Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Abolishing AN/I

The Incidents noticeboard is an unhealthy plague on this project. I would like to see it marked historical. How can we accomplish this? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We can't.  GARDEN  22:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We can do anything so long as we want to!  :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just spill over here? rootology (C)(T) 22:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not feasabley possible IMO. Where would people go if they had an incident to report? Where would all the reports currently on ANI go. For any proposal concerning the abolishment of ANI, I'd strongly oppose. Something like this would need community wide discussion. I'm guessing Jimbo would oppose abolishing ANI. D.M.N. (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a poll. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• You could just...awwwwww! C'mon! Protonk (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Duh! --Rodhullandemu 22:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is, why is Administrators' Noticeboard Incidents an unhealthy plague? —harej ;] 22:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(4ec) Could be done if we abolish admins. DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, let IPs delete the main page...  GARDEN  22:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Its the atmosphere of the place. We need a more village pump-style place. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As much as I regret the frequent drama there, I doubt that any change in format will improve the atmosphere there. We need a place where frustrated people can ask for admin help; by definition, people who bring things there are frustrated. Tempers will flare and drama will exist. Frankly, I'm always impressed by how calm many of the participants are.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No. The village pump serves a good purpose. It lets people talk about features and ideas which they don't have the expertise to write themselves but want someone else to do it for them--for free--and it concentrates it in one place where I never have to go. It is wonderful. Protonk (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous idea I've heard all year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Hey wait, AN/I hasn't existed forever. What did we do before it? Why couldn't we go back to that? Hermione1980 22:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Before ANI, we just dumped all those reports here on AN. Basically, what MZMcBride is proposing is to re-merge AN & ANI, which would bring back the same old problems. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• It would certainly be possible; most of the real incidents there have other places to report them: the various noticeboards like WP:BLPN, WP:NORN, WP:AN3 or general reporting areas like WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:SPI. Most of the rest of the reports are just noise. Mr.Z-man 22:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the solution is simply to pay less attention to it. If you're an admin, only post here if you have a real solution to what is clearly a real problem. Cut out the drive-by opinions and let the bullshit reports simply be archived without attention. Without fuel, the fires will die. Tan | 39 22:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think ANI is overused, but the inverse of that is the other boards are often ignored by admins. I've had notices at SSP and Edit War go unanswered for twelve or more hours. ANI (and AIV for the simplest of cases) is the only board that's regularly maintained. Dayewalker (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons those boards are underused is the fact that AN/I gets results. Another reason is that some of those boards are difficult and confusing to users (AN/3 used to be a complete mess, took me so long to figure out how to write a report that the edit war was stale by the time the message was posted, SSP/RFCU was the same way). Things improve and decline in that regard over time in different areas. AN/3 is better now, as is SPI. But AN/I is still the all-purpose "this is a problem and it needs fixing" board. That leads to DRAMA, naturally. but it is also awfully hard to fix. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The idea here is to do what Mr.Z-man suggested. Diffuse the drama to various places rather centralizing all of it (and thus creating a powder keg). --MZMcBride (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Where would the civility ones go? As they make up a big bit of ANI? rootology (C)(T) 22:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:WQA might be the place for them. MBisanz ^talk 22:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with MBisanz here. WP:WQA would be the place for civility issues. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion is crazy, AN/I is the only reliable wikipedia project. Elbutler (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Spreading the various types of complaints out onto their "home" forums is fairly easy to do... One would simply have to replace this page with a template asking the user to choose what type of complaint they are making, a la the image upload templates that select a proper license type. It would lead to two issues, however: first, all of these pages would have to see increased monitoring from admins, and second, there would still need to be an AN/I type forum for concerns that don't fit a specific problem type. Resolute 22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So we keep this board for specific admin-related issues. See Template:ANI deprecation notice. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• There would still be many issues that can't be easily shoehorned into any single category. Moreover, drama on ANI is due to the existence of drama. Removing ANI will not reduce the overall level of drama. Furthermore, there's a common misconception that seems to be implicitly accepted in this discussion. There's a notion that "drama" is somehow a necessarily bad thing. We as a community are composed of many different people from different backgrounds and often different ideas about what is best for the project. We disagree over content inclusion, general policies, how to interpret policies, which of conflicting ideals take priority and many other things. That such disagreements will often be heated and generate "drama" should not surprise us nor should it bother us. As long as people continue to work on this project together there will be drama. At the end of the day what is important is that such interaction leads to an improved encyclopedia. More often than not it does. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This isn't a poll. And your argument is rather silly when one looks at the facts. People aren't "continuing to work on this project." They're leaving because they get sick of the drama. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've refactored the first part of the remark so it doesn't look like a poll vote. The rest of your comment isn't a response to my point at all. Drama will exist no matter what. High levels of drama are inevitable. Yes, people do leave when they get sick of drama. That's the way it is. If you think you have some way of actually reducing drama without harming the project then I'd be happy to listen to it. Reorganizing doesn't do that. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Diffusing the issues has a number of benefits. It allows admins to selectively watch boards that they're interested in. It creates less likelihood of drama building up all in one place (which means there's a higher likelihood of boards being productive and drama-free). And it means that discussions can stay active longer without having to archive due to page size. What's the disadvantage here? I think abolishing AN/I will reduce drama and I've seen no evidence to the contrary. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • "Diffusing the issues" = splintering focus. Other boards have failed for this very reason. Either they receive too little attention from the wider community or they receive too much attention from a certain subset of editors. AN/I is a good catch-all and off topic discussions can redirected easily. The solution is not to abolish the board but correct its use. - auburnpilot talk 23:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
        • This is chicken and the egg. If people can't go to AN/I, they'll focus on other places. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• AN/I is a plague, RFA is broken, ArbCom is incompetent, Jimbo is <today's opinion>... - auburnpilot talk 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • So we try to improve things rather than accept the poor current status. And I would hardly call the view that AN/I is a plague transient. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• No, but in my opinion, it's equally without basis or viable alternatives. - auburnpilot talk 23:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • Did you read Mr.Z-man's suggestion above? What are your thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - wow, MZMB with a good idea? Say it aint so! :o Sceptre ^(talk) 22:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It ain't so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Why's that? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
• I don't think that anything on Wikipedia is per se broken, first of all. Redundant, perhaps. Maybe I just don't participate in WikiDrama™ much, but I don't see much of a difference between regular AN and AN/I. Also, 99% of the time, anything I've seen posted to AN/I can be diffused. I've never understood why AN/I was separate anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My question as to why Administrators Noticeboard Incidents is a plague was never answered. —harej ;] 23:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That post - right above this - is partially the reason AN/I sucks. Tan | 39 23:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

