Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 3

Talk page...

'''''Protect Request'''''

Can you explain me what is going on the page Ziabari by this abuser person: 64.229.134.234 ?? He is always flooding my page with abusing, insulting, bad and under 18 years old language? this is his website http://hasanagha.net I think that it will not be good for you to let this mental ill person to continue his abusing and vandaling.

its not nice to call people mentally ill Lucid 03:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

---

... why is it being used for things other than talk about WP:AN? Could people please review the text at the top of the page? When I created WP:AN, I put a redirect on the talk page. This was removed so that we could talk about the page itself, and leave all admin related stuff to the main page. I notice that many people are using the talk page as if it were the main WP:AN page! Could we not do this? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree; further topics started here not actually relating to the noticeboard itself should probably be moved to WP:AN. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard is broken

I have come to the conclusion that the noticeboard is badly broken. It has become an unmanaged dumping ground for rants, disputes and accusations. I am wasting a huge amount of time following irrelevant comments. I am about a hair's-breadth away from taking this page off my watchlist.

I propose that we aggressively enforce the paragraph at the top of the page which clearly states that "these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour". I could live with a brief notice of a dispute and a link to the in-depth discussion but anything more than a mere notice should be deleted on sight. No archiving, no moving. Just delete with a comment. Any interested party can recover the dispute from the page history and create an appropriate dispute page.

Disputes over specific policies should also be moved. The 3RR seems to be particularly controversial right now. The proper place to be holding that dispute is at Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule, not here. Rossami (talk) 14:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Admins can use Wikipedia:Policy enforcement and everyone can comment at Wikipedia talk:Policy enforcement. Just created yesterday! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with Rossami. Radiant_>|< 17:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Yup, I agree too. This page is only for things that require administrator attention, as opposed to matters that require the attention of well-meaning wikipedians. (not implying that the former aren't the latter, just that they're not all of them). --W(t) 23:29, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Would agree, but must confess I am an offender. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 07:14 (UTC)
  • Is this for WP:AN/I too? The notice here says, "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so there WP:AN/I". — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, with the current header we can hardly complain if people use it for that, but given that all the complaints about admin behaviour I've seen on WP:AN/I are "I vandalised 500 articles and the bastard cabalist admin blocked me, he's gone power mad", I'd strongly support removing that line and replacing it with directions to WP:RFC. The work involved in filling out a template RFC appears to scare off a lot of trolls, which is a good thing. --W(t) 03:40, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
      • RFC requires two people to be abused in the same way, which doesn't always happen. --SPUI (talk) 30 June 2005 04:29 (UTC)
        • Nope, it only requires two people to have tried to resolve the problem with the user. --W(t) 30 June 2005 04:33 (UTC)

Removed the footer

I've removed this because it was getting in the way. Am going to add a new wikilink to make it easier to add a new section. - Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 01:47 (UTC)

Status of warnings

Moved to WP:AN#Status of warnings, as it wasn't a meta-discussion about the board (see #Talk page... above).

Need someone to do archiving

Alas, all, I don't think I can deal with doing the Noticeeboard archiving any more. It was taking a good chunk of my Wikipedia time, and I wasn't getting much article editing done. I just can't force myself to do it anymore. So I need to bail on doing the archiving; can someone else take it over? Thanks. Noel (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

PS: Since things are so behind, I'm doing a big chunk now, but that's just to get things a little caught up. Please co-ordinate the handover here, so make sure we don't step on each other's toes. Noel (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, things are all caught up now, and everything's all cleaned up as well. So, I'm going to call it a day on doing the maintainence/archiving, so I can devote more of my energy to working on articles. So, now we really do need someone to take over doing the archiving. Let me know (on my Talk: page, I won't be reading here) if you want me to write up some instructions (argh, the dreaded instruction creep :-) on how I was doing it. Noel (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Policy Enforcement Log

I added the following section to the top of the page.

Policy Enforcement

Serious, urgent matters of policy enforcment may be documented at Wikipedia:policy enforcement log - a proposed policy page which several Administrators are experimenting with.

I hope this is okay. Uncle Ed 14:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hate speech graffiti maquerading as requests for admin attention

I don't overwhelmingy care if WP:AN and WP:ANI are somewhat turning into the "Bash the admins page". It's tiresome and all, but it would IMO be very problematic to remove threads where a user complains of admin treatment, because of the ever-present risk of babies (=complaints with some substance in them) going out with the bathwater. But hate speech and racist trolling are another matter, and I would like to second Func's suggestion on the project page that these proliferating threads be removed on sight. Don't reply to them, don't move them somewhere else and link to them, just wipe them, please. We recently had a classic piece of history-encrusted Nazi rhetoric on AN in the "Is it a crime to tell a homosexual" etcetera thread, which, thinly veiled as a policy question, proposed that "you cannot include Jews and homosexuals among common humanity" and that "a Madagascar solution for them (both groups on the same island) would be a dream-come-true for humanity." (If you don't know what a Madagascar solution is, you might want to google for it.) Most of that thread is still up there on AN, along with "Certain admin's practicing censorship and/or disallowing honest contributions by labelling them "Nazism"", and, added yesterday, by a now blocked user, "Jewish racism." These hate graffiti masquerading as "requests for admin attention" tend to receive admin replies on a good faith basis and lead to long cluttered discussions on the page, but, please, as somebody once quipped (Snowspinner?), "Assume good faith" just isn't equivalent to "Let's pretend we're bloody stupid." They're offensive, they're in bad faith, please let's just remove them on sight. There are no babies in this bathwater. I've never noticed any grey zone, the cases are all egregiouos, but if something on these lines should ever appear to have a nugget of a genuine policy question in it, then of course just leave it on the page.

I paste here Func's and my comments on the latest antisemitic AN thread, "Jewish racism" from the project page, to keep it all together.

Sigh...the number of Jew-bashing comments AN receives is getting ridiculous. Can I suggest a policy that any and all such racist threads on WP:AN and WP:AN/I simply be removed on sight? They are not conducive to creating an encyclopedia. At best, they are inappropriately dragging their "content disputes" here (which are better handled on article talk pages), at worst, they are mentally ill people who's personal problems don't need to be dicussed on this, or any other, Wikipedia page. Func( t, c ) 21:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you can, Func, let's just do it, I have no idea why we're not already doing it. Let's not reply to racist trolls, and let's remove these threads on sight, please. Also, recollecting the revert war you had with the Nazi anon on the... gah, I don't even want to say it... on the "Is it a crime to tell a homosexual" etcetera thread above, I suggest we also make it policy to block anybody who revert wars to reinstate these threads for, let me see, revert warring. Bishonen | talk 02:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a poll, polls are evil, but I ask people to please comment below, and if there is consensus for it, we can all start wiping such threads on sight. Let's keep in mind the purpose of the page: "This is a message board for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on Wikipedia." It's not a graffiti wall. Bishonen | talk 11:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. When I setup AN I did it for admin discussion, not hatespeech. Remove on sight. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

As Wikipedia keeps growing, this problem will too. Although, I am against censorship of any kind, these kinds of attack are personal attacks and the concerned admin(s) should be entitled to remove them. In clear cases, few admins would dispute the removal.--Wiglaf 11:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Normally, I would advocate that we simply BE BOLD and just wipe these, as suggested, with a brief comment as to why in the edit summary and on this talk page. However, I can see that anybody doing it this way is likely to get accused of censorship, dicatorship and all the other usual abuse that flows from correcting the consequences of misbehaviour. So, despite my reservations about instruction creep, we probably need to make explicit provision for this in a policy (preferably something existing!). —Theo (Talk) 11:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Sure: wipe them away. They're trawling, and the neo-Nazi groups in particular have been trawling in exactly this way for 15 years or more. First, they go somewhere unrelated and shout about the dirty inferior races, then they either enjoy the site being riven with the discussion or get banned/blocked/warned. Next they complain about Them censoring. Since there are always people upset with Them over various things, this gets people in the net, and the site is riven. Then an hysterical ban/removal, etc., and then they get into the suppression of truth charges and the threats of lawsuits. I've seen it over and over again since 1991. The only way to deal with it is to just remove on site, and, most of all, not to reply, explain, warn, or any of the other things that the trawl nets are out there for. Geogre 12:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Erase with extreme prejudice. I would have done it except for not wanting to stir up any "nonwiki behaviour" accusations. If we have a consensus policy, I'd be more than happy to implement it. --khaosworks 12:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

For the egregious and obvious trolling hate speech, I'd suggest paraphrasing. Otherwise, we will end up with an ugly cycle of censorship accusations and flaming. The important thing is to leave in any specific admin-related requests, so that those can be answered (and, probably, ignored.) Something like this:

JohnQSmith (talk · contribs) has posted a request for administrative review of the actions of editors Tom2 (talk · contribs) and Dick (talk · contribs), and the admin Harry (talk · contribs) on the article Religious persecution of Martians. He asserts that Tom2 and Dick are biased, and that Harry has incorrectly blocked him for a 3RR violation. He has requested that Religious persecution of Martians be restored to the version link to preferred version, that Tom2 and Dick be blocked, and that Harry be desysopped.

In accordance with our policies regarding civility and personal attacks, JohnQSmith's original request (link to diff) has been paraphrased.

