to do to leave is stop editing, it is easier than a lot of things, for anyone. Britmax (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Deletion is a part of life here. Don't take it personally. Legacypac (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Your concern is legitimate, but people are less likely to take you seriously when you threaten to leave wiki if you don't get your way. My advice is to seek a WP:REFUND and add the lost content to Cannabis in South Africa. Ask for the content to be moved to draft space or user space so you can reuse the historical and cultural portions in the new article. AlexEng(TALK) 20:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment)@MickeyDangerez: Wikipedia can occasionally become frustrating, even for experienced editors, but try to avoid announcing you're leaving Wikipedia every other week or so. All editors are volunteers who are motivated for different reasons, but many just edit because they are want to be WP:HERE. If you're more interested in WP:RGW, WP:WIN or WP:SOAP, then you're going to find yourself butting heads with other editors more often than not. Sometimes when things get frustrating, it can be helpful to take the dog for a walk. Editing when you're angry or frustrated can often cause things to be done/said in the heat of the moment which you might regret later on, so try and remain cool. In many cases a Wikibreak can be helpful; it gives you a chance to re-charge your batteries and figure out Wikipedia:It's not the End of the World . Some editors, however, may see WP:RETIRE as their only option, which is unfortunate, but as you can see from some of the responses you received above is not going to garner a lot of sympathy, especially if they view it as WP:PRAM. You don't have to completely stop editing altogether when things aren7t going as you would like; you can just shift your focus from one particular article/genre of articles to other things. Expanding your Wikipedia horizons so to speak has the benifit of exposing you to different editing styles and types of articles, and can actually help improve your overall for your feel of how Wikipedia works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • There was nothing unfair about this deletion, if anything I don't think the participants at the AfD stressed enough on the WP:SYNTH issue around the (deleted article) and the copyvio problems and this might have even been close enough for an A11 deletion as nothing the concept itself was promoted as a "social media invention" but the amount of unrelated refs included would have prevented that. —SpacemanSpiff 10:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Pages Needing Protection

Hello, I have been continuously reviewing contents of this page : Sarwanam Theatre Group. Time and again, the page is being edited with incorrect details. Please let me know how the page or a specific section of the page can be protected for further edits so that the page contains only liable and factual names.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hupubird (talk • contribs) 14:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hupubird, the proper place to make this request is at WP:RFPP. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Madness

Have a look at this edit war here, it seems that this Slayer9004 has written something then this user JJMC89 keeps reverting the edits more than 3 times ! Is any one here to stop the latter from that madness ?! 121.108.189.32 (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of blocking your open proxy, and the sock- or meat-puppet of User:CadAPL is listed at SPI. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

When does rudeness cross the line to personal attack

Closing discussion, with the agreement of the OP. -- Begoon 08:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

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.

As some are aware I've been putting a lot of time into an incident report, or rather the most recent two of now eight incident reports, concerning French universities.

There is a difficult issue there for me in that one of the participants in the feud is guilty of repeated personal attacks on the other. These are at least partly due to language difficulties, and have been mild compared to other programs of repeated personal attack that have gone to the AN/I archive unresolved. I have even seen admins active on AN/I make comments that I would regard as mild personal attack.

I do not think we should suddenly and without notice change our practice. But on the other hand, I also think that we could be a lot stricter in our application of wp:NPA than has been the case recently. The policy currently states Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks.

It continues Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. There seems very little wiggle-room there to me.

The main problem as I see it is that as well as discouraging the editor attacked, each attack however mild encourages others to similar. But that is also a solution. If these are gently nipped in the bud, we can create an environment in which any rudeness is exceptional and receives no encouragement. I even think that is the intention of the policy.