While one can shoehorn a lot of discussions into a few major categories, not everything will fit and some things will only fit if you squint real hard. For example, dealing with Betacommand's bot behavior, or when someone makes a death threat, or when a professor assigns 200 students to write wikicontent, or admin X is discovered to be running a sockpuppet farm, etc. There are many infrequent issues that are hard to categorize and if you dump AN/I they are just going to land at AN (which gains nothing as far as I can see). While I can understand encouraging discussions to be moved to dedicated noticeboards when the clearly fit, I think it is unproductive to try and close down AN/I and offload everything. Dragons flight (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I always thought it was strange that we had two noticeboards that served the same purpose (WP:AN and WP:ANI) and were used interchangeably (whether people are supposed to or not). On top of that, 97% (my own approximation) of the threads on those two noticeboards can be handled elsewhere (like the other noticeboards that are listed at Template:Editabuselinks). I'd support this idea. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec, resp to initial post) You can't change people's behavior by eliminating the place where they misbehave. The problem with ANI isn't the existence of the board -- it's the behavior of the people who post on it. Does anyone else see the relationship of this thread to the one above? DG suggests that those of us with the bit must "lift our game." That's what it would take to make ANI less toxic. All of us who post there can take that one extra moment before clicking "save" to determine whether or not the snipe, flame, or snark we just wrote actually helps the encyclopedia or not; and if someone insults you, you don't need to insult them back. "Revenge yourself on your enemies by not becoming like them." (You may leave your incivil replies and insults to my mother below.) Antandrus (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

YO MOMMA WAS AN ADMIN, OOPS THATS YOU - David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've thought before that it might do more good than harm to lock everything but the articles, but ultimately it's not practical. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea, we already have enough of a problem with bureaucracy. All that will happen is a smaller group of editors will create a much more bureaucratic atmosphere at the smaller noticeboards. The answer is to fix the problems here rather than to splinter then into smaller pieces. RxS (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am with TenPoundHammer. The issue for me is less the drama of ANI and more the question of what exactly is the difference between reporting something here and reporting something at ANI. I would like that clarified if possible. JuJube (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Specific proposal

To report:

• Problems with biographies of living persons → Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
• 3RR violations → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
• Ongoing vandalism → Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.
• Pages needing protection → Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
• Civility issues → Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.
• Everything else → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea. That's just effectively merging ANI with AN. The backload here is already massive. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The backload would be shifted to other places. This isn't merging anything. It's quite the opposite. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I support changing the admin noticeboard into more of an index, with more specific notiveboards - however, we'd have to create a few more than we have at present. WP:AN/Content, WP:AN/User conduct e.t.c. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So make some suggestions, though it's very likely somebody has already created such noticeboards and they're just not visited much. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What about, instead of getting rid of AN/I altogether, we'll simply be bolder in moving threads to the right page/noticeboard? MZMcBride already wrote what belongs where, and most of the time threads on AN/I simply don't belong there in the first place. --Conti|✉ 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I fear that the only way to enforce such a thing is to lock the page altogether. I see no other real way to force people to post elsewhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The problem is not AN/I but the way editors use it. If a discussion belongs at a more appropriate board, copy/paste and leave a note explaining where it went. Closing AN/I while simultaneously creating a half dozen new boards is not a good idea. - auburnpilot talk

Remember that WP:AN started because Ta bu shi da yu thought "oh, that'd be useful." It promptly spawned ANI and AN3 as sub-boards. Supposedly ANI is for current news reports for admin attention, this is more of a longer-term thing. And the traffic here is already vast.

I suggest leaving ANI there, steering more problems off to the further sub-boards and fixing the behaviour that makes ANI a problem - make it effectively redundant rather than just removing it - David Gerard (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

All right, fair enough. :-) So do we have consensus to start doing this a tad bit more aggressively? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How about a proof of principle discussion so we can see if we are on the same page. Of the 38 threads on ANI currently, which would you move elsewhere? Dragons flight (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• 1 Scribe711/Wired for Books ## Don't we have noticeboards for spam-related issues?
• 2 User:SmashTheState, or, Now we see the violence inherent in the system!!1 ## Username violations surely have another place on the site
• 3 Reversion of large numbers of my edits by User:Pigsonthewing ## 3RR noticeboard
• 4 Big Dunc, blocked ## Unblock request; use user talk page
• 5 Continuation of edit warring by User:Arimareiji in Rachel Corrie ## Edit war noticeboard
• 6 User:HorseGirl070605 ## Legit use of board
• 7 Images used in Intelligent design covered by Non-free content policy? ## Non-free content issue / edit warring on AN/I? The hell? We have like twelve other more appropriate places. Article talk pages would be a start...
• 8 User:Godvia ## Legit use of board, though AIV also works
• 9 Eugene Krabs dilemma ## Conflict of interest noticeboard (yes, I'm pretty sure we have one)
• 10 Disruptive editor at South Korea and some related articles ## AIV? Edit warring noticeboard? Take your pick
• 11 Upcoming revert war on several articles ## Edit warring noticeboard
• 12 Pope John Paul II ## I assume there's a socking noticeboard. If not, one should probably be created; or use RFCU or something
• 13 Problems at Indiana University South Bend ## COI noticeboard again?
• 14 User:Cheapfriends and North / Northern Cyprus ## Socking again...
• 15 User:SoUnusual ## Legit use of board (admin misconduct)
• 16 Infoboxification by Dwiakigle ## User talk page? Article talk pages? WikiProject talk pages? Surely there are better places than AN/I.
• 17 User:TAway ## Talk page of the user or article; or edit warring noticeboard
• 18 Vandal harrassing User:MBisanz ## AIV
• 19 Large sockfarm ## Socking noticeboard? Put all of this is in a centralized place so I don't have to look at it. :-)
• 20 Incivility by User:Panlatdelkwa ## Wikiquette board
• 21 Possible sock of Manhattan Samurai ## Socking noticeboard
• 22 IP 69.14.222.125 ## Spamming noticeboard? Conflict of interest noticeboard? AIV? Edit warring noticeboard? Specific admins' talk page? This could go anywhere.
• 23 User:Miklebe impersonating User:Mikebe ## Probably legit use of board
• 24 3RR discrepancies ## 3RR noticeboard exists for a reason
• 25 Content Managment System pages and Deletion ## No idea what this is. Looks like it would be better off on the article's talk page
• 26 BLP concern John Burris ## BLP noticeboard exist. I posted there today.
• 27 Continued userspace campaigning by indefinitely blocked user ## Legit use of board, probably
• 28 User:LOLthulu ## Socking noticeboard!
• 29 User moving articles without discussion ## User talk page. Article talk page. WikiProject talk pages. Then come to AN/I.
• 30 Drake Circus ## lolwut? Article talk page?
• 31 User:Johnlemartirao ## Block request for user for vandalism / disruption --> AIV seems appropriate
• 32 Racism and the panarabism ideology ## Speedy deletion request. Tag the page. Don't post about it.
• 33 Israel Shahak article ## Legit use of board
• 34 Tag-abuse by Dicklyon of a page for which he is already in formal mediation ## Sanctions noticeboard? User talk page? AIV? Maybe AN/I, just maybe
• 35 User:Nationalist320 and his sock User:Sea888 ## Socking noticeboard
• 36 Disruptive editor/Sockpuppet ## Socking noticeboard
• 37 Sort of kind of a legal threat ## Legit use of board
• 38 Personal attack by User:Damjanoviczarko ## Wikiquette