If the trolling and hate speech are readded to the thread, I would suggest that it can then be deleted in its entirety; I'd say that one good-faith attempt to deal with the situation is sufficient to discharge our obligation. Does that sound reasonable? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, TenOfAllTrades, but it really doesn't. If someone wants their "admin request" to be taken seriously, then they won't infuse it with racist speech in the first place. Why should we parphrase the statements of someone who can't make their request in a civil, human/humane way? Gay/Jew/Alpha-Centari bashing is simply unacceptable, and it isn't an unreasonable standard for anyone to follow. Func( t, c ) 16:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. For the clearcut cases, I don't think anyone is likely to object if the trolling is excised. For borderline instances, I'd prefer to see if paraphrasing knocks some sense into them. (It might help prevent turning a racist newbie into a recurring hardened troll.) Whatever solution editors here adopt, I'm definitely not going to be joining the torches-and-pitchforks mob crying "censorship!" when the remarks are removed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the pitchfork mob, bring 'em on. I'm just creating a special section on my talk page for receiving the "You Jew-loving bitch whore" type of message, and others who want to be involved in removing inappropriate posts might want to do the same. Ten's paraphrase system seems to me to have a lot going for it, so I've boldly edited the "Dispute resolution" paragraph on AN and ANI to read: Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. We have a dispute resolution procedure which we recommend you follow. Please take such disputes to mediation, requests for comment, or requests for arbitration rather than here. Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page, and note that any messages that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be paraphrased and, if reinserted, will be deleted. Bishonen | talk 17:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

While I am not deeply involved with AN, I do agree with any action taken against prejudice on the Wikipedia. I support now and will support in the future any action regarding this matter. I also support TenOfAllTrades' proposal. --Sn0wflake 18:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I support Func's proposal. Good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

"you cannot include Jews and homosexuals among common humanity" - isn't that because calling someone "common" is deeply offensive? ~~~~ 20:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

As a prominent member of the "Jewish supremacist" cabal, I naturally support this attempt by Jews and Jew-lovers to supress free speech and oppress the white race. ;-) Jayjg ^(talk) 21:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Jews are white. ^_^ --Tznkai 21:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Race-traitor!!! Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no Jewish supremacist cabal. P.S. For any attractive female Jewish person reading this thread: if you would like your very own Jew-lover, please give me a call at 555-, er, nevermind. ;-) Func( t, c ) 03:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Help, please

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:24.147.97.230_2. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Archive nav boxes

Just leaving these here so I can get to them quickly :-) Dan100 (Talk) 22:00, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
• {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox}}

{{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} *

How long this continue?

User:Witkacy several days is vandalising my User Page. He reverts edits of other Users without any comments - Lithuania, Vilnius articles. Is it usual order in Wikipedia? 85.206..... range is range of bigest Lithuanian i-net provider Lithuanian Telecom. If you have the evidences that I am somebody else, than block me. Or protect me from vandal. I aply 3d time and any reaction from Administrators. Is it normal order with the new User? Bf-109 18:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It's quite clear from your contributions list that you are very unlikely to be a new user. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm leaning that way myself. It took me a few weeks to learn what 3RR meant. I just protected Bf's user page to tone down the edit war there, but it looks like it might be toning down another way shortly. -- Longhair | Talk 19:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

hi Zivinbudas! dab (ᛏ) 19:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

can people break 3rr on thier own talk pages? if so, DreamGuy did it.Gavin the Chosen 00:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No they can't. It's their talk page.You shouldn't have reverted Dreamguys talk page. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

that has never been agreed.Geni 00:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, if you violate the 3RR on your own page or someone elses there's a bigger problem that requires community and/or arbcom intervention anyway. --fvw* 01:08, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

iirc 3RR doesn't apply to removing blatent vandalism and i would call removing comments from someone elses user talk page with no edit reason blatent vandalism Plugwash 22:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Page re-naming proposal

I'd like to propose renaming this page to Wikipedia:Community management noticeboard. I think this is better than the current title for a number of reasons.

• Many of the issues people discuss here don't directly relate to use of admin powers.
• Virtually everything discussed here does relate to the day-to-day management of the English Wikipedia.
• "Administrators' noticeboard" implies that it is limited to use by administrators, which is not the case.
• Words ending in apostrophes are aesthetically unpleasing.

Note that I am not proposing ANY change to how the board is used. I just want the name to better reflect the true purpose and use. I expect that admins would continute to be the bulk of the users on this board regardless of a name change, and there's nothing wrong with that. Also, I'm open to counterproposals if anyone's got an even better title to suggest.Isomorphic 05:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the dual purpose this page serves is evidence that there is need for another page. Maybe you could just create Wikipedia:Community management noticeboard, but leave this project here? That way, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard could serve a more focused, but necessary, purpose. --causa sui ^talk 05:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that what the "community management" proposal covers is really much of what the village pump does. I think a lot of people place a lot of stuff here that really doesn't need to go here. But that's not wha tthis was created for. Dmcdevit·t 06:05, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Suggest splitting the page

It's way too long... some stuff should be archived, but there's a lot of conversations simultaneously going on. Any comments? — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 19:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Emphasize the fact that this page is not the help desk, a page to advertise polls or a forum for complaining that you have been unfairly blocked by an abusive admin and vigoriously delete anything falls outside the purpose of this page. →Raul654 20:00, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

the resutling fuss would probably trip0le the length of the page.Geni 20:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not if we revert every addition and block those responsible! Mackensen (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, in process of exporting/archiving irrelevant/out-of-date topics. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 20:43, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Purged. Ressurrect relevant topics by copying them back on the page. I hope I'm not being disruptive but rather bold, unfortunantely, it is quite a radical move. There's just to much cruft on the page. Let's start over. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 21:23, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I was expecting someone to revert it... looks like it's stuck. Now we must salvage the conversations that were inadvertantly zapped. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:26, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

You zapped something?! Oh, now you're asking for it. ;) Splash 22:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yay! Now do Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents! - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Storing in histories rather than archives

Since this is a rather busy page, would it be possible to adopt the Village Pump's archiving policy, which is boot them to a backup page, and then delete them so that they only remain in page history? — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 01:41, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

In theory yes. in practice now I've taken 3RR out of the incerdetn archive archive isn't much of a problem.Geni 02:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

GordonWatts

moved to WP:AN; this doesn't belong on the talk page. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Mindspillage). I was about to suggest that. It might be better to move it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, where there's a similar thread already. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Trolling and subtle vandalism at Encyclopaedia Dramatica

Take a look at this diff [[1]] and the history [[2]] and you will see that a number of users from ED and the GNAA have been trolling the article. Administrator intervention and blocking of the offenders requested. Erwin

User:Willmcw thread removed from WP:AN/I

I've removed the User:Willmcw thread started by User:Rangerdude from WP:AN/I after letting the following comment sit on it for some hours. Rangerdude, I realize you were probably asleep during those hours, that's why I'm posting this talkpage notice.

W is not using any admin powers in editing Thomas Woods, so this is a pure content dispute, please take it to WP:RfC. See the instructions at the top of this page. I'll wait a few hours to see if others agree with me, but barring protests, I'm going to remove this thread. Oh [looking], I see you did take it to RfC, Rangerdude. All the more reason for not posting it here as well. Please read the instructions. Bishonen | talk 08:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Only one comment accrued, and it was in agreement with me. The inappropriateness of content disputes and cross postings with RfC is clear from the instructions anyway. Bishonen | talk 13:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected Notice

Can an admin consider placing a protected page tag up front please? Thanks. encephalon 22:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is it protected? I hope this is only a temporary measure against vandalism, rather than a permanent way to restrict the page to admins. The page clearly states, "any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here"; that is no longer possible. Superm401 | Talk 23:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It was a temporary measure against vandalism. --cesarb 23:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the blocking admin should have put an explanation here on talk, or at least a protected notice on the main page. Superm401 | Talk 23:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

At risk of stating the very obvious, both AN and AN/I were/are protected because of the droves of vandalbots that keep on blanking them and causing much server load in doing so and getting reverted: several times a minute. It can be unprotected between attacks, I would hope. Trouble is, they've been more or less continuous. -Splash^talk 23:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It's still protected, so I've put a notice on it. - Nunh-huh 23:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite stalks people

Rhobite stalks people look at his logs and you will see he follows people he disagrees with onto other topics.

Oh noes! Rhobite 04:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

He also makes snide remarks.

132.241.245.132 05:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to do that when people who write about a "Republican agenda" accuse me of stalking. Rhobite 05:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry you thought I was refering to all Republicans.

132.241.245.132 05:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I encourage all administrators and editors to follow the edits of 132.241.245.132 (talk · contribs)/Grazon (talk · contribs), whose recently prodigious work often has not been up to Wikipedia's standards. I encourage Grazon to read over Wikipedia:How to write a great article and other tutorials available. -Willmcw 08:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes - I was going to block the guy for 3RR yesterday... but anyway. Massive revert warring on Pat Tillman. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Diatribe prevention

Would anyone object to adding language in the first paragraph of this page to the effect of ... "Please keep your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes." · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. We want people's concerns to be heard. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how much good it'll do, but. Worth a shot. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody seems to mind, so I'm adding. If you take issue just pipe up. · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Admin IP checking?

I often see possible sockpuppets, many of which are borderline trolling, if not all the way. Is it possible to make a new "IP check" tool for administrators. Trying to pester develpoers about this kind of stuff is slow and tedious for both parties.

If anyone is afraid of abuse, then perhaps we can have RfAs for admins who want this tool, although I personally would not see that as necessary if the current admins are trustworthy.