We don't want an environment in which any harsh word receives an indeff (that is the policy at Citizendium as I understand it, but it's not a great success). But IMO we have gone too far towards the rude end of the spectrum, which may be a factor in editor retention, and I'd like to see us try to move back a bit. Andrewa (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we absolutely should adopt the Citizendium approach. For example, yesterday there wasn't a single personal attack or instance of incivility anywhere on Citizendium. Of course (and I am not making this up [11]) there were only two (2) edits, period, made to the entirety of Citizendium during that same 24 hours, but that shouldn't blind us to what's really important here. EEng 02:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Very funny. But I mentioned Citizendium specifically to point out that I do not think we should imitate their example. I take it you agree.
So seriously now, don't you think we'd retain editors better if they could feel safe from their comments being described (rather unfairly IMO) as bizarre and hypocritical? [12]
Now I'm not easily discouraged, but others will be, and that seems to me to be exactly the sort of comment that wp:NPA bans, and for exactly that reason. But it also seems to me that such behaviour is currently tolerated and even, by the silence, encouraged. And as an inevitable result, imitated. Andrewa (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
John Stuart Mill:
Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate ... If the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that the offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent.
EEng 04:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
We have an accepted definition of bizarre ideas, see WP:FRINGE. So, stating that a fringe idea is bizarre is not a personal attack. Hypocritical can be construed as as personal attack if it lacks evidence (such as diffs making the point obvious, when asked for diffs). Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
As you will have seen from the diff I gave, the full text of the quote is I find it particularly bizarre and hypocritical that an editor supporting the move side has described a "booby trap" above for editors when I don't believe he has ever (at least recently) edited these (New York or New York City) pages. As a major editor of these pages, I have never found a problem with the current nomenclature. No evidence was given that my ideas were fringe, and in that NYRM2017 subsequently succeeded and that a major argument in its favour was that editors were regularly wikilinking to the wrong page, IMO they subsequently proved not to be fringe at all, but supported by consensus. Similarly, no diff was ever given to support the notion that I was being hypocritical, it's not even clear to me what the specific charge of hypocrisy was, it seems to just be name-calling. So, don't these both qualify as personal attacks? Andrewa (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
JSM is a hero of all logicians who dabble in ethics, we claim him as our patron Saint. But this selective quote from his On Liberty does not accurately represent his thoughts on the matter. See the full text of the chapter, and note also that elsewhere he strongly defends not only the right but the responsibility of society to limit freedom in certain circumstances.
It seems to me that he would love Wikipedia, and would particularly love the balance currently expressed in the policy on personal attacks. Andrewa (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Your link isn't to anything like your patron saint-hero's full text; try here [13].
  • Other than his bit about corn dealers – used to illustrate the principle that "even opinions lose their immunity, when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute [by] their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act" – I'm struggling to find where (in On Liberty, anyway) Mill strongly defends not only the right but the responsibility of society to limit freedom, especially in the context of freedom of expression. I look forward to your pointing me to that.
  • Anyway, I wasn't suggesting importation into WP policy of Mill-style free-speech absolutism. I was simply borrowing his excellent expression of the difficulties and dangers of trying to define civility in debate.
EEng 15:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
EEng, so you wouldn't say that its a categorical imperative for those of us living behind the veil of ignorance on Wikipedia to use Mill as the basis for our original position? TonyBallioni (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I kant understand your question. My preferred metaphor for WP is, however, a vale of ignorance. EEng 17:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Did someone say Canning Vale? Make mine a half a pint of shandy. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Love it, but maybe wikilink a bit more consistently to things such as categorical imperative when making private jokes (even in small)? Not everyone here has studied ethics. Or maybe we should make a major in ethics the next requirement for new admins? When the rules fail, just add to them. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Very sorry that my "jokes" are wholly public. And sorry if I might appear to be somewhat conflicted. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
There's nowhere to hide at WIkipedia! If we could adopt Bonhoeffer's ethics here then Wikipedia would be even more awesome, but I'll be content if we just apply Mill consistently. Your jokes were wikilinked and so not the subject of my criticism. Have a look at wp:rantstyle#Linking to this page for my take on humour (of which I am inordinately fond) and again I find no fault with you. Andrewa (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Any progress on pointing out where in On Liberty Mill strongly defends not only the right but the responsibility of society to limit freedom? 'Cause that's really gonna put a whole new dimension on Mill for me. EEng 20:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
strongly defends not only the right but the responsibility of society to limit freedom in certain circumstances was what I said... it's some decades since I did my formal studies in Ethics, but I'll look it up... but for a start our own article at On Liberty#On the limits to the authority of society over the individual says in part Generally, he holds that a person should be left as free to pursue his own interests as long as this does not harm the interests of others. In such a situation, "society has jurisdiction over [the person's conduct]." Does that help? Andrewa (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I had a feeling such vaguery would be forthcoming.