I think the only thing we need is a noticeboard dedicated to socking issues (if we don't have one already). --MZMcBride (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ohh, sounds like fun:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Scribe711.2FWired_for_Books→Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam
2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Big_Dunc.2C_blocked→WP:AN or WP:AE
3. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continuation_of_edit_warring_by_User:Arimareiji_in_Rachel_Corrie→WP:AN3 (which claims to be more about edit warring than 3rr these days but I don't think that is true in practice...not sure though)
4. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Godvia→Not sure. Any admin talk page might work.
5. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Eugene_Krabs_dilemma→WP:EAR
6. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Upcoming_revert_war_on_several_articles→WP:AN3
7. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cheapfriends_and_North_.2F_Northern_Cyprus→Probably WP:AE. If we haven't had an arbcom case on that part of SE europe, I would be surprised.
8. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:TAway→WP:AN3
9. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandal_harrassing_User:MBisanz→WP:RFPP, I'm dubious on the "we'll find socks if they keep doing it" claim, there are a whole lot of IP addresses in the sea.
10. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Large_sockfarm→WP:AN or WP:SPI
11. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_sock_of_Manhattan_Samurai→WP:SPI
12. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_69.14.222.125→Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam
13. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Miklebe_impersonating_User:Mikebe→Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam..maybe.
14. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#3RR_discrepancies→WP:AN3...or WP:AN since the blocks came from "edit warring"
15. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Content_Managment_System_pages_and_Deletion→Wikipedia:Help desk?
16. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BLP_concern_John_Burris→WP:BLPN, where it was sent, but evidently not responded to.
17. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_userspace_campaigning_by_indefinitely_blocked_user→talk page of any active admin
18. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:LOLthulu→WP:SPI, as that's basically what it turned out to be.
19. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_moving_articles_without_discussion→Dunno. see the cyprus comment.
20. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Israel_Shahak_article→WP:AE, I'm almost certain that article is under probation.
21. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nationalist320_and_his_sock_User:Sea888→WP:SPI
22. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editor.2FSockpuppet→Ditto. That editor adding the reports shows up on AN/I a lot.

Soo, 22/38 is about 2/3rds. Not too shabby. Protonk (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem in being proactive about shutting down non "admin intervention needed immediately for problem that doesn't fit SPI/AN3/AIV" threads and directing users to various other noticeboards, so long as we do it consistently, clearly and helpfully. This means we can't just say "An3 is ← that way" (I've been guilty of that) and we can't just fix their problem in record time then say "Well, if you really wanted your problem fixed, you should have gone to ABC noticeboard" (Guilty as charged for that, too). We, that is the editors who lurk on AN/X, should spend more time on the other noticeboards. Complaints answered there work doubly. They remove the complaint (duh), but they also remove the implicit incentive for editors who are party to the complaint to bring something like it to AN/I next time. The faster and more completely a problem gets resolved on those 'other' noticeboards, the less crazy AN/I will be. Another thing that will dramatically reduce the influx of AN/I threads on non-emergent issues is to sit down and really give some teeth to WQA and RfC. right now the former is worthless unless someone is going to be chastened by a 'stern warning' and the latter serves little purpose (in most cases) except to show to Arbcom that all steps in DR have been taken. Those need to get fixed. That will help stem this tide of dramahz. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You talked me into it. I just added WP:RFP to my watch list, and I've already taken care of one item there. Looks like it's a lower drahhhhma area, too. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that AN/I would be the appropriate place to go with editors' behaviorial problems which extend past the boundaries of other boards, i.e. the problematic editor who's uncivil, edit-wars (or close to it), is disruptive or tendenitious, etc. Each of the behaviors might not be significant enought to get a strong response on an individual board, but together they indicate a problem editor who should be dealt with in some way. Isn't that something that should be reported on AN/I? (And aren't those editors exactly the kind who stir up drama?) Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI is a mess because it deals with disruptive editors who don't want to be blocked, and frequently think that the best way to avoid a block is by continuing their disruptive behavior there. As we can't get rid of disruptive editors (sadly!) all abolishing ANI would achieve is to move the same disputes into boards where there's potentially less oversight. Nick-D (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we make (offically) ANI specificly for blocking requests which do not fit into the other noticeboards and/or are too complicated for AIV, then move other issues to their appropriate noticeboards as has been proposed below? Right now the notice at the top of this page says "For evasion of blocks, abuse of admin tools, or other incidents, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI)", It'd be nice if we were to define what exactly incidents, noone seems to have a clear understanding of what it is, only what it supposedly isn't. —Nn123645 (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving toward a consensus