Any thoughts?Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 18:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think most folks are concerned that the use of checkuser raises serious privacy concerns, and so therefore should be very limited. Just within the past week or so, though, most members of the arbcom have been granted the ability to perform this check themselves, so hopefully that will help clear up some of the bottleneck. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It's at m:CheckUser... (but good idea ;) ) -Mysekurity 23:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Broken HTML

As I've been trying to clean up this page, I've found the following users' sigs which contain broken HTML:

• Voice of All
  • Voice of All frowns :-(...anyway, I just talked to CesarB, and he said that it was OK.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 23:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know who CesarB is, but you need to close out your font tags. I have done so above. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
      • CesarB is me. And the font tags on the signature above seem to be all closed. --cesarb 23:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Pleased to meet you. Some were closed, and the rest I closed in this edit: [3] Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I just fixed it a few minutes ago. I had needless spaces and had "/font" 2 or 3 times where it was redundant.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 23:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Since the devs force you to have no sig errors, I actually to fix the sig again, apparently. The culprit was one line that sad font color=blue and not font color="blue", like the others.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 02:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Rex071404
• Scimitar
• Firefox

Regards, Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• How about contacting them personally? Radiant_>|< 23:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

AN&ANI ArchiveBot

The Admin Noticeboard (and incidents page) have a tendency to get too long and not be archived often enough. That is also because the order sections appear in does not indicate which sections are still pertinent and which are not, making archiving somewhat arduous.

I've discussed it at the bots page, and it is very feasible to create a bot that would automatically archive any section that has not been edited for a week, judging by the signature timestamps present in the section. Of course the "one week" bit is an arbitrary selection. Does anyone else think this is a good idea? Radiant_>|< 16:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting idea, in my opinion. --Syrthiss 16:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If it can truly be done, I'd say clean this mother up! --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say go for it too. Titoxd^(?!?) 17:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good, so long as a week is a fair representation of a dead topic here. --Blackcap | talk 17:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this a great idea, with the assumption that this bot would be in addition to manual archiving, not in place of it. For example, sections (usually large ones) often have a stray comment made a few days after the topic has "died". This would sometimes lead to the bot letting too many dead sections clutter the page. Other than that minor issue, I don't see any reason not to implement this bot. Carbonite | Talk 17:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. Blackcap | talk 17:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

There are some questions that I'd like clarified first. First, if the bot archived some sections now, where would it place them? Would it simply tack it on to the previous archive or create a new archive? The next day, where would it place those archives? We can't afford to have a new archive created every day. Perhaps ask the bot to store at a temp location and then have the temp location, once it reaches a certain size, manually moved to a new archive location? Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it would be crazy to make an entirely new archive page every day. I haven't looked at the WP:AN archives at all yet; how would you like me to handle it? The simplest way would be either to start a new archive every X amount of days, or start a new archive whenever the current one exceeds Y size (in wikitext). —Cryptic (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Would it be possible to accumulate all the archived messages in a temp location at a subpage, and when the size of the subpage exceeds a certain size (I don't know how large exactly is the size in Kb of a page that would need to be archived) or number of messages/subheadings (probably around 75-100) to send a message to this page that the temp needs to be moved to a new archive? That way, old messages would be continuously removed from this page and placed at the temp location, and when the temp gets to the point where it can be placed into a new archive page, a user could manually review it and then move it to the next archive page. Would that be possible? Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Size in Kb or number of subheadings would be trivial. (Number of messages would be harder; I'd rather not have to parse the section contents for a count.) Is there a reason not to put it directly into the archive pages, though? —Cryptic (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing the distinction either... Unless Flcelloguy means have a 'Recent Archives' page where the recently moved topics goes to, and when that gets big gets dumped into 'Archive NN'. Still I am not sure what that would achieve instead of dumping it directly to 'Archive NN'. --Syrthiss 22:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I must have misunderstood the initial comment. So you're saying that the bot will continuously archive, so that archive X gets bigger until it hits a certain point, when the bot will then dump to archive X+1? That sounds fine to me. But how are you going to determine when to start a new archive? What I'm saying is that using the number of ==TITLE== and setting an arbitrary cut-off point would work, though I'm sure using Kb would also work. What would be easier? Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that was my plan. As for when to go on to the next archive, I'm pretty flexible; let me know how you want it handled, and I'll do it. It's just as easy to go by Kb or by number of level-2 section headers (I'll be treating each ==section== and all of its ===subsections===, ====subsubsections====, etc. as a single indivisible unit). Picking some actual numbers would be helpful; the size of the last few archive pages ranges all the way from 70K to 241K. (By the way, I can also make it update Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox and Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox all appropriately, though Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident index obviously would still need a human to maintain it.) —Cryptic (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking to set 100 sections as the arbitrary cut-off point; I've archived a few times and if I remember correctly each time was around 100 sections. Thoughts? Also, would it be possible to program the bot to take care of the help desk and Wikipedia:General complaints? Both those pages need constant archiving and are prone to get extremely long. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, and I'd like to see the bot extensible and configurable by its creator or maintainer to handle a list of pages (including the noticeboard and subpages and possibly some day others) with configurable deadlines for each (some pages it may be appropriate to archive after a week, some longer, some shorter). Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Excellent. I think the bot should actually cut off by size rather than section count (since some sections are a lot larger than others). How about 100kb? I would also appreciate it if the bot stated at the top of each archive page the dates on which it added to it (so that you can see that e.g. /Archive 12 is really for october 2005). Radiant_>|< 00:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 100 Kb seems to be a little small; this page is already 150 Kb and seems kind of short to be a full archive. How about 150 Kb or 200 Kb? Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Sounds good to me. Radiant_>|< 00:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Just dropping in to say this is a great idea, Radiant. I would customize the number of days of inactivity in a section though: 1 week or more is about right for AN, but ANI seems to move much faster, perhaps four to five days of inactivity might be better there. As for the mechanics, how about:

1. The bot can be set to run say every 7 days.
2. Each time it runs, it chooses sections that have been inactive for at least X days, and puts them in the last archive (currently 51 for ANI).
3. It keeps doing this until it hits a kb limit for that archive (~200kb). If the latest bit of archival material cannot be fit into the archive page without going over eg. 200kb, the bot creates the next Archive page (ie. 52 for ANI). It's probably important for the bot not to try to fit posts to the exact cut-off, because if it does it will end up splitting posts and sections in half.
4. It updates the nav template. Repeats in 7 days.

encephalon 07:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC) And now that I've read this full thread, it looks like everyone has pretty much said all the above already. <smacks forehead>. Sorry guys. encephalon 07:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• One comment though, I think the bot should run daily. It's pretty low in overhead, anyway. If it runs every seven days, then any section can remain on there for the intended time plus seven days. By the way if this works we may want to do the same on other high-traffic pages, such as the village pump or reference desk. Radiant_>|< 12:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

  Daily runs were my plan. If it's only meant to go once a week, instead of every morning like I do for AFDs, then I'll probably forget it; I'm too lazy to try to set up cron under Cygwin. —Cryptic (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Question: How does it generate dates of last post? Because if it goes by timestamps, what prevents me from typing "13:24 24 November 2005 (UTC)" and having it think that's the date of last post? I know this isn't a big deal; I'm just curious. Ral315 (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The glib answer is that it won't be fooled, since you left out a comma between your 24s. The real answer is that it'll assume that anything that looks like a timestamp is valid, unless it's in the future. —Cryptic (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• One important issue is, how hard is it going to be to find a given question after it's been archived, especially for inexperienced users? Perhaps we should have a master index of all questions, linking to the relevant archive. Perhaps the bot should post a note to the original contributor's talk page when archiving. Bovlb 16:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

  It'll be no different from when a human archives (unless those currently doing so are a whole lot more thorough than I think). Even if no one replies at all, the original poster would have to not check back in a whole week. Failing that a somewhat more experience one could search through the archives, which will still be in rough chronological order - again, no better nor worse than matters as they stand. Jnc used to maintain Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident index, but that's been completely neglected since July. If people think it's a good idea, I could automatically post the section headers there with links to their new locations as they're archived, but I don't personally think it would be of much use. —Cryptic (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be useful. The section headers tend to have a decent correlation with the content :). In addition, I think we should not be in a hurry to archive- not everyone is on 24/7; two weeks sounds better to me. --Maru (talk) Contribs 21:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Two weeks is a bit too much, especially for WP:AN/I; the high volume of posts we get there necessitates a quicker archival. Since we all seem to be in consensus here, can we get the bot running if it has been programmed? If it's already been programmed, perhaps we can test it for a week (I believe that WP:BOT requires that bots be tested first, anyways). Thoughts at getting this off the ground? Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, let's get it running. We can always adjust the exact time limit later on if one week turns out to be too little or too much. Radiant_>|< 23:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Core functionality (ie, figuring out what needs to be archived) is done, but figuring out which page to archive to is not; nor is maintenance of the two index templates. (Radiant posted here immediately after I said it was feasible over on Wikipedia:Bot requests.) WP:BOT requires a waiting period of a week between proposal and testing, in any case. —Cryptic (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident index

As suggested above, my bot's been updating this page for the last month. Now that we have something concrete there, does anyone actually, truly, use it (as opposed to just "I think it might be useful")? I'd just as soon kill it off. It's not scaling well, and I'm getting tired of fixing it when the formatting breaks because someone used a template in a section header (which isn't easy to fix automatically). —Cryptic (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

AN Protected?

Why is this page protected? The log entry on Special:Log/protect wasn't very enlightening. -- SCZenz 01:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

20:20, November 28, 2005 Titoxd protected Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (move-protecting to prevent it from being moved to something abusive) - I am going to hazard a guess and say it was under a page-move vandal attack. Raul654 01:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I removed full protection and just move-protected it, since it was under a shock-image-vandalism attack. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, at the time I wrote the above the current protection was 00:06, 29 November 2005 Flcelloguy protected Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (Unprotecting to do full protection), whose comment I think must have been an autocomplete typo or something. Anyway, thanks for answering. -- SCZenz 01:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the AN was under a vandalbot attack that replaced the page with an obscene image at the time so I protected it. Brief periods of protection have proven effective in the past; it's unprotected now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone think of a nice way to encourage real diffs for 3RR?