  • Of course it would be in certain circumstances – surely we needn't clarify that Mill didn't advocate limits on freedom in all circumstances.
  • And of course Mill wasn't an anarchist, so we needn't clarify that Mill didn't oppose all limits on freedom regardless of circumstance.
  • We're talking about freedom of expression, and so (as I said earlier) I'd be happy if you could direct me to where Mill strongly defends not only the right but the responsibility of society to limit freedom of expression.
EEng 02:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm more than happy to debate this in an appropriate place, but here all I think we need to conclude is that you and I disagree on the application of JSM's ethical theories to Wikipedia policy, and allow anyone interested to follow the links we have provided. If any third party wishes me to further clarify here, I'm happy to do that. Andrewa (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing to debate. I challenged you to back up your assertion that Mill would particularly love the balance currently expressed in the policy on personal attacks, and – as expected – you haven't. In fact, Mill would have encouraged people to individually adhere to such principles, but would be horrified at their being enforced as "rules", with the punishment for violation being enforced silence. (I repeat, though, that I'm by no means saying Mill's approach is the right one for WP.) EEng 17:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree with much of this, but it's unlikely to help us to improve Wikipedia IMO, and you seem to agree. So in hindsight I should just have said that when you raised Mill in the first place. I think we should agree to disagree on some of the philosophy, unless others think that it's relevant and should be taken further here. Andrewa (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Here's the extent to which I agree: nothing you've said about Mill is likely to help in any discussion on civility, not least because you asserted stuff about Mill that you weren't able to back up. I don't agree that my original quotation of Mill doesn't help. EEng 19:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I believe I have backed it up to the extent that is useful here, and that in hindsight your reference to Mill was not itself helpful. I accept that you disagree with me on both of these points. Unless someone else wants us to explore it further here, I think we should leave it at that. Andrewa (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
"When does rudeness cross the line to personal attack" Deliberate rudeness and combativeness is a well known strategy and a very effective way to eliminate participants from a discussion. Either by provoking a participant into making an actual personal attack, or by having them leave on their own volition. Since intent is usually hard to prove and contributions are 'valuable' in a measurable way and chased away/silenced editors are not measurable, there isn't a good way to prevent this undesirable behavior. It would be healthy if the more experienced you are within our community, the less we tolerate rudeness from you. However most of the time we practice the reverse; the more experienced you are, the more rudeness you can get away with, because you are better at walking that fine but vague line between rudeness and PA. We even have some users who unapologetically profess themselves being WP:DICKs for philosophical reasons and even these we don't do anything about it.. (because again, measuring is hard).
So no, I do not think we can be stricter, because we are not as a collective leading by example, which makes it hard for those wanting to gently nip in the bud these potential problems, to feel empowered to issue warnings and act upon combative and rude behavior. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree we should not be measuring DICKs, hard or not. EEng 18:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Part of the problem now is that some admins are setting an appalling example. Whether this is cause or effect is now academic. I repeat, our policy currently reads Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. (my emphasis)
We are supposed to have tightened up the rules for admins since I was given "the mop", now expecting a higher standard of behaviour from them (us) even when not acting as an admin; ARBCOM has been explicit on this, and our stricter RFA procedures are an attempt to make it work. But my observation is that the respect shown by admins for others (including each other) has actually declined. Rules are no substitute for respect.
Our current policies on personal attacks and assuming good faith represent a past consensus. Admins have no right to depart from these policies. But even if they (we) had that right, it would still be a very stupid thing to do, in my opinion, and Wikipedia is suffering from it.
Respect is not a magic bullet to reverse our declining editor base. But it certainly would not hurt. Andrewa (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
If you really want to pursue this, I think you should look at punishment. If there are no consequences, then people will not heed warnings. It may be childish, but it works. In my perspective the biggest mistake we made, was to state that a block cannot be punitive. Since blocking is effectively the only punishment strategy we have, this has (especially for the experience users) created an all (permanent and eternal block) or nothing situation. It would be better if there were a chill-out time that can be punitively allotted (take away toys and stand in the corner). For further effect, show a public number on every users userpage, representing how much chill out he received over the last year. Or instead of actual blocks, let every user alot a certain amount of karma + and - points per month to other users and reflect a karma score on all users userpages (this is the slashdot comment model). This breaks the all or nothing balance, which is what is needed here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Could I have my three years' worth allocated now, please? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Fully agree on preventative-not-punitive. Punitive is preventative by virtue of its deterrent effect both on the sanctioned user and on everybody else. The rest of the world figured this out centuries ago. I shudder to imagine a world in which offenders were let off because they had temporarily stopped offending, but somehow Wikipedia thinks they can pull that off. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I really want to pursue this