So, do we have at least some general agreement that we should begin to start pushing people toward more appropriate forums when they post to WP:AN/I and it belongs elsewhere? I propose putting Template:Noticeboard key in the editnotice of WP:AN/I and possibly on the page itself and then getting serious about enforcement. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to enforce this we need to make sure we do it in a non-bitey manner. Don't simply shut down threads that aren't appropriate. Copy them over to the correct board and let the person who made the thread know. Furthermore, we need to be ready to move the complicated cross-situation ones back over to ANI if it is necessary. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Joshua and to take it further, admins need to pay more attention to these othere areas as well. I've encountered things posted at different areas that are there for hours, a couple even there for a couple of days. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think some handy ?action=watch links in the editnotice would do the trick. And I agree that we need to do this in a user-friendly manner. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well...I think you have consensus to do what should have always been practice: move non-emergent disputes from AN/I to the appropriate fora. In order to do something more I would want to know that the targeted boards can handle the change. Because if they can't, we are right back where we started. Will SPI push DUCK cases back to AN or AN/I? Will AN3 push "edit warring but not 3rr" cases back to AN/I? Does the spam noticeboard get sufficient attention from admins willing to mete out blocks for persistent spammers? Also, is this universally a good idea? We may think it is (here on AN), but I bet one of the reason people like it as AIV is that they can just dismiss reports that don't fit a specific rubric. Same with (well, it used to be) AN3. RFCU used to (a while ago) be that way. There may be some merit in specialization and systematization. Protonk (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping any section headers and leaving a "Discussion moved to: Foo" note. And then we just need to encourage people to watch the boards that interest them. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving posts to more appropriate boards would probably work, if those boards were actually watched. The few times I've posted on more appropriate boards, and it's been ages, my posts have been ignored. Completely ignored. Which is a lot nicer than some bored and immature administrator stopping by AN/I for a closing pot shot. So, yes, even though no one here considered that the vast majority of those editing Wikipedia wish all the bureaucracy would simply die off and have no idea of all these other boards and stuff because it is impossible to find anything on Wikipedia outside of articles (and there's a user currently trying to fix that issue) it might work to simply forward posts to the appropriate boards. It's a simpler idea than creating a new level of surveying, and hiding where most newcomers might think to come behind a frustrating voice mail board.

Of course, moving posts would have to be done with a simple and polite message, and that seems almost impossible at AN/I (mostly due, again, to immature administrator cheap shots). But, yes, I think this would probably work.

Oh, and all discussions discussing the drama consumers (those two or three editors that consume over 30K every time someone mentions them at AN/I) should have a special drama board. It could be called something nice like, "Repeated issues," to make it seem like it's not the drama board. In fact, just doing this, making a large volume repeated drama board might make the whole of AN/I more civil by giving those craving the drama a creative space, and probably the asshole drive-by cheap-shot administrators and editors would be more attracted to that board--maybe.

By the way, the Burris BLP issue was taken care of in the easiest way possible: other editors started watching and editing the article. However, last time I suggested an issue had been assisted at AN/I I got personally attacked by a couple of cheap-shot, drive-by, administrators, so the issue must stay on AN/I even though it has been dealt with. God forbid a mere editor would be allowed to say an issue they raised had been dealt with when there were a couple of little kids with mops looking to have some malicious fun. Yup, board forwarding sounds like it could work. --KP Botany (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

NB that the "Burris BLP" issue, which wasn't really an issue since there was no BLP violation, was resolved by you leaving a talk-page comment, and the other editor on the page immediately agreeing with your proposed addition of a 1996 factoid to the article. It wasn't even appropriate for BLPN, much less ANI, and it was only because you didn't AGF that you felt the need to go complain. THF (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to assume good faith with BLPs--there's a need to go on the content of the article itself. If a BLP is negative, one doesn't bother assuming the editors had good intentions, or bad intentions, that's not how BLPs are dealt with. One takes care of the problem with the BLP immediately. I'm a full time student, the article was seriously negatively weighted, highly positive information about Burris, from articles that were used as sources, were ignored completely, but I requested other editors monitor the article in a public forum, other editors agreed to do so and have been monitoring the article. If I had felt the need to guess as to the article's editors intentions in writing such a slanted article, I would have carefully checked the edit history and posted notices as needed. If I had assumed bad faith, I would have popped a BLP violation notice on the talk page of the guilty party, after requesting the article be oversighted if there were materials in the article needed that. And, yes, there is a nice administrator who takes care of oversighting these BLP issues when I find them. --KP Botany (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Wow, looks like you folks might be serious about this. One observation I'd like to make, and perhaps I missed it in skimming through everything since my last comment, but I think there would need to be one or two guidelines. What comes to mind, and forgive me if I missed this in the "quick skim", but 1.) The editor (or admin) who closes the thread at AN|AN/I should be required encouraged to ensure that a thread has been started at the appropriate board, (as well as a link provided to said new thread in the closing) and 2.)(optionally) make sure that involved parties are notified of the new board/thread on their talk pages. — Ched (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC) ... and in line with MZM, let's hope that foobar doesn't end up FUBAR (sorry, I just had to add that) .. ;) — Ched (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea. Let's do it. --Cyde Weys 02:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I wasn't sure at first, but now I agree with you all. ANI is the Ma Bell of drama. Let's break it up. People will catch on fast enough. Benefits of this will be less of a rolling fireball of anger and hurt, and the "ANI regulars" will be free to help out on the less visible pages that will be focused to fix certain issues. ANI is too much of a dumping ground for people to see and be seen. Better that bad behavior and slagging of reputations is never again rewarded with a central showcase and venue. Baseball Bugs's comment comparing AIV as an example of how to do things is especially persuasive. ANI is a waste of our "lives" on here and a net negative. Let's do it. rootology (C)(T) 03:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC?