I would work here more, but just about everytime I see a report, the diffs aren't correct. Most of the time they aren't even diffs. How can we reinforce this is the best way for people to get their reports acted on quickly? As examples:

• This shows diffs back to the last version
• This is article versions, not even diffs
• This shows easy to determine that they are revert diffs.

I can't think of a kind way to point this out to people. Maybe the politically ept among you could help formulate something? Wikibofh 19:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought "version reverted to" was supposted to be a diff showing no changes between a reported version (the 4RR?) and the claimed original version. If that is the case, insert a comment in the template suggesting that link be created by clicking the 4th RV and the original versions in the History page. Also mention to use a similar process for the other links. An indirect way to encourage the desired link is if you change the 3RR format to something which can be extracted from the Diff page. The following is a cut-and-paste from the headers of a Diff, with a space added at the front of each line.

Revision as of 21:16, 1 December 2005
AlistairMcMillan (Talk | contribs)
Remove POV mention of Saddam visits from first paragraph, as discussed on Talk.
← Older edit 	Revision as of 21:34, 1 December 2005
Dbiv (Talk | contribs)
Reverted edits by AlistairMcMillan (talk) to last version by 70.27.70.105

Newer edit →

Not a particularly nice appearance, and somewhat long for each report. How about instead of only the revision datestamp, encourage use of the History entry with the edit comment? (SEWilco 21:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC))

• I'm not sure. The problem is to do it right does take more time (you have to use compare versions as opposed to current or something similar) but if the instructions are too complicated people will ignore them. I'm at a loss, which is why I brought it here. Wikibofh 22:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • When I'm feeling bureaucratic, I usually leave a note to the effect that these aren't diffs (and <this> is) and indicate that I won't issue the block they want until they give diffs. Usually works... -Splash^talk 22:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the best way would be to make difflinks easier to get... - SoM 02:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Admin is vandalising (Not really says someone)

Jeffrey_O._Gustafson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Changed comments of mine on a user talk page (User_talk:207.255.133.142), deleted content on my user page, and deleted the warning on his talk page within five minutes of warning. Daviddec 00:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC) I posted this at the vandal location as well but since he's an admin I figured to do it here as well. Are user pages allowed to have any content on them? I thought so but Jeff must not think so. Daviddec 00:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Your user page consisted of "vandalism" repeated about 6 million times. Get over it and do something constructive. Jgritz 00:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any basis to the charge that Jeffrey_O._Gustafson (talk · contribs) changed any comments at User_talk:207.255.133.142. User:Daviddec is a page full of the word "VANDALISM", which has been recreated after being deleted. Jkelly 00:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently all started with a deletion of a vanity article. See also User talk:Steven Rollins, unsure if they're the same person (CheckUser anyone?) NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 00:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed that Jeffrey O. Gustafson has done absolutely nothing wrong here. Whereas Daviddec is skirting very close to a block for disruptive editing. David | Talk 01:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Steven Rollins and Daviddec are not the same person. Davidec has been repeatedly adding a vanity article on his nn band, which I had deleted, repeatedly. Steven Rollins is an unrelated case of someone making legal threats and personal attacks, who I banned. Deviddec is a continuing problem, though. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The censoring has seemed to stop. Good job guys. You ROCK! I Love you all. Keep up the good work. Do you need more vaseline? I'm not even going to ask you any more questions because they won't even be answered. It's only fair that admins can disruptively edit but low peons like myself can't. I love you. Daviddec 01:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Daviddec has recreated his "vandalised" user page - which I have re-deleted. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 08:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Posted to my (Brookie's) Talk Page:

The BIG V - So you have deleted my user page. Why? I have been told that I can put any content on my user page if I wish. I wrote what I wrote for an art project. You said that I wrote the word vandilism over and over. Not true. Each word was different and had different meanings, without and within the surrounding words. Please feel free to warn me next time- sort of like you are supposed to do before deleting content on a user page. If you could send me an email of the original content that would be great. Daviddec 09:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Nobody said anything concrete or refered me to policy that made sense as to why my user page should be vandalised. Help me out here. Why can't I put what I please on my user page? The original content is still missing. Daviddec 10:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So Brookie has decided to ignore me. Great. Who can help me figure this out? When admins go and vandalise my user page (something nobody is supposed to do) and I ask why, they end up ignoring me. I don't mean to generalize all admins and I apoligize for doing so (I'll try not to do so in the future), but it's happened twice now. Shouldn't admins be leaders and show us how to properly act on wiki? The guidelines say you should warn people of deletion of content, this has not happened on my user page. All these questions go unanswered, that's why I wrote what I did further up, and certain people ignore me. I've included the rest of the conversation between him and I since brookie has deleted it from his talk page.

The BIG V

So you have deleted my user page. Why? I have been told that I can put any content on my user page if I wish. I wrote what I wrote for an art project. You said that I wrote the word vandilism over and over. Not true. Each word was different and had different meanings, without and within the surrounding words. Please feel free to warn me next time- sort of like you are supposed to do before deleting content on a user page. If you could send me an email of the original content that would be great. Daviddec 09:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC) +User page

You are well aware of the discussion of this on the Administrators' user page and I would direct you back to that. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 09:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody said anything concrete or refered me to policy that made sense as to why my user page should be vandalised. Help me out here. Why can't I put what I please on my user page? The original content is still missing. Daviddec 10:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do admins ignore simple questions? Delete and run is the only thing I've seen them do. Maybe they're talking amongst eachother to figure out the best plan of attack. Or maybe they're re-writing policy as we act. I know they have a tough job of weeding out unnecessary content, but I have had much more productive talks with users regarding wiki policy than the admins, the people chosen to do the job, have. Please return my original content from my user page as you so gratefully offer on your user page. Thanks Daviddec 10:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It also says, "Note that using the text to recreate the deleted content is speedyable, and using it to keep it hanging around in your userspace has gotten editors penalized before. But that's your problem." - as it has been speedied twice already it's best it stays that way. Why not put something less controversial there instead? Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 10:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC) + Your new user page looks a lot better - well done! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 10:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I read that. That still does not matter because there is no reason why (esp. since I haven't even recieved the content back and you don't know what I intend to do with it [I assume you are assuming what I'll do with it]) it should be deleted from my user page. Why haven't you posted this on the admins talk page like the other conversations? Daviddec 10:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC) +

I'm bored with this nonsense - which is now at an end. Any more postings from you will be ignored and deleted. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 10:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Daviddec 11:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Look Daviddec, this blatant trolling has got to stop - make a reasonable userpage and we can all move on. If you keep on nagging here, you are simply trolling and wasting everyone's time. Izehar (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is the appropriate place to talk about admins who ignore genuine debate, or make personal attacks, or who delete content from my user page? This wiki thing is relatively new to me and I think it's unfair to label me a troll when you can see I am genuinely interested in getting straight answers or understandable actions. Please help me out with some facts as to why my chosen user page was deleted, why people choose to ignore me, and why I have to hear personal attacks from an admin. Daviddec 21:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody running this show

I'm here because nothing else works.Admins "resolve' disputes without ever talking to me.

I want to know who is the head admin. The leader, the man in charge. I have an ignorant, biased skeptic who keeps reverting the Bigfoot page so it says Bigfoot has SMALL eyes, and a SMALL head. Over and over. DreamGuy . And despite Wiki article on First Aid, Biological Warfare and UFOs, where public is directed to report contacts and problems, this guy, a total J***, keeps saying Wiki cannot provide info sites to report contacts .

WHO-IS-IN-CHARGE? beckjordBeckjord 09:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

We don't do content disputes on this page. And in most senses there is no "head admin" (although some would argue that our god-king Jimbo Wales has that role. Admins have no more authority with respect to article content than anyone else. If Wikipedia rules are being violated (incivility, excessive reversion, inappropriate sockpuppetry, vandalism), we are able to protect pages and block users. If there is consensus to delete a page, we're the ones who can carry out that consensus, and we also can perform some trickier page moves than others. That's about it. It doesn't sound like any of that is at issue here. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Mandy Moore uber-vandals

65.241.54.155, 206.170.106.240, and 66.77.127.68 have vandalized the Mandy Moore page almost everyday. I have been one of the few users who updates the article, and for that the page has been blanked and i have been labled a perdophile. I believe all these users are the same person. I ask you all to atleast ban one of these users. They have clearly abused the site. Parys

Firstly, why is this here? Secondly I had a quick look the the contributions of the above three IP's and i didn't see any simple vandalism. It is of course perfectly possible that i didn't look deeply enough. When was the page blanked? When were you labelled a pediophile? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

About why here, it was me who suggested that to the user (well, more exactly I suggested WP:AN/I, because he kept on asking at Wikipedia:Administrators which was surely not the right place. This is better than that, but not sure if the perfect place. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewording 3RR "Report new violation" example text

The current wording for the example directions for leads to some confusion. I have made minor changes to the presentation, but the text is particularly un-user-friendly. For example, what does "Use diffs, not versions, and the "compare versions" button!" refer to? The original example, as presented at the 3RR Header, does not include such instructions, and I can find no such "button." Perhaps one of the authors of this version of the instructions would care to clarify? —LeFlyman 17:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Click the 'history' tab on top of any page. Then, use any of the buttons labeled "LAST" to get the difference (aka "diff") between that version and the last one. Radiant_>|< 23:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• I understand how to do so; I suggest that a clearer description be offered for new users. —LeFlyman 02:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

TOC

What's going on with the Table of Contents on the WP:AN page? Why isn't it boxed? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I fixed it by inserting a line break, which is highly weird. -Splash^talk 23:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you did, fixed it.  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Harrassment and Threats

(moved to WP:ANI. The talk page is only for discussions about the noticeboard.) —Cryptic (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Violation Split

Anyway we can split the violations into "enforced" and "new"?--Tznkai 04:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The report template is not adequate

I've been thinking that the current report template is not adequate. Look at the following paragraphs from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule to see why:

• Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor. It does not necessarily mean going back into the page history to revert to a previous version. The passage you keep adding or deleting may be as little as a few words, or in some cases, just one word.
• This policy does apply to repeatedly moving, renaming, deleting, undeleting, or recreating a page. All of these, if done excessively, are forms of edit warring.
• Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that undo a previous edit, in whole or in part, or that add something new. Use common sense.