If you really want to pursue this, I think you should look at punishment. No, as you observe blocks and bans are not for punishment, but to protect the Encyclopedia from disruption. That's an important principle, and I see no need to depart from it.

The karma idea might have some merit. We already have the thanks system and of course barnstars. Carrots generally work better than sticks, particularly when dealing with adult behaviour. And childish behaviour can simply be blocked, and should be, as a last resort, when it disrupts the Encyclopedia.

But it isn't even being taken seriously at present. Attempts to address insults and disparagement via our current systems get ignored, or greeted with childish banter like the above, or maybe a bit of both. Now there's a place in Wikipedia talk pages for lighthearted banter, but dismissing attempts to raise a serious question is not one of them. (And I hope the term childish banter here will be taken as a valid criticism rather than a personal attack, that line is sometimes hard to draw or to walk.)

I think we can do better. And again I say, the key is respect. That is what our policies are designed to encourage, and it is also what is being lost by our disregarding them, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this, and want to say as much on the record. bd2412 T 21:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
You are addressing what is possibly (still) one of the biggest problems facing Wikipedia. I hope you don't think I'm "dismissing attempts to raise a serious question." Thanks and barnstars are fine for those who like to be part of a cosy club. They really are quite incidental for those who want to be abusive, for whatever reason. How does that instant karma thing work again? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree re thanks and barnstars. They help but they're not the answer. I think the karma thing might help too but wouldn't solve things. But if for example I had enough karma that I knew I couldn't be desysopped without the personal intervention of Jimbo, I think I'd be more useful to Wikipedia. Others might not think so! Food for thought, a similar system worked on some of the early social media websites but has fallen from favour AFAIK. Andrewa (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
(e/c) "blocks and bans are not for punishment, but to protect the Encyclopedia from disruption". That depends on your definition of disruption I guess. To me, it is no more then a very old choice. Whether or not upholding that choice is worth it, can be open to discussion to me. I mentioned it, because as noted "it is the only form of punishment we have. A karma system although very interesting would be a gigantic undertaking (think 6 months development time, next year is already full, so at least 1,5 years out from now). And while carrots work better for those requiring or willing to learn, the police generally uses fines, not carrots for a reason. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Very good point on the police and fines, but I want to turn it around. Wikipedia is what Bill Hybels calls a volunteer rich organisation. The police model is exactly what will not work. Andrewa (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has yet attempted to answer the question I asked about the only specific example yet raised.

In my opinion, we need something less severe (and more effective!) than AN/I for dealing with this sort of attack. To me there seems no doubt that it is a mild personal attack as the policy now stands. There are two problems with mild personal attacks. One is that, even if they do no real damage to the victim (me in this instance), they encourage both the attacker and others to continue to flout the policy, and perhaps other policies as well. As observed above, even Mill did not preach absolute freedom.

And the other is, as also observed above, they disrupt the discussion. Others are discouraged from contributing lest they be targeted.