Anyone else think we should initate a RfC on this to involve the wider community? If we do, I suggest we should add a notice to the watchlist page. D.M.N. (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like overkill to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, its not like we're changing a policy or anything. Its especially overkill if we're just going to be more proactive in moving threads to more appropriate boards, which is really something we should already be doing. Mr.Z-man 17:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Just be more aggresive in moving posts to the correct pages.--Patton^t/c 19:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If the original complainants goal is to encourage vandals and discourage regular editors, this would certainly be a good step in that direction. Too often we hear an admin say, "This is the not the place to post that complaint." WRONG ANSWER. The right answer is, "Oh, that's a problem, I'll fix it." This kind of splintering (which is already too much) does nothing except encourage lazy admins to give an answer that equates to what Freddie Prinz's landlord character used to say: "Eet's not my job, mon." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed fully. WP ought by its own history be antithetical to bureaucracies and creation of dozens of "proper places for discussion of that problem", and supportive of individuals actually acting responsibly on any problems which they see. Collect (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. We try to do that, but what happens is a siphoning of interest from specialty boards to the general boards. Why go through the bother of reporting someone at AN3 when I can just make an AN/I report? Every time we take one of these wrongly placed queries and fix it instead of moving it we send an implicit signal: "Don't go to the other boards, come here." We don't want to do that. We want (presumably) SPI/AN3/AIV/UAA/etc to work. We want the various content noticeboards to be fruitful places of discussion. We don't want every issue coming to AN/I. In order to do that, we need to give people an incentive to go to those boards. Does that mean that we say "wrong queue, I'm not helping you"? Of course not. We say "I'll move your request or tell you how to move it, then someone will help you there." That is the right answer. I appreciate the anti-bureaucratic argument that we shouldn't have "proper" places for discussion but I submit that ship has sailed. we have those noticeboards. Some of them work rather well. They benefit from specialist attention and lack the drama-rama of AN and AN/I. So part of what we do should support that. Protonk (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

To echo the point, I personally don't much care for drama. Accordingly, I seldom post to AN/I, and don't watch it regularly. However, I do watch, and participate, in some of the other noticeboards - AIV if I notice a backlog, RFPP, BLP/N, etc. To the extent that appropriate cases are moved to the appropriate venues, you'll get a different subset of admins who have chosen to deal with those issues. As long as others pitch in, there no reason that over time that processes like WP:RS/N couldn't take hold just as firmly. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV is an excellent example of the way to do things. It doesn't require the tedious construction necessary to post at the 3RR page, for example, which requires you to have two screens open at once to repeatedly go back-and-forward to find and post stuff that's already visible in the history. AIV simply says, "Here's a problem - fix it." AIV should be the model for the way to deal with issues. It's shortcoming is that it's too restrictive. If the complainant were to post a sentence or two explaining the issue (3RR, POV-pushing, etc.) then you could use AIV as the one-stop shop for most all disruption, and then you wouldn't need WP:ANI anymore. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I should point out another problem with the notion of splintering ANI further, and that is forum shopping. If a user doesn't like the answer you get in one place, he takes it to another place. Well, if there's a one-stop shop, by definition there will be no forum shopping going on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to see if someone is doing that, though. The potential of forum shopping isn't a reason to not do it. The only real hit from this, from reading all of this, is that AN/I regulars will be out of business. That's no big deal and irrelevant, so I still don't see a reason this won't be good overall. rootology (C)(T) 03:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, we need an RFC about the AN thread about AN/I? Does ARBCOM or NASA need to be informed? Seriously though, it's probably better to have a one-stop shop for people who need attention, rather than making people learn the yellow pages of WP acronyms, or pelting them with tut-tuts if they use the wrong board. Much as I'm not a fan of the dramas, at least it all seems to be gravitating to one place. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 03:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This is where acting like an adult comes in, a commodity that seems always in short supply on AN/I, especially among admins. If someone posts a problem on AN/I that is belongs on another specific topic matter board, a mature (meaning able to act like adult, not meaning old) administrator posts an appropriate response, moves the thread, and posts a note on the talk page of the poster.

"This guy has been following me around for days, changing all of my edits to the Herbal Medicine articles, where I'm adding my website. Other websites are on Wikipedia, someone please tell him to stop reverting mine." Signed Julie-Sells-Orange-Juice.com

Hi, Julie-Sells-OJ.com, this issue should be discussed with editors and administrators who monitor the COI board (heck if I know what's the correct board, says KP, but not the admin). I've moved your notice there, and closed this thread here. Here's a link to the new board. I've also posted this notice and link on your talk page. Signed Admin-who-acts-adult-like

At COI notice board, "Hi, folks, Julie-Sells-OJ.com is having a problem that she posted at AN/I. Here's here contribution history, and the other editors's contribution history, and here's her post from AN/I. Thanks. Signed Admin-who-acts-adult-like

You act like human beings to people and they'll act like human beings back. The ones who won't you couldn't have done anything about, anyhow, but you've looked good to the uninvolved ones who will in the meanwhile. --KP Botany (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, not everyone who might move a thread is an admin, and it's not unheard of for admins to get a little frosty :-). OTOH, it might actually be a good thing if that were done in an easy-to-follow way, so that if people aren't sure which board to use, they can use a grab-bag board with the understanding that it will be moved to the most appropriate place. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think non-admins moving the threads would be a good idea, too, because it would allow admins to take care of work that requires admins. But last time I suggested a non-admin was capable of doing something at AN/I I got attacked by the kiddy contingent (and this means the immature brats, not the youth, as some of the best admins are, imo, a few of the youngest) for usurping their power-tripping. But, yes, I think that non-admins would be quite capable of sorting what goes where along with admins. Especially if it speeded up the amount of time required to deal with an issue.

I don't think the grab bag board move is a good idea, though. If you don't know where to move something, simply don't. Someone who knows will come by and move it, or it can remain on AN/I. From MB's post above it seems obvious where a large number of posts belong. Don't worry about handling and redirecting everything, just haul ass, politely, on the obvious ones. --KP Botany (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• I concur with the idea or moving what can be moved, as discussed, demonstrated, and/or elaborated upon by MBisanz, Protonk, and KP Botany among others. GRBerry 17:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