What I am getting at is that to violate the 3RR, one does not have to revert to the same version of the page. A revert (quote from the policy): may include edits that undo a previous edit, in whole or in part. The current template does not enable users with how have been revert warring over only part of an article to be reported. Example:

1. I remove a word from an article
2. User:A reinserts it
3. I remove the word again and correct a mistake
4. User:A reinserts the word again
5. I remove the word again and correct a different mistake
6. User:B reinserts the word
7. I remove the word and add a picture to the article
8. User:C reinserts the word
9. I remove the word and add a table and graph to the article

Assuming the above happened within the same 24 hour period, I will have violated the 3RR according to the policy, but the current template doesn't provide for such violations to be reported. Many "gaming the system" 3RR violations are also performed in this manner, but are not reported because the template seems to indicate that you have to have reverted to the same version in order to violate the rule, but that's clearly not the case. Izehar 20:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Undoing other admins' blocks

I've noticed a spate of wheel wars break out recently, all triggered by one admin deciding to undo another admin's block without even discussing it prior to undoing it. It has reached the point where no one's blocks are safe, and while it's a good thing that all blocks are scrutinized, it's damaging if every block is likely to be undone by a previously uninvolved admin who may not know the background. It's as though none of us can tolerate seeing anything that we disagree with. But this is a wiki. There are bound to be lots of things going on that we don't agree with.

It seems to me that every time this happens, all admins are undermined, because anyone who is blocked only has to keep e-mailing admins until they eventually find one who'll undo it, and that they're likely to find one, so the block may as well not have been imposed in the first place.

I'm posting this to start a discussion about what people think is appropriate. Clearly blocks made in error (e.g. a block for 3RR where there were only three reverts) should be undone, although even then I'd argue that the blocking admin should be consulted first and given a chance to undo it themselves if they're online. But when it comes to judgment calls, my own policy if I disagree with a block is to try to persuade the blocking admin to undo it, but otherwise not to interfere, and in exchange I hope my own blocks won't be interfered with too much either. What do others think? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

My opinion: if you disagree with a block (unless it is clearly a mistake) then you should first discuss with the blocker (and if it's an indef that you think should be a week etc. then there is no hurry to get a response). Alternatively, post to ANI and get a quick consensus - a consensus of admins should trumph any individual, and make wheel wars unlikely. If a number of admins have agreed a block, no one should ever unilaterally undo it.--Doc ^ask? 21:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both SlimVirgin and Doc glasgow. If in doubt, ask questions. If the blocker is offline or responds in an unhelpful way, you basically have two options. The first is to unblock yourself. You should only do this if it is obvious the block is in error. The other is to seek further opinions, on ANI, IRC, or WikiEN-l. However, the first port of call should always be the blocking admin. [[Sam Korn]] 21:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, this is a touchy subject. I understand that common courtesy requires one to get the blocking administrator's agreement before unblocking. I am not proud to say that on the rare occasion I have undone another administrator's block, I usually do and leave an explanation of my action on his/her talk page.

I agree with what you are saying Slim, but I am thinking that we need a bit of red tape here in order to avoid offence. What we need IMO is a process by which blocked users can appeal. The {{unblock}} template could be used in that process and perhaps the administrator or other user who notices that the blocked user has requested to be unblocked can move his request to WP:ANI for scrutiny and to the blocking administrators talk page. Izehar 21:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, SlimVirgin. Generally, talk first before doing actions. However, in some cases I feel that unblocking doesn't warrant notification - such as collateral damage, etc. If you're disagreeing with the reason for the block, then you probably should consult the other admin first. Talking won't hurt! Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

(multiple ec) It's a judgement call, of course. I don't agree with the notion that sysop actions should never be undone- like an edit, you should revert it if you strongly feel that's the right thing to do. However, I think this should only happen in the case of obvious mistakes or blatantly unreasonable blocks. When there's just an honest disagreement, discuss it, don't undo it. Of course, some people consider any block that they disagree with to be blatantly unreasonable, which to them justfies undoing it. People who can't see that reasonable people can reasonably disagree should not be sysops, for that very reason. Friday (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I too agree with this. Discussing with the blocker is the best option. Otherwise if the blocker is not online then asking online uninvolved admins for opinions is the best way. I also agree with Izehar that a small process is needed where wikipedia editors can appeal for unblock and have blocking admins decide on the block. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Something like Category:Requests for unblock? --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Except maybe a better page where some discussion can take place. That page is barely ever checked. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I for one prefer a policy of fix now, talk later in regard to my own blocks, but when it comes to me undoing other's blocks, I always talk first (unless it's something obvious, like unblocking an IP hit by collateral damage). I think there is value in having the admin that placed the block remove it in some cases, but in others, it is senseless to make the poor blocked user wait until the blocking admin can get around to it. That is the reason that I grant carte blanche to all other admins to immediately undo my blocks and then tell me about it. But getting into wheel wars is something entirely different: just don't redo a block that someone else has undone without discussing it. Most of us are adults here, even if we don't always act like it. -- Essjay · Talk 21:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I strongly feel that one admin should not undo someone else's block (except for a good reason). IMO the Category:Requests for unblock is not being used enough (probably because not that many people know about it). Perhaps its existence should be publicised. Izehar 21:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better used if there was a way to see additions without having to check it constantly. If this category (and perhaps a few other similar ones) would show up in watchlists whenever they were added to a page, it would be much easier for admins to notice. Perhaps this is something the devs could code for us? -- Essjay · Talk 21:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see is that it takes time to discuss a block fully, and it is frequently going to be the case that agreement can't be reached quickly. And in that time there is a block. The idea has always been to only have blocks when necessary and to err on the side of unblocking unless there is serious and immediate danger to Wikipedia - such as a major vandalism attack or a bot attack (in which case there would not be any dispute anyway). I believe in removing the block, and immediately informing the blocking admin to discuss. If agreement is reached that the block was correct, then it can be reinstated. I feel this causes less harm than unfair blocks that simply antagonise and lose us potential contributors.

This is even more important in cases of apparent mistaken identity and people caught up in blocks meant for someone else on their IP. In the case of things like AOL blocks, I don't even inform the blocking admin, I just make sure that the (innocent) contributor can get back to editing. User name blocks are of course a different matter and I will always discuss them - just not necessarily before blocking -- sannse (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I will never wheel war. If I remove a block and it is reinstated - I would not replace it -- sannse (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think people agree that in the case of a clear mistake, or someone getting caught in a block intended for others, the block can be undone immediately. But in the case of a judgement call, if we unblock without discussion, we're substituting our own judgement for that of the blocking admin, and that's what I'm arguing is damaging. We should elect people to be admins whose judgement we trust, and then we should trust them, even when we disagree. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to persuade them of our point of view, or start a discussion about the block on AN/I so that others can chime in. I agree with Izehar about having some process on a special page where unblocking can be requested and discussed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree with many of the above comments. Undoing an admin's block right away casts doubt on the competency of the admin doing the block and is bound to generate ill-will. Unless the block was clearly abuse of administrative powers, try to first voice your objections on the blocking admin's page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

(ec) I think we can differentiate between a purposeful block on a logged in user (which is usually contraversial and needs discussion before reversing - esp PA or disruption blocks) and a routine block by an RC patroller for bog-standard vandalism. I can block two dozen IP's and 'all vandalism' accounts in an evening. If any causes collateral damage, or the user later promises to behave, I am happy for another admin to unblock. There is no need for discussion - in fact don't even bother informing me (unless you feel I 'done bad' and I need to learn for the future). I suspect most RC patrollers will feel the same. But if I judge a logged-in user to merit blocking, I don't want reversed without some discussion (with me - or between a number of admins). --Doc ^ask? 21:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems there is definite agreement on one type of block. It's only user name blocks that there is any disagreement on. I think that the disagreement may be about looking from two different perspectives. My worry is the person being blocked, removing that block as quickly as possible, and leaving that block off while it is being discussed. This is different from looking at it from the blockers point of view, not reversing their decision because it may annoy them or imply that they have done wrong. Frankly, I think that all us admins can cope with disagreement with our decisions - it says nothing about our worth as admins and as Wikipedians, it just means that someone disagrees with us on a particular point. I think this better than the bad situation of leaving a disputed block up for hours (or even days) while it is discussed. In my opinion, the default should be unblocked (doesn't the blocking policy say that anyway? if not, it did). -- sannse (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Very good point. A wrongful block does pretty clear harm. Undoing that harm is more important than our own egos as sysops. Friday (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody talks about blocking a user for hours. You don't have to convince the other admin to remove the block. But you could at least try a notification first. Never hurts. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying just post the explanation before unblocking (which I do) or wait for a reply first? -- sannse (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a bad idea to wait for a reply, if not too long :) There is no way to make a rule out of this, one may need to use one's judgement about the individual circumstances, but I would lean for trying to talk things first. It is not a bad assumption to think that the blocking admin may know what he/she is doing. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we are all saying largely the same thing here, which is good. Communication is good, overzealous unilateralism is bad. So, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, I'll go a bit further. If your block has been undone by another admin, even in blatant violation of the courtesy discussed here, even if you think they are obviously wrong, do not reblock yourself. This is how wheel wars start. The proper action would be to take it to that admin's talk page, ask other uninvolved admins, take it here. Once you're in a wheel war, it's both admins who are misbehaving, regardless of the subject of the wheel war. Dmcdevit·t 22:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This is nothing new. Blocks have always been pulled. Personly I've never really cared. If someone pulls one of my blocks any problems that causes become their responcibilty. Normaly I like to be told though. I think the form letter used to be "X has contacted me and promised to behave from now on and as a result I have pulled his block".Geni 22:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sannse. Discssion is always good, but we should always err on the side of unblocking. Paul August ☎ 22:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