But first things first. Are these mild attacks contrary to policy? Andrewa (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The "question I asked" link shows your comment above at 13:27, 18 October 2017. I'm sorry to be dense, but is the text it quotes the example of rudeness that should be sanctioned? The question of where to draw the bright line is very difficult. In particular, there should be no attempt to sanction rudeness without consideration of any preliminary WP:CPUSH or WP:RGW or WP:CIR provocations from the other side. Has anyone mentioned the abandoned WP:Wikiquette assistance which I thought was quite useful? Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the phrase to which I object is bizarre and hypocritical, as quoted. Both these terms are unjustified, and qualify as personal attacks IMO.
Agree that drawing the line is difficult, and that the surrounding circumstances need to be considered when considering any sanction (the diff I provided was partly to allow this), and not just in terms of the three essays to which you linked (well, one isn't technically an essay but has much the same status).
But we do need to draw a line somewhere, and I'm suggesting we're currently being too lax. This both confuses editors, who should be able to expect admins to follow policy, and allows talk page discussions to be disrupted.
But sanctioned is too strong a word IMO, especially considering how much leeway has been allowed recently. Even mild personal attacks should be effectively discouraged, but in the short term we need to try to do this without sanctions.
Interesting point about Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Personal attacks is worth a look too. Andrewa (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Just drop it. Yes, even mild personal attacks should be discouraged. But this hardly counts as worth noticeboard drama. I've probably called your position bizarre myself, if not hypocritical. Sometimes we just get too into it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
See this diff below. Maybe it's a little problem, but it relates to a big one. Andrewa (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I'm not sure I agree that surrounding circumstances should be given much weight when considering incivility. First, because that's what the policy says: "be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind" and "it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." Second, because tolerating incivility in response to incivility only makes things worse. The best approach here is to defuse a situation, not to ratchet it up. And third, because it's a basic point of maturity that your own bad behaviour is not excused by someone else's. I can think of no other sphere of adult life where, "But he said..." is regarded as anything other than a childish attempt to avoid responsibility for your own actions. This'd be a better place if everyone followed the policy and responded to calmly and civilly to provocation instead of leaping on the excuse to let their inner devil out. GoldenRing (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
My comment was intended to point out that (1) the community rarely agrees with a civility sanction (except for blatant nonsense that doesn't require much thought), and (2) there are a lot of CPUSH and RGW and CIR violaters and their efforts should not be rewarded merely because they have learned to push push push while being superficially civil. A system to sanction contributors based on the number of bad words they used would damage the encyclopedia despite what the aspirational but largely unenforced policy says. Would, for example, one occurrence of "bizarre and hypocritical" warrant a sanction regardless of the surrounding circumstances? Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
"Would, for example, one occurrence of "bizarre and hypocritical" warrant a sanction regardless of the surrounding circumstances?" I like your idea of resurrecting WP:WQA, as a sort of honeypot. Once all the people who would answer yes to that question have congregated there we could quietly lock the door from the outside. They might never notice. I kid, obviously, but if you want to "enforce civility" that's certainly not the sort of thing you'd start by addressing. -- Begoon 11:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why you think it's obvious you're kidding. I think it's a great idea. (We wouldn't want Johnuniq caught in that trap, so we'd assign someone to tip him off at the door.) EEng 17:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Heh. I just realised that I actually called someone's assertion "bizarre" yesterday, so I guess I'm just part of the "problem", and need to be clucked at and tutted over. I hope I escape sanctions for that egregious infraction, but I do expect wikipedia will survive such reckless unruliness on my part either way. -- Begoon 14:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
(Thanks for the diff... wish everyone would follow that example, to anchor the discussion on reality.) Of course we'll survive, and I don't think anybody is proposing sanctions for one word such as that, and in any case it's at worst borderline NPA as you're discussing the contribution not the contributor (maybe better to say the suggestion rather than your suggestion, it's as borderline as that), and in any case the word bizarre is probably accurate, and may even help de-escalate the situation... as we've I think all agreed, context is important.
But on the other hand, it's a tried and proven principle of software maintenance to fix the problem you understand. If you're looking at a big problem you don't understand and see a little related one you do understand, you fix the little one, and the big one often just goes away.
That's very much the position here. The failure of admins to take NPA seriously, even in their own conduct, is a little problem. The retention of editors is a big problem. No reason not to address the little one. Except of course that nobody wants to be told to clean up their own behaviour. But that's a question of how we address the problem rather than whether we do, and we are making a little progress on it. Andrewa (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Er, yeah. Sarcasm doesn't always come across well on the internet, but I never actually doubted the propriety of my linked comment. I was just "taking the piss" here (ooh, er, missus...). I rather hoped my "need to be clucked at and tutted over" comment might give that away. I heartily endorse the above advice to "just drop it" regarding the "attacks" you may feel you have endured by having a comment described as bizarre/hypocritical, and stop making such a song and dance about it. -- Begoon 13:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
If that example were the only one, I'd agree that it was wrong to make a song and dance about it. But it's just an example of a trend that others have also observed. It's the trend that worries me, not this particular example. Andrewa (talk) 07:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Would, for example, one occurrence of "bizarre and hypocritical" warrant a sanction regardless of the surrounding circumstances? Of course not! But the specific example I gave did warrant some sort of action IMO, and as you suggest there are countless other examples. Perhaps we need to look outside the square. The two failed attempts to fix this (anyone know of others? Wouldn't surprise me) show us that it's been seen as a problem before, and indicate to me that a new noticeboard is no solution.
the aspirational but largely unenforced policy... Exactly. Except it wasn't seen as aspirational by those who wrote and agreed to accept it. Consensus can change but there's been no consensus to change this policy, it's just been allowed to slide into disuse.
But I say again, new users can reasonably expect its protection. And as you say, they're not getting it. Nobody is. Andrewa (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
This is a great point. Maybe we need a way to monitor incivilities toward new users, and come down hard on those. That might get more reaction than someone getting frustrated and incivil when an established user is dug in. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
That would probably help. But where do we draw the line? Do personal attacks (whether uncivil or not) ever improve Wikipedia? Andrewa (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
You have hit on the crux of the matter. Many longtime editors will insist that behaviors including what you're calling personal attack are, in fact, regrettably necessary to protect the encyclopedia. Many others will disagree while insisting that those behaviors do no real harm. Yet others will oppose the behaviors but also oppose sanctioning them, which is effectively lip service to good behavior. Finally, while I obviously can't prove it, I strongly suspect that many editors claim to subscribe to one of these viewpoints simply because they don't want to moderate their own behavior. Among the very few who participate in resolution of behavior issues, these groups are a majority, and I haven't seen many people changing their minds on this. As we are self-governed, this eliminates any hope except for very gradual change through attrition. All we can do is behave properly ourselves and hope more new arrivals will follow our examples than the other examples. We already have ample behavior policy, and someday, maybe, we will have evolved enough to start enforcing it. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It's not me calling these behaviours personal attack, it is our own long-adopted policies. And nobody seems to disagree with this.
You strongly suspect that many editors claim to subscribe to one of these viewpoints simply because they don't want to moderate their own behavior, and so do I. But that's natural, and not a hopeless position.
I think we have rough consensus (perhaps grudging in some cases, and fearful in others lest they themselves be targeted for expressing this view) that it would be good if the policy were to be more strictly followed. That's a start.
That doesn't mean it would be good if it were to be more strictly enforced. I'm not suggesting that. In practice, I've just emerged from a case in which I successfully argued against a further block on a repeat NPA offender. In theory, I've explicitly said above that as a volunteer rich organisation this solution is not open to us. But there are other ways. Andrewa (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
GoldenRing says above The best approach here is to defuse a situation, not to ratchet it up. (And lots of other helpful things but I'd like to focus on that one.) Exactly. And incivility/rudeness/personal attack is an excellent way to ratchet up a situation, and can be (perhaps unintentionally) a way to disrupt the discussion and game the system by discouraging both the opponent(s) who are attacked and others who might otherwise contribute but decide not to become targets themselves.
So far we've seen some examples of how not to solve this. In my opinion these include the two abandoned procedures, a suggestion of police-like action (possibly that was a straw man, but it made the point), and an appeal to ethics published in 1859 (which seems to have been to support the notion that there is no problem to solve).
But now we see a suggestion of how we can solve it. It would be good to develop this idea further IMO. Andrewa (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The ideal solution