N00b got pwned

See log summary. Didn't y'all learn from the last time this happened? 129.49.7.125 (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The account was editing from a now-blocked proxy, says Alison. Bencherlite^Talk 01:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If that was why it was blocked then the log should say so. DuncanHill (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Bencherlite may not have been clear. The IP behind the named account blocked above was the proxy server, not the IP noted above. Protonk (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If the account was blocked for editing from a proxy then the block log should say so. DuncanHill (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the account was blocked for editing behind a proxy. I'll try to be precise. The named account was blocked for whatever reason it was blocked. Someone contacted a checkuser and said (probably) this account is likely using a proxy. the checkuser (again, probably) determined that they were through what I assume is the same process we would determine that an unhidden IP address would be a proxy and blocked that IP address. I don't know or care to know what IP address that is. The block of the proxy isn't related to the block of the account. If you want to know what IP address it is and whether or not the block message is up to snuff, you can sleuth around Allison's blocks and contributions to do that. If you would like Nawlinwiki to give a proper block message for Belkagen Kwarun, you may ask him to on his talk page. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh forget it, can't be bothered. DuncanHill (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I do strongly prefer to avoid any false positives, in this area -- they risk far more damage than false negatives, which will be resolved soon enough anyway in most cases. In this particular case, there are deleted edits at Heaven Knows (disambiguation) from two other accounts which used the page to build a few edits before engaging in pagemove vandalism; deleting those edits obscures this information, unfortunately, which in turn highlights the importance of care when fussing around with page histories. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Spam?

I would like to ask some explanation on the issue as follows.

[Start]>>

I absolutely do not agree, but this is the only thing what I can do.

Let us see what time brings on.

(On deleting article EURELECTRIC - yes; but e.g. Unipalm, Centra, UCPTE, UCTE - not :) Pas-6 (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• 06:07, 31 January 2009 User:Jac16888 (...) deleted "EURELECTRIC" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)

{{adminhelp}} (the story is above, no answer from admin User:Jac16888)

Pas-6 (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you ask him directly at User talk:Jac16888 first. Regards SoWhy 11:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

YES, I did it. No reaction.

Pas-6 (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Unfortunately there is no answer, no concrete information why 'EURELECTRIC' was in this (my) particular case spam (?). Could anybody {{helpme}} help me, please? The history of my starting efforts you can see above. If you don't mind...

Pas-6 (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

---

You'll need an admin for that. {{helpme}} is generally not used for this purpose. Have a great day. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 18:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Pas-6 (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

---

<<[END]

Not quite the end. The EURELECTRIC article was not deleted as spam, it was deleted under A7 of the speedy deletion criteria, see WP:CSD#A7. – ukexpat (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• A common problem: users with no contributions other than to create a single article and link it elsewhere (e.g. 750kV-powerline Widelka-Khmelnytskyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). I would not say that the article made no assertion of notability - it stated that the group "represents the common interests of its members of the electricity industry at European level", and as a MIET I know that is a claim of notability of a sort, but the article really had no merit as a Wikipedia article, it was just a directory entry with a contact address. The usual advice applies: try a rewrite in user space with references and some context. Actually I started a new stub, there are tens of thousands of ghits and many hits on Scholar, Factiva and the like - I can't get access to the IET library right now but there is no doubt in my mind that this one would pass WP:N as it is cited as an authority in briefing papers by IEEE and other institutions. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to restrict editing to those who sign up to an account

Resolved

 – Not an AN issue. –xeno (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Where can we start a community discussion to end once and for all the torrent of IP vandalism that we face? The ongoing discussion on flagged changes is a side issue. I want to end this once and for all, and say 'sign up, or no editing'. The number of good faith edits we'd lose through that change would be too small to register on any measure. But we'd gain the obvious. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:Village pump (proposals). It's listed at WP:PEREN though. –xeno (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

With some very good points, too, especially the fact that being able to track vandals by their IPs is really a good thing. --Masamage ♫ 20:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't think you'll get much support for that. Loads of amazing contributions come from Ip editors, and requiring account registration would simply move the vandalism to come from accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, we don't get that many great contributions from IP editors. That is absolutely, completely, demonstrably untrue. What we get from IP editors is trouble, hassle, POV, revert wars and general shit. You can give me a few examples of good IP editors, but if we required them to sign up the committed would do so anyway, so I see no need for us to carry on like this. We would lose absolutely nothing by this. So let's start a formal process. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with that assessment. Yes a lot of trouble comes from Ips, and if you're just looking at filtered recent changes then it may seem like that's all that comes from them, but a vast amount of good editing also comes from Ips - IMO more than enough to justify the risk of open editing. The implicit assumption that an editor's worth can be determined by an account is simply not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the correct venue is thataway. –xeno (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, not good enough. Nobody goes there. Let's find somewhere better, with a big vote, that we then take forward as the will of the community. In the meantime, we will never be taken seriously as an encyclopedia if any 8-year-old can do anything to us.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, that kind of soapboxing isn't really going to convert anyone. If you genuinely have a solid argument, propose it at the village pump. If you manage to gather any particular support, move it to a subpage and file a RfC. Whatever, maybe there's a better way to do it. In any case, it doesn't belong here. J Milburn (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

These discussions usually take place at /dev/null. For a practical suggestion, take a look at flagged revisions, which allows sorting the wheat from the chaff, and doesn't require us to change the m:Foundation issues, which is probably a non starter.

Honestly, the fact that Wikipedia is one of the top hits on almost any google search you can imagine suggests that we are already taken very seriously. The entire point of the project is to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Forcing vandals to register throwaway accounts won't resolve anything. I will add that from my perspective, IP editors do do a lot of good in areas, especially pages that involve frequent statistical updates. Resolute 22:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

In the future, questions like this are much better suited for the help desk. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Alasdair,in regard to the quality of anonymous edits, you are wrong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=115731955 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Opabinia_regalis/Article_statistics#Recent_mainspace_changes_survey and other surveys that indicate that the majority of IP edits are not vandalism. John Reaves 22:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

IPs make more vandalism than other editors, but the majority of IP edits are not vandalism. Dragons flight (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. And everyone knows it. 95% of IP edits are vandalism, whether reverted or not. There are just too many to check. The point is that having an account ties you to responsibility. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

hahaha!! That's a good one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You are delusional and probably shouldn't be editing here if you think that. John Reaves 23:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

While you're there could you also propose that new accounts are also prohibited, because they are nothing but trouble. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So Wikipedia becomes "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (provided you have registered)"? – ukexpat (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I love the made up "95%" figure. There have been some studies on this listed on Village Pump and the Signpost that give a different view. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If we require a registered account then the vandals will just make throwaway accounts. These are the same people regardless of if they have a username or an IP. I for one am glad that most vandals are IPs as IPs are less anonymous than accounts. I am also glad for the great amount of benefit that IPs give to Wikipedia. Chillum 03:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that disallowing IP edits would stop most drive-by vandalism, as well as most drive-by productive editing, but it would cause precisely 0% reduction in persistent vandalism, POV pushing, and other such nasties because those people have no problem signing up for an account or fifty. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Technodrome's Toilet community ban proposal

Resolved

 – Editor is de facto banned as no admin will unblock him. Protonk (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

For reasons involving uncontroversial disruption in the past, I am proposing that this user be marked as banned:

• The Technodrome's Toilet (talk · contribs)

From April 2007 to October 2007, this user disrupted Wikipedia by adding blatantly unverifiable and/or false information and original research [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], placed a blatantly unjustified and disruptive deletion proposal [7] [8].