(EC) I think Sannse is right about two points of view; some of us see it as a "help a potential victim" issue, and others see it as a "respect the judgement of the blocker" issue. I know I for one see it as a matter of "innocent until proven guilty": until we know the block should be there (i.e., have discussed it) it shouldn't be there. My way of seeing this done is to immediately bring it up on the blocking admins talk, but if I don't see an answer within ten minutes, I unblock (with a summary like "unblocking until I can discuss this with [admin's name]") and bring it up on AN/I. I think that solves both problems; it gives the blocking admin the chance to respond, but it also prevents the blocked user from having to sit through an undue block until the matter can be discussed. I think the easiest, and best, way to advocate for this policy is to lead by example, which is why my userpage says in bold: I strongly encourage other administrators who feel I have made an action inappropriately to take the appropriate action to rectify it and follow up with a note to me. -- Essjay · Talk 23:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict twice) Would it be possible to mention Category:Requests for unblock and {{unblock}} in that message a blocked user gets when he/she tries to edit a page? I don't know if this would be a good idea though - it could be abused by vandals and would create a backlog. Perhaps there could be two of those messages, one for vandals, one for other blocked users (the class to be determined by the blocking sysop). I think that that may be in the realm of science fiction though. IMO using the mailing list and IRC to appeal to blocks is not very transparant and it would be better if things like that were discussed on Wikipedia. Izehar 22:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Any process like this (which might be useful, I'm not sure) would have to be very easy for new contributors to understand. Generally I think that most will find it easier to email, post to the mailing list, or get onto IRC to ask for help -- sannse (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The default position can't be "when in doubt, unblock," because in the case of judgement calls, there's always going to be room for doubt. At some point, we have to trust and respect people's judgement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree that blocks should not be undone without prior discussion with the blocking admin. I would like to add two important caveats to my endorsement. First, sometimes unblocking can eliminate an impending conflict, and thus quickly doing so serves the purpose of wikipedia. Recently there was a case where an admin was caught in colateral damage from one of his bots being blocked. He unblocked his bot, and a wheel war ensued where another admin reinstated the block (since the user was unblocking himself). In this case I unblocked the bot immeadiately, because the conflict which led to the initial block of the bot had been resolved, and my unblocking ended the wheel war (because no one was unblocking themselves). In this case, no one objected to my actions. Second, circumstances change. I think if in the judgement of an administrator the circumstances surrounding the block have been resolved, then the block can be removed without discussion. So for instance, if I block a user for personal attacks, saying that I will unblock when the user appologies, another admin can unblock if the user appologies without discussing it with me first. This is importantly different from removing a block that another admin believes to be wrong. Here, the block is only removed once the conditions set out by the blocking admin have been satisfied. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's very bad for Wikipedia if there is a division among admins about blocks. It's like a naughty boy who knows that whenever his father stops his pocket money for bad behaviour, he can just go to his mother who will take his side - it makes it impossible to enforce blocking policy. Contacting the blocking admin over your concerns is important. However there may be circumstances in which this is impractical - where the blocking admin is in another time zone and has gone to bed or work and therefore is unavailable for a substantial period. Also, admins do not inevitably follow blocking policy themselves and in the case of a clear breach of policy (such as blatant use out of process in order to win a content dispute), it would be wrong to insist on a response consenting to a commutation of the block. However, a User talk page note should always be left. David | Talk 23:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's extremely bad precedent for one administrator to unilaterally undo another administrator's block (except in cases of clear and obvious error, or when the blocking administrator is unreachable for an extended period of time (e.g. many, many hours). The second administrator rarely understands the full context of the block, and is thus often in a worse position to provide the necessary judgement as to whether a block is warranted. Also, as has been pointed out, wheelwars are starting to regularly ensue, and this kind of division encourages badly acting editors to run to their buddies when they've been misbehaving and gotten blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think getting possessive about our blocks is a bad idea, the same way as getting possessive about our edits is (see WP:OWN). We're all in it to create an encyclopedia, disagreeing is a perfectly natural thing to do, and getting all worked up about who's banned who and who is allowed to undo who's block and what's blocking whoever and whether admin a is interfering with block c by admin w... it all gets very confusing. I prefer to presume good faith on the contributor's behalf. It's much better that we let them contribute than not - if it turns out they are a good contributor, then we haven't soured their attitude towards the project by preventing them from contributing, but if they are a bad contributor, there's not much harm done as their edits can easily be removed. If in doubt - unblock. The harm of blocking a good contributor is greater than the harm of letting a bad contributor vandalise a few extra pages or say some nasty stuff. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, why is this on the talk page? I thought this was for discussion of the administrators' noticeboard, and that the admins' noticeboard is where we actually discuss admin stuff. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that "when in doubt - unblock" is a terrible idea, that wheel-wars set a terrible example for users, and that this pretty much sums up any other thoughts that I have on this subject. WP:AGF also applies to admins. If an admin is blocking outside of policy, open an RfC. Jkelly 03:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it sounds like "when in doubt, don't discuss" and "when in doubt, war". -Splash^talk 04:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

A single round of block/unblock isn't really a war. It's more like bold/revert/discuss. People must of course use their best judgement. Friday (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That's the common mistake of importing an article space exhortation into administrative actions. Check out the full title of WP:BOLD, upon which BRD relies. -Splash^talk 04:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is this a mistake? Talrias (t | e | c) 12:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I know. But, in my own personal opinion, as a general rule, admin action should be treated for these purposes like edits. Being bold is not meant to encourage edit warring, it's meant to encourage doing the right thing. We should not be so pompous with respect to use of our sysop functions that we're automatically offended when someone undoes them. What's easily done can be easily undone. That's what bold/revert/discuss is about, and I stand by my opinion that it should be applied to administrative action as well as edits. Friday (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that admins should not expect some prerogative just because they pressed the button first, but I do not agree with "if in doubt, unblock", because there is the very real possibility that your doubt stems from incomplete knowledge of the facts. You should remove all such doubt before unblocking, or you risk making a fool of yourself and upsetting someone else. The first is up to you, the second, when unnecessary, is unfortunate. -Splash^talk 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"there is the very real possibility that your doubt stems from incomplete knowledge of the facts" -- There is that possibility, but it is up to the unblocking admin to ensure that that isn't the case, and then to discuss their unblock fully and will full justification. I am one of those that sees an unblock to be the equivalent of a single revert. It's not a revert war if you reverse an edit - but it is if you continue to do so. I understand that one should consider carefully before reversing a block and respect the opinion of the other admin, but I don't think that should stop us from making a decision that we believe is right. -- sannse (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that a single unblock is a wheel war. I don't feel the question is about whether an admin is blocking inside policy or not, but is about what you should do if you disagree with a block. Yes, assume good faith applies to admins too, but what is better for the wiki? A wrongly blocked user and an admin who's had their ego stroked successfully, or a user who's had his mistaken block removed and an annoyed admin? I think we're underestimating the damaging the former can cause: "Yes, I tried editing that Wikipedia site, but I removed some stuff I disagreed with and then I got a message saying I was banned from using the site!" Yes, the statement is inaccurate, but it's what happens, and we should avoid it, even if it means that an admin's toes get stepped on. The admins should be above getting touchy about it. Yes, having your toes stood on hurts, but it's not worth fighting a battle about. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the be-all-and-end-all of this discussion are the actual words of the blocking policy: 'if you disagree with a block placed by another admin, please contact that admin to discuss the matter'. My interpretation of that is that some attempt at contact must be made before unblocking, except in clear, unambiguous cases of error (note, not cases that involve 'a judgment call'), and even then the blocking admin should be clearly notified. (It seems to me to be a matter of common courtesy in addition to established policy.) --Nick Boalch ^?!? 11:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe this discussion is on establishing feelings on that particular section of the policy, possibly with a view to change it if that's what people think. That a policy says something shouldn't be a licence to terminate all discussion about something. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that. As I say above, I don't believe the policy should be changed. --Nick Boalch ^?!? 14:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As it stands now, some folks think a single unblock is OK (but should be used with caution, like any revert) and some folks think you should ALWAYS contact the blocking admin. Both of these groups probably believe the blocking policy backs them up. I'm not sure we can or should try to remove all ambiguity from the policy, myself. "No firm rules" and all that. Friday (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

While there can be a conflict between trusting an admin's judgement and not allowing incorrect blocks to stand, I think that it is more important to Wikipedia:Assume good faith on the part of new users who are blocked (not necessarily people who have clearly demonstrated bad faith). I doubt anyone's done a survey of how people feel about Wikipedia when they get blocked the first time they attempt to contribute, but my guess would be that they won't be motivated to come back, and in my opinion we should avoid alienating potential contributors. I think that in cases like these, erring on the side of unblocking is a good idea.