The ideal solution is of course for admins to clean up their own act without needing to be forced to do this, and for this good example to then be followed by the community.

Two editors above have suggested (not in those terms) that I drop the stick. Others have however suggested some support.

There are two valid reasons that I might drop the stick. One is that there is no problem to solve. The other is that it is insoluble. Neither case has yet been made IMO. If either case is made I will indeed drop it. Life is finite and I do not wish to waste mine or anyone else's. Particularly in a forum in which everything I say is preserved indefinitely and hopefully for far longer than the records of most of the rest of my life.

The example I gave is just an example, but I still think it's a good one. Nobody has yet suggested that the mild personal attacks in it improved Wikipedia. They were in the context of a confrontational situation in which a very clear consensus was eventually established that the attackers (and there were several, but all on one side of the discussion) were wrong. The proposed move has now by clear consensus improved Wikipedia, but only after another year of considerable effort that could IMO have been avoided. To what extent did the personal attacks contribute to this enormous waste of time? How many contributors were successfully deterred by the attackers? We will never know. But it stinks.

The above is also littered with mild personal attacks. Were they really constructive? IMO they were at best unnecessary, unpleasant, and contrary to policies that together constitute one of the five pillars (that's wp:5P4 of course, but wp:5P5 also supports this solution as reasonable and worth a go IMO).

It would improve Wikipedia if we could clean up our act. Is it possible? Frankly, dunno.

But do we at least have consensus that it would be a good idea, if we could do so? Andrewa (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