Since this user doesn't even have a vandals chance of being unblocked, I am asking that the community consider this user banned. While I do know that this user is a suspected sockpuppet, I feel that this user should be marked as banned anyway. I do recall reading a WP:ANI thread a few months ago. If someone has the link to that thread, I would appreciate it if someone provided a link to help others better understand this issue. The reason I know about this users disruption is because I found a post made by this user on another users talk page. I don't know if the user is continuing the disruption with sockpuppets, but regardless, I feel the need to propose this ban. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WhatLinksHere is your friend. – iridescent 22:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have just the the checkuser relating to this very user. Here is the link to that checkuser. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Inconclusive, open proxy"? Doesn't sound very ban-waiting-to-happen to me. Why the fuss now over events that happened in 2007, anyway? – iridescent 23:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Because there is no evidence, justification, indication, suggestion, implication, belief, or even a thought of a belief that this user will ever be unblocked. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

In which case a de facto ban is already in place and no further action is needed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying he/she is banned without the title?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Effectively. If a user is in a situation where no admin with the sense of the average garden gnome will unblock him he can be considered "banned" without consensus. Ironholds (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but I'm keeping this discussion open to ask the community to confirm the ban. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What purpose would that serve? If he's blocked and he's socking, just take it to SPI as a "block avoidance." If you are looking for cover to revert their edits per WP:BAN, I'd say that you shouldn't bother; it is the least important and most spottily enforced provision in that policy. If you are looking for confirmation alone, I would point out that the provision in BAN that says editors are effectively banned if no admin would reasonably reverse their indefinite block is written specifically to obviate that discussion. Protonk (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Then I'll just drop this proposal since I was just looking forward to the naming of this user as banned anyway. I'm now convinced that this proposal is not necessary. Somebody, please close this. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested Block on User: Standforder

User: Standforder has many policy violations and sucpicious edits on a wide variety of pages. His user page has been deleted; I'd suggest a long or indefinite block.JakeH07 (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:BAN for what a ban really is. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to write block.JakeH07 (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to request blocks. Depending on the issue, there are violation-specific places to do so. For example, WP:AIV is for reporting vandalism.

Swoopo

I thought about putting this on the Spam noticeboard, but it doesn't fit that format. For the uninitiated, go to Swoopo's website and marvel at the money-making glory that you can only wish you thought of. Just don't be fooled into playing their game.

Swoopo's WP article read almost like their press release earlier tonight[9], so I had a go at it[10]. It's still rough, but the main issue is I'm sure their employees will be back at some point soon to "fix it up".

I'd guess that Swoopouk (talk · contribs), Asdf25 (talk · contribs), and Arjun G. Menon (talk · contribs) are employees, and there are several IPs that are SPAs there as well. CU might be hard since they have offices in 3 countries.

Have a look, poke around, maybe block some socks/meats. And while I know we shouldn't use blogs for sources (they were all already there!), it's too late for me to dig up proper refs right now. NJGW (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a high risk article worth semi-protecting, which will address IPs anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Done - Sorta like a no-frills flagged revision really :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swoopo. rootology (C)(T) 04:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Frazer McBride

Resolved

 – deleted already

Another vanity article? --Túrelio (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this is not the correct venue for this. See WP:SPEEDY. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Northwestgnome

Resolved

 – Maybe a longer glance at the history of their userpage would have helped..._Gb^T/c 15:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Administrators,

You may already know this, but I was curious when I saw this on the user page of the user known as Northwestgnome.

Northwestgnome enjoys spending his time patrolling the newly added wikipedia pages and trying to attack other editors who do not agree with him. He/She has shown incredible depth in being able to talk out of both sides of their mouth while totally being full of more sewage than a treatment plant.

Figured i'd pass it along, I was concerned that this person wants to attack other editors. A quick glance at the talk page seems to confirm the user page statement. Spinach Monster (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

looks more like an attempt at a joke to me. I believe it is intended as humor. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think it's two bits of vandalism (here and here) that they've clearly decide to retain on their userpage. _Gb^T/c 15:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this out, even having that up there if he did it wouldn't have been wrong IMO, but I figured the fact that the comments were welcomed there were a matter for concern. Spinach Monster (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

File Data Linking to un-needed Category

I have tried to tidy up the "Icons for Canal Descriptions" icons. There were icons in both en.wikipedia and commons, giving rise to two category pages of the same name (with different content). The majority were alraedy been moved to Commons, and I have moved the rest. Therefore all the icons now show in Commons:Category:Icons for canal descriptions, and the Category:Icons for canal descriptions should now be empty - and I could flag it for delete - however one of the icons moved before I started has the text en:Category:Icons for canal descriptions in the file description, and is thus preventing the category from being empty. File name is BSicon_whfSTR.svg. Description that is causing the problem follows...