I tend to agree with User:Friday that it doesn't make sense to remove the ambiguity from the blocking policy. As others have also mentioned above, I don't see it as a lack of trust if someone unblocks someone I blocked, and I think the way to avoid wheel wars is to not reinstate the original block. It takes two to wheel war, and if trust is the issue, reinstating the block just doubles the problem. I think it makes sense to discuss unblocks with the blocking admin first, but if someone unblocks without discussing, I think it's the responsibility of other admins to discuss first, not start a wheel war. JYolkowski // talk 16:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm worried that an important line of argument has been lost here. Many of the above comments are casting this as a debate between "offending a blocking admin" and "scaring away users". While one ought not offend when possible, I don't think that this is the reason we should not undo actions of our fellow admins. The concern is that it sends the wrong message to (already marginal) contributors that what they have done (a) isn't so bad or (b) they can get away with it by causing a stink. We don't want to foster either of these attitudes. Now perhaps its not worth scaring away good contributors to prevent sending this message, its hard to tell I think. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, then, so, let an admin think very hard (and in not perfectly clear-cut cases consult with other admins) about the need for a block, and doubly so when blocking another admin. And let the admin who wishes to unblock do the same. A bit of care and some beforehand talk can save quite a bit of frustration later. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the argument that we can't have "when in doubt, unblock" as an operating principal, I have only one response: It is the responsibility of the blocking admin to make the reasons for the block clear. If you do not want your blocks overturned, you damn well better explain yourself on the user's talk page. The message should contain enough context (use diffs when needed) that any person previously unfamiliar with the circumstances isn't left wondering why the block was applied. I personally see no problem with unblocking someone if I'm unable to find adequate justification for the block, and I shouldn't have to play detective to find that justification. Friday (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In general I agree with your points, but also I think there's a big difference between 1) "No reasoning at all was provided", 2) "The reasoning was unclear" and 3) "I don't agree with the reasoning".

In the first case, unless the mistake was quite obvious (3RR block for only two reverts), I'd ask the admin for their reasoning. If the admin didn't respond quickly, I'd unblock pending further information.

In the second case, I'd request clarification, but keep the block in place. Sometimes an admin has so much information on a case that they may mistakenly omit some of the context. Often a few clarifications can make the reasoning crystal clear. If the reasoning is still unclear after the blocking admin attempts to clarify, the matter should be brought to WP:ANI.

In the third case, an admin may still disagree with a block, even when presented with clear and detailed reasoning. I'd keep the block in place but immediately bring the matter to WP:ANI. Admins often disagree over what constitutes personal attacks or disruption. Unblocking without discussion should be highly discouraged in these cases.

I've just seen too many cases where Admin A blocks and Admin B disagrees with his reasoning, so he unblocks. That way lies wheel wars. Carbonite | Talk 15:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree. Judgement is key- we all need to be able to see that there's a difference between an unreasonable block, and one we happen to disagree with. Friday (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Friday's and Carbonite's remarks, and in fact I think it wouldn't hurt to put something along those lines in policy. The only thing I'd add is that "reasoning" is a slightly nebuluous term; it's not just "what is the policy basis" but also "what is the evidential basis". Alleged behaviour that is being sanctioned should either be pretty obvious, reasonably well-documented at the time of the block (on or linked from the relevant user /talk page), or at least clarified on request. If it's too much effort to clarify (eg too complicated), admins shouldn't act unilaterally, and should demonstrate community support on WP:ANI first (allowing for short blocks whilst discussion on WP:ANI is taking place). Rd232 ^talk 15:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the blocking policy as it is should be followed. 'if you disagree with a block placed by another admin, please contact that admin to discuss the matter' unless there was a clear mistake by the blocking admin. If there was a mistake we all agree it's ok to unblock first and explain why. In absence of that it should simply be discussed first and unless there is a pretty good reason to overturn it should be left alone. It's like the instant replay rule. The decision stands unless there's clear evidence the call is wrong. Overall we should give each other deference and only reverse eachothers decisions when the decision was clearly wrong. - Taxman ^Talk 19:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring for a second that this is a probable WP:POINT post, I think that undoing another administrator's block is a reasonable course of action as a first step. If the administrator had made the block based on an ArbCom decision (etc) with significant evidence, then the block should not be able to be unblocked. However, if the administrator just blocked with no reason, or else no substantial reason, then the user concerned should be unblocked pending review. This is the fair way to do things. The original blocking administrator should take this as a review of their decision, rather than a permanent thing, and hence should not redo their block. Depending on the type of original block, the original block can then be reinstated after review (but not unilaterally by another admin). So if it was a 24 hour block, it probably shouldn't be reblocked, but an indefinite block maybe should be. While 24 hour blocks done unfairly probably don't hurt Wikipedia too much, indefinite blocks, and long term blocks do. Except in exceptional circumstances (and obvious ones), long term blocks shouldn't be being made without discussion anyway. If admins would discuss with other admins before making a block, with an aim to get concensus, then we likely wouldn't have this kind of problem. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree (your text at the end) that an admin should maybe talk to other admins about issuing a block. But then, you saying that undoing a block would be "a reasonable course of action as a first step", and I find that silly rather than anything else. First course of action would be again to talk, and not jump to using your tool. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Communication can be somewhat difficult. My User:RefBot got blocked once by an admin with no email address, and currently has an indefinite block by someone on vacation. (SEWilco 05:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

• I started a discussion about a similar issue on the Village Pump, if anyone here is interested. --Ixfd64 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Grey text

There's a lot of greyed-out text. It might be someone's sig running amok again, I can't tell. Is this supposed to be there, or should I seek & destroy re-format? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Archival bot?

Is the ANI archival bot still active? I noticed these pages getting extremely long lately. Radiant_>|< 22:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I've accelerated it all the way up to a 3-day period (which is about the minimum lagtime that it can reasonably go to). We really are going through this much material; the last few 150k archives only cover three or four days each. —Cryptic (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Post a new message link?

I just noticed that there's a new link to post a new incident at the very top of this page, and I couldn't find any discussion about it. It's slightly redundant, as there's the exact same link in the third line of the header; in addition, by placing the link at the very top, it discourages people from reading the instructions first. Thoughts on this? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, since no one has replied, I'm removing the link. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Mentor wanted

Newbie admin seeks experienced admin as mentor (pref. a Brit, for time-zone reasons). Why dioes this remind me of the small ads in Private Eye? Thanks - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 09:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not British, nor really "experienced", but I'm going to suggest Francs2000 (who is a bcrat!), since he's British and definitely experienced. NSLE _(T+C) 09:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll volunteer :). Do you need any help with something specific or would you just like me to "keep an eye on you" per se? Feel free to use my talk page if you want (as I side note I really wanted to do this when I become an admin months ago but instead tryed talking to various admins on their pages which didn't seem to work out that well.... you really have to find "the right one" I guess :)) WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 09:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Whitenight, helpful so far :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Shape and size of AN/ANI

Despite the good work of the archival bot, AN and especially ANI have grown impractically large (ANI was 450 kb yesterday). It is becoming impractical for some users to read and edit them (indeed, I find myself using a history diff rather than read the board as a whole, so that I can get the relevant info in the top few lines). Note that we already have a new noticeboard for sockcheck requests (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser).

Therefore. Quick straw poll. What would you like done with the noticeboards...

Keep as they are now

1. A subpage for comments about admins is a bad idea indeed — it will turn into repeated impromptu RfCs, without the kind of frivolity-protection RfC currently affords. Subpages per day will make it hard to just follow running conversations, unless you meticulously watchlist every single day's subpage. It's useful to be able to just see what's afoot without having to remember to watchlist every single thing. I recognize that they get long, but the current proposal isn't the right solution. I'm not sure what is, though. -Splash^talk 23:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   I would vaguely support merging AN and ANI since the two overlap so much anyway. -Splash^talk 23:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Split into subpages per day

(possibly combining AN and ANI since the distinction is somewhat hazy; this leaves a daily Wikipedia:Admin noticeboard/2006 april 31 etc, and a bot should have WP:AN point to the most recent one)

1. Nah this is a bad idea. We'd have to keep an eye on multiple pages to keep up with discussion. enochlau (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Make a new page for "comments about admins"

Thus keep all notifications for admins on ANI, and make a new page for complaints about, and evaluations of, admin actions.