As usual with civility discussions, the focus is on one side, the simple side. The theory seems to be that if we could get people to stop behaving like humans with an emotional limit, then talk pages could be a paradise where beautiful language stretches from margin to margin. That's about where the theory stops—I've never seen an indication of how it would help the encyclopedia (please give actual examples rather than opinions that productive editors might be driven off by naughty words). I would be happy for stronger civility enforcement if that was balanced by stronger action against advocates seeking to push their favorite POV. Let the one among you who has dealt with CPUSH + RGW + CIR advocates tirelessly pushing nonsense be the first to block a burnt-out editor who spends hours defending the encyclopedia with the only help at ANI being advice to fight it out on the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Agree with much of this. But nobody is suggesting that we block a burnt-out editor.... If somebody at ANI would help this editor who spends hours defending the encyclopedia, rather than the only help at ANI being advice to fight it out on the article talk page (diffs available, but do I really need to give them?) then that would be a start.
If CPUSH + RGW + CIR advocates tirelessly pushing nonsense is another under-addressed problem we need to deal with it too, agreed. Feel free to raise specific examples on my talk page... I don't think that's canvassing unless I've been previously involved.
But I'd be curious to know exactly what would qualify as an actual example of how it would help the encyclopedia. And/or, can you give an actual example of an instance of Wikipedia being improved by violation of NPA? Andrewa (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
...can you give an actual example of an instance of Wikipedia being improved by violation of NPA? I don't think this is a well-framed question. PAs are part of the interpersonal communication between editors. They are not article edits. So they are irrelevant to improving the encyclopædia. PAs are also ill-defined. I don't think there is a universally-accepted definition of what constitutes a PA. There is such a wide range of passive-aggressive statements, weasel insinuations, baiting, stalking, getting-even pursuits, etc., that I don't think any type of NPA enforcement can actually be effective, except for the most egregious violations. I also think that when one responds to a passive-aggressive, weasel insinuation, it is almost inevitable that, sooner or later, they would tell the other editor to cut it; unfortunately, this could be construed as a PA by someone policing civility. Given these difficulties, I don't think that civility enforcement can be enforced fairly in many ill-defined, and nuanced areas. Dr. K. 02:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, let me rephrase the question: Can you give a single instance (actual or hypothetical) of a post to a Wikipedia talk page that violates NPA, but where there isn't a better way of handling the situation?
The only reason for having any policy is that if it's obeyed, Wikipedia will benefit. The Wikipedians who wrote and agreed on WP:NPA didn't intend it to be aspirational or ill-defined, and I see no evidence that it was either.
But it's obviously now unpopular and widely (and I think increasingly) ignored. So, has consensus changed?
And we keep coming back to how it can be enforced. First things first. If we don't even agree with the policy, then there's no question it shouldn't be enforced. And even if we do, there are other ways of implementing it than enforcement.
Just to affirm that it is a current policy would be good IMO. But there seems no consensus here even on this. Andrewa (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Clearly, the consensus among those few who participate at ANI is contrary to the consensus among those who participated in the development of the policies. Most sensible people stay the hell away from ANI (and I'm finally becoming that sensible myself, being a slow learner). The former is the consensus that matters in practice. And, see User:Mandruss#The p&g paradox. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Very well put. Andrewa (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Imo, with the exception of the most glaring violations, CIV/NPA enforcement is an intractable problem. There are many reasons for that. One reason is the involved editor prehistory, as I mentioned above. The other is the gaming of the NPA guidelines by being civil on the surface, avoiding NPA keywords, but cutting the opponents by insinuating things about them or trying to waste their time and frustrate them. The NPA policy, although well-intentioned, does not address incivility in the wider context, involving many additional complexities of human interaction (passive-aggressiveness, avoidance to get the point, evening of scores, wasting the opponent's time, frustrating the opponent, etc.). To make matters worse, the prime directive of Wikipedia is content-building, so NPA has often been interpreted under the light of that prime directive.
This has led to cries that content-builders get off more easily than other editors from NPA enforcement. But even that may not be true, if you add to that the complexities of human interaction I mentioned above. How does that work in practice? Suppose a really great content builder gets stalked by a civil but grammatically-challenged editor who has an axe to grind with him/her. After a few reverts over grammar at the local FA, the content-builder calls a spade a spade, and calls the civil, but grammatically challenged editor, an idiot. The civil POV-pusher starts a passive-aggressive/baiting/IDHT discussion with the content editor, and the content editor escalates this to a couple of fuck-offs etc., and gets blocked. Who has benefited from that? I don't think Wikipedia or content has.
Obviously, it would have been better if the content editor behaved like Miss Manners and tried to defuse the situation by engaging in a faux-polite exchange with the POV-pusher/baiter/stalker, but that would be a monumental waste of time, and not everyone can act like Miss Manners. Also, in the end, if the civil yet cir/pov-pushing editors don't get addressed by the system, they will eventually drive the competent editors they target out of the project.
Although I have never used them, just not my style, I can see how using a couple of "fuck-offs" in a discussion, is not always bad, and can even be drama-minimisers, depending on context. If the other editor is a bad idht case, system gamer, cir, etc., telling them to fuck off provides a clean way to end the conversation, since one cannot reply to a "fuck off", and, in any case, "fuck off" is so commonly used that it has become almost meaningless. In that sense, it is almost like a "goodbye". Hell, even friends say that to each other. So instead of going around in circles, in a never-ending passive-aggressive contest, you use one of these and you end the conversation with the least amount of drama. Dr. K. 16:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
There are some excellent points here. But there is another side to it.
if the civil yet cir/pov-pushing editors don't get addressed by the system, they will eventually drive the competent editors they target out of the project... and similarly, if the uncivil yet cir/pov-pushing editors don't get addressed by the system, they will even more quickly drive the competent editors they target out of the project. Which may be part of the problem with NYRM2016. My concern is that we are seeing this and will see more of it. We shall see.
We may even be seeing it in this discussion, above. It's very hard to tell, as these competent editors aren't going to tell us. That is the very problem. Andrewa (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
...and similarly, if the uncivil yet cir/pov-pushing editors don't get addressed by the system... I agree. But these are perhaps easier to spot and deal with. Not sure what you meant by your last sentence regarding competent editors not telling us etc.. I'm not seeing any problems with the posts above. Dr. K. 18:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
...not telling us etc..I'm not seeing any problems with the posts above. Exactly. If other editors are being discouraged from posting by the tone of the discussion, how would we ever know? So ignoring wp:5P4 prevents us from assessing consensus meaningfully, and much of the basis of Wikipedia comes crashing down with it. Sorry to be dramatic, but I see it as that serious. Andrewa (talk)
Andrew, I'm not following. What is wrong with the tone of this discussion? Dr. K. 04:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Numerous little personal attacks.. as expected – you haven't, and I had a feeling such vaguery would be forthcoming for example. These unnecessarily personalise the discussion, and are exactly what concern me. The sarcasm... I think we absolutely should adopt the Citizendium approach... doesn't help either.
I must make it clear that I have no intention of making behavioural charges against the admin responsible for these particular attacks. They would fail anyway, and it would be unfair if they succeeded. As others have observed above, this behaviour is common among admins these days. That is perhaps the whole problem.
You don't work towards consensus by belittling your opponent. Andrewa (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Andrew, you quote EEng here, without the diffs you "wish everyone would [provide], to anchor the discussion on reality.". If I said that was "hypocritical" how would you react? Frankly, I think you should stop this now, it's getting embarassing. We understand something upset you, but this enormous and persistent attempt to prove that this is some kind of fundamental wikipedia flaw is going nowhere. -- Begoon 15:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it was a fair comment, and not a personal attack, as it's relevant and has some basis.