1. Increases admin accountability Support. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 23:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
2. No, this is a bad idea. It will very quickly turn into repeated impromptu RfCs, without the kind of frivolity-protection RfC currently affords. -Splash^talk 23:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   But such reprots are made on ANI now. wouldn't containign them in a separate page at least be a modest improvement? DES ^(talk) 23:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Bad bad bad, as per Splash. enochlau (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Administrator intervention against administrators would definitely take some of the load off of Incidents, but I can easily imagine it being a less-than-perfectly WP:CIVIL discussion board, as it wouldn't necessarily get as widespread monitoring as AN/I does. Jkelly 23:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Split by subject matter

1. Divide up by what the matter is, not by date, which will lead to sections being unconnected and harder to watchlist. I suggest "blocks", "deletions", "protections" and "miscellaneous", perhaps "vandalism" as well. We must then be far more vigourous in deleting comments that don't need admins' comments, and which should instead be on the village pump. [[Sam Korn]] 23:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
2. I suport this. i would suggest adding "Sockpuppets", and "Problem users". Plit by day makes things too hard to follow. (as to socks yes I know about the request for check user page, but there is more to sock reaports than that page handles. "Blocks" should include requests for unblocks, unless that is separate. DES ^(talk) 23:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   Uh, how does a blocked editor request unblocking anywhere on-Wiki but on their talk page? -Splash^talk 23:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   A user might request that somebody unblock their friend User:Example --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Excellent idea, Sam. Radiant_>|< 23:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Not a bad idea at all, although you might want to keep the number of sections to 4-5, otherwise it's just too many clicks. enochlau (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
5. This is interesting, and probably much needed. It doesn't reduce page size, though. -Splash^talk 23:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   I mean separate pages for each. Transclusion most certainly should not happen. I'm suggesting Wikipedia:Administrators' noticboard/Vandalism, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Deletion and the like. Perhaps a protections page would duplicate RFPP, though. [[Sam Korn]] 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, that one might be a duplicate, but I think most of the stuff likely to go there would asctually be comments on admins who should/not have done a protection rather than requests for (un)protection. Which raises the same question of the /Vandalism page being [[WP:AIV]. Or perhaps it needs a different name, since I figure its usage would be "I need a blocking, over there, now!", but "hey, do you think this is vandalism", or "hey, so I found this and was wondering...". -Splash^talk 00:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

   I was thinking of the vandalism page as being for things like discussing vandalism, rather than just notifications. As to the protection page issue, those complaints can go on the miscellaneous page, I think. [[Sam Korn]] 13:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

   • I think the easiest split would be discussions about articles vs. discussions about users. The former would include protection and deletion (and of course we should summarily snip anything that doesn't belong). The latter would include accusations of trolling, blocks, etc. Radiant_>|< 17:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

   • Sounds good, we could have a section for admins who wish a review of their action. I've just blocked user foo for personal attacks, any comment? --Doc ^ask? 11:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

6. Or perhaps subpages within AN/I. Something like village pump? - Mailer Diablo 06:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Other, please specify or create a new section

1. An idea: why don't we put all new discussions in a subpage, and link (not transclude) to that subpage, so we can quickly scan the titles for topics that interest us? enochlau (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
2. I thought someone had suggested this already, why not split it into "Requests for admin assistance" and "Administrator discussion"? The later can be read by anyone but is perma-protected so that only admins can post there. The former is mostly for requests and protracted discussions would occur on the later page. If a user wants to engage in a protracted discussion about admin behavior, she would be directed to RfC. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

   We shouldn't elevate admins unless there is some compelling reason, and I don't think there is one in this case. There's no reason the direction to RfC can't be given on an unprotected page. -Splash^talk 00:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Separate page solely for "repeat offenders"

1. Keep the 3RR page separate. Comments about an editor would be on the regular AN pages. The next time that editor has a problem, they get discussed on the second level page. Most of the long comments are from second and third requests about specific users, but the majority of sections are new subject areas. I think this might be an adequate split. Just throwing out ideas. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy matters as a possible long-term way of coordinating these meta-policy issues. I wonder if this discussion might be usefully moved to a subpage of that project, since it's likely to take a while to hash out exactly what changes to make. Rd232 ^talk 00:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is best discussed here, on the relevant talk page, which people who are watching the noticeboard will also be watching. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Discourage replies on AN/I

Can I float a germ of an idea, which I recognise will need refinement? - encourage people to use AN/I as a page to report incidents, not to discuss them. It could be argued that the proper place for two-thirds of AN/I discussions is somewhere else (a user's talk page, an article's talk page, a policy page or discussion, WP:VIP or 3RR). Users should be encouraged to submit a brief notification summarising the incident, with diffs and links to the correct place for discussion, but replies on AN/I should be discouraged (unless it is to update admins about escalations, or tell everyone the incident has been dealt with). All admins watching the page should still get an idea of what's going on, interested admins will follow up, and individual incidents will be less likely to get lost in the morass. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Need help with a redirect for Microfinance

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and need help changing a redirect. The word Microfinance currently redirects to Microcredit. That is incorrect, it's an old use of the word, but the terms are not synonymous anymore, microcredit is a narrow definition (involves only credit) and microfinance is a broader terms, that involves all types of financial services (credit, insurance, savings, loans etc.) for the poor.

Can you please get rid of the redirect? Alternatively, you can keep the text for Microcredit, and I can create a new entry for Microfinance.

Thanks!

Follow this link to edit microcredit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microfinance&action=edit . If you want to edit a redirect, you can click on the microfinance link below the Microcredit title "(Redirected from Microfinance)". This will "turn off" the redirect and allow you to edit the page if you need it. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Question...

This may sound a little stupid, but if editors are blocked from editing, how can they edit this page if they are blocked? I guess that doesn't apply to this page or something. Wikipedia really is interesting! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 15:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

They can't (edit this page) (I think) (I dunno, I've never been blocked before). — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 01:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The only page blocked users can edit are their talk pages. The block message encourages the user to email the blocking admin or email the mailing list. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If their username is blocked, I believe their IP is blocked as well, but only for a certain period of time. They could then write anonymously here after the IP block is lifted. enochlau (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The IP is blocked as well; if you attempt to edit from the IP, the autoblocker blocks for 24 hours. However, if you try and edit from the IP again after the autoblock has expired, it still blocks you. In other words, if you're blocked, you shouldn't be able to edit. (There are some exceptions to this, like AOL users.) The message encourages the blocked user to email the admin or post to the list. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 02:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked Agian!

Hello! I am being blocked again unnecessarily. This time my IP address is 165.21.154.117. I believe I am experiencing an autoblock again. I hope you can solve this problem soon.One with Her 05:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

But.. you're editing? So you aren't blocked? --Golbez 05:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And indeed, there doesn't seem to be any block in the entire 165.21.154.* range. Alai 05:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Repeated or aggravated 3RR" > 24 hour blocks

WMC raises the very valid point that the 3RR only explicitly authorises blocks up to 24 hours. But practice seems to be that longer blocks are sometimes in order (typically after a number of 24 hour such), and there seems to be some explicit, and much tacit, support for this. If this is indeed the case, it should probably be made explicit on the policy page. Or, we could stop doing so, though I doubt they'd the arbcom'd be pleased if we start filtering all such cases to them for further sanction. Alai 21:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

New Page Type for Wikipedia

• I am unsure where to ask a question about allowing a new wikipage type. I would appreciate if someone could point me to the correct page. Thank you, Pattersonc(Talk) 9:42 PM, Sunday; January 29 2006 (EST)
  • Ummm...probably WP:VPT. -Splash^talk 02:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanksfor the quick reply. Pattersonc(Talk) 10:07 PM, Sunday; January 29 2006 (EST)

Admin breaks wiki law

From 3RR page A vote passed to give further enforcement power to this rule: If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.

On Aryan Invasion Theory page I did not violate 3RR in a 24 hour window yet I was blocked. I made 2 edits and two reverts. William M. Connolley is the admin in qustion.

First edit

First revert

Second edit. Added my comments to the version saved by 70.187.218.135

Second revert

Shivraj Singh 04:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR does not mean that you are "entitled" to three reverts per 24 hour period, that's simply the hard limit. If there is a history of ignoring consensus or refusing to discuss issues on an article's talk page, then you will likely be blocked. I don't know exactly know what happened in this instance, as I'm not well-versed in its subject matter, I'm simply commenting on your interpretation of "the law". --bbatsell « give me a ring » 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Name Creating Policies

I wasn't able to locate any so I am posting my questions and requests here. I was blocked earlier today for creating a new user account that somehow violated Wikilaw. Whether it was the spaces, length, punctuation, or unique character usage I do not know (though I suspect it's the black box.) I do know that it not only blocked the username but also blocked my IP address too. If there are certain characteristics that a username can and can't have why doesn't PHP check for these before submitting the name to the DB. The username in question is User:Chip_off_the_ol'_█. If I can't use this new name, that is fine, it was for experimental purposes anyway, but I do think it would be prudent to add code to verify if a username is valid before submitting it and consequently blocking an entire IP address. Sincerely, Pattersonc(Talk) 5:27 PM, Thursday; February 2 2006 (EST)

um?

somebody seems to have deleted the AN--64.12.116.13 00:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there was some information in a revision that needed deletion. It'll be back within a few minutes. Ral315 (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Failing that, it might need to be scrapped ^^;; Kim Bruning 01:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It'll be for the greater good. — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the standard procedure for removal of edits on a large page with very many revisions be as follows:

1. Move the page to some temp name, preferably one that gives a clue as to what's going on, e.g. AN_being_recreated_shortly.
2. Edit the redirect left behind to create a brief page explain what's happening and give a time frame for when everything will be normal. Sign this page.
3. Delete and selectively restore the temp page
4. Delete the explanation so the temp page can be moved back
5. Move the temp page back to its original name (and delete the temp page redirect)

This is to minimise the time/number of hits when people find a deleted page when they weren't expecting to.-gadfium 02:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This sounds much more complicated than:

1. Find an unexpected page deleted
2. Check the delete log and read the edit summary to see why

Sure, there will be people who don't know where the delete log is - but if that's seen as a big problem, perhaps we could put a link to it on the blank page notice "to see if this page has recently been deleted, please check the deletion log" -- sannse (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Checking the delete log would have been a good idea, but what I actually did in this situation was to go to history and look at the deleted revision. I know non-admins can't do that, and it's much more stress on the servers, but I'm sure I'm not the only person who sometimes does things the inefficient way because something unexpected happened and I didn't sit back and consider carefully the best way to investigate.-gadfium 23:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This is why I prefer moving archives, rather than cutting and pasting them. The edit history of the main page is only ever as long as the content that's actually on it. --bainer (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppets on Rajput page

Hello. I and other editors have had lots of problems with Rajputs page and have recently had an arbcom decision on there to ban some abusive and propogandists users. It appears that there are now sock puppets appearing on this page after it is being advanced who regressing it and reverting all edits. Dab said you guys can help? --Raja 16:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)