That doesn't mean I agree with it. I didn't give the diffs as, as I said, I think it's unfair to single out EEng but now we have I guess we should ping them. It wasn't hard to identify and verify the examples I gave even so, was it?

I hope I'm not trying to prove anything, rather I'm stating my point and inviting discussion, and it's not just one incident but a pattern that others have confirmed above.

But as you say, it has insufficient support here to go anywhere. We will see whether it's a valid concern in time, and just need to leave it at that. Andrewa (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

You make some valid points Andrew and discussion never hurt anyone. The problem is, that this is a hotly-contested and notoriously difficult to control area, save for the most blatant violations. Having made my main points, I will just leave it at that. Dr. K. 17:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
And I expect I'll do the same. My arguments that this is something we need to address seem completely unanswered to me, but without support I can do nothing. See #About to give up at which I'm about to post again. Andrewa (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why I'm being pinged, and please don't explain it to me. Listen to Begoon's advice (this enormous and persistent attempt to prove that this is some kind of fundamental wikipedia flaw is going nowhere) and end this please. EEng 18:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Some side issues

There are accessibility issues with leaving white space between indented paragraphs as has been done above, see MOS:INDENTGAP. The software does not handle this at all well, as white space is needed between unindented paragraphs, which I find extremely confusing (but it's logical in a way, as you can leave a blank line as long as it is similarly indented but don't need to... so if there's no indenting then that means unindented, but you do need to or there's no paragraph break... I said it was confusing). Just something to watch.

And the editor responsible has now fixed it. Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I also think that passive-aggressive is not the correct term for what is being described above. We all know what is meant I think, and it's a form of gaming the system and is disruptive under wp:IDHT, and very difficult to deal with. But passive-aggressive is not the term for it. Not quite sure what is. Andrewa (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

About to give up

There seems no prospect of this leading anywhere in the short term at least.

Perhaps the archived discussion will be of some use if it's seen as more of a problem in the future. In any case, thanks to all who have participated. Andrewa (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I've obviously replied several times since posting this. There still seems some interest in pursuing it, and working towards some sort of consensus. I'm happy to change my mind if valid arguments are produced. Andrewa (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This could be taken up at the village pump or wt:no personal attacks or perhaps even wt:5P, but someone else will need to do that. Andrewa (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Try Jimbo's talkpage, that's where proposals go to die... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Again, happy for others to take it there if they think it worthwhile. I still think this is of critical importance long term. But I could be wrong, and I'm no politician, obviously, I'm a logician. And I can't do it on my own and should not try to. Andrewa (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_13&oldid=1196023454"