---

( Template:BotMoveToCommons {{Information |Description= |Source=Transferred from [http://en.wiki)

---

Can someone remove the "en:" from the description? Then the category page Category:Icons for canal descriptions should become empty Ronhjones (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've corrected the link in your post to the commons category (you'd put too many capital letters in) and deleted the local empty file page for that image. I can't see why a simple link from Commons would put a Commons-only file in an en-Wikipedia category, so the problem may now disappear. Or, then again, I may have completely misunderstood how images and Commons work (not for the first time). Bencherlite^Talk 22:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem is still there. I've looked at the Commons entry in detail - checked every editable (by me) section. I can find no link to en:Category:Icons for canal descriptions that can be removed by me. The only entry for that link that I can see is in the "Comment" section of the "File History" - which appears as a blue link - which suggests it must have the double square brackets around it, and that must be causing the category page to be populated. Ronhjones (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

But that's not how categories work. If you can see the link in the text, then it's not being used to categorise the article/file. E.g. Category:France (written as [[:Category:France]], note the leading ":") is a link, and doesn't put this page into that category; if I put [[Category:France]] (without the ":", and of course without the "nowiki" tags around it) then that would put this page into that category. Sod it. I'm going to delete the category anyway. If someone can work out a better fix than this, please do! Bencherlite^Talk 01:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Ronhjones (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly looks like a bug to me. --NE2 02:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is that I/you cannot see the underlying code in that comment field, if it is something like [[:en:Category:Icons for canal descriptions]], then as in Bencherlite's example with France - the initial colon is not displayed, only the blue link of the rest. Ronhjones (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Change of administration means massive cleanup project needed

Resolved

 – Doesn't require any admins to resolve, since it's a content matter, anyone can do this. rootology (C)(T) 13:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

1. The Obama administration has completely scotched the websites of the Bush administration. No redirects, no nothing, everything except the pre-2001 history pages is just down the memory hole. Hey, it's their computers, they can do what they want, but for us, this means that thousands of links in the encyclopedia to www.whitehouse.gov/* are now dead links.
2. Somewhat more trivially, there are about 200 articles about cases pending in United States courts that are now all mistitled as X v. Bush. Because Bush was sued in his official capacity, rather than in his personal capacity, the cases have been renamed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), and articles need to be moved to X v. Obama pages.

I raise it here in case there's an easy way to set up a project or bot to tag all these dead links and move all these outdated/mistitled pages. Apologies in advance if there is a better noticeboard than WP:AN to raise this problem. THF (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You're I think after Wikipedia:Bot requests. There's a template (someone correct me if I'm wrong) for busted links like this, that can be easily mass-added. Ditto for the moves if there are a lot. You could probably just do those yourself, in a couple days, even if it's 200ish. rootology (C)(T) 06:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Look what I found. --NE2 07:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

One well-done WP:AWB pass will do you, probably... rootology (C)(T) 07:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually some pages automatically redirect. Maybe we'll be lucky and they'll fix the rest? --NE2 07:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hah - check out where http://www.whitehouse.gov/mrscheney/ redirects to --NE2 07:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone should probably set up a page to list which directories have changed, and only then run AWB. --NE2 07:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Any project needs to be done fast, because links to Obama administration webpages will be clean and start to be added, which will make things harder for the bot. Plus editors are incorrectly simply removing links and adding fact tags instead of adding {dead link} tags. THF (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an admin job, though, it's a straight content. You should ask at that bot page, or you can start to fix it yourself. rootology (C)(T) 13:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Block of User:Asgardian

User:Jayron32 has asked that I request uninvolved administrators to review my block of Asgardian, his fifth block. Although Asgardian is known as a strong editor for the comic book-related articles he has edited, he also exhibits an unfortunate problem with respect to certain aspects of Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:Civility, WP:OWN and WP:Consensus. He is often very rude and insulting to editors whose edits he reverts, either in his Edit Summaries, or in his messages on those editors Talk Pages.[11][12] He often speaks as if his edits epitomize "encyclopedic standards", whereas others are "badly written", "sloppy", "fancruft", etc. He has more than once referred to edits he disagrees with as "vandalism"[13][14]. He argues that substandard writing is actually a warnable offense, etc.

When I and others attempt to explain to him that this poor writing is not vandalism, that terms like "sloppy", "crufty", etc. are not in keeping with WP:Civility, he is dismissive and condescending, makes personal comments and false accusations (he once falsely accused me of sockpuppetry), and relies on non sequiturs and other logical fallacies to support his positions. When these arguments are rebutted and refuted, he does not respond, but simply repeats them over and over. He argues, for example, that whether referring to an editor's work as "sloppy" is uncivil depends on the quality of that editor's work, arguing that because the editor "undid a great deal of good work", that addressing him the way he did was somehow not uncivil. When I try to point out that this is a non sequitur, in that whether the edit was not helpful and whether the comment by him was rude are two separate things, he does not respond. He just repeats the assertion. He justifies another personal comment directed at an editor by saying that it was "clinical". When I point out that this is a personal comment, he again suggests that the other editor's edits mitigate this. When I respond that one does not justify the other, he says nothing.

Because I've closely monitored his behavior and across several articles since last year, naturally, he sees me as a threat, and enjoys making personal comments. When I first placed polite warnings on his Talk Page for his rude comments to others, he referred to the warnings as "ultimatums" and "silly threats". When I tried to point out to him that issuing warnings for people violating policy was one of the legitimate duties of administrators, he did not respond. He argues that for me to monitor his activity indicates some type of obsession or inappropriate behavior on his part, when in fact, monitoring someone who's been blocked multiple times is perfectly reasonable. He insists that for me to point out these things, that I am too "emotional", though he never points out any passage or quote to that effect, nor does he explain how he has excluded the possibility that my position and statements cannot be held dispassionately. These are simply personal comments that he insists on making, because he either doesn't understand WP:Civility and WP:No Personal Attacks, or doesn't care. He simply assumes the worst possible motives and cast such aspersions upon people who criticize his behavior. I don't have the diffs for all of this on hand, because Asgardian regularly deletes material from his Talk Page, rather than archive them, claiming them to be "nothing of note", even though they include multiple instances admonishments by others for his behavior[15][16], and even his fourth block. This is nothing of note? How?

When I first blocked Asgardian last year, other administrators told me that it would be better if in the future, an uninvolved admin did this, though they all upheld the block. Asgardian is quick to point out the former point, but consistently omits the latter. For my part, I immediately agreed to their suggestion without argument, as it seemed reasonable.

Asgardian's last block was for editing disputed content, without discussion, despite the fact that a discussion was ongoing at the time. The issue was that he wanted to delete book titles, storylines and dates from the text of the Fictional Character Biographies of comic book characters in favor of merely citing those things as sources with ref tags. My position was that this made the section read poorly, as there was not historical context for the events described. I responded to each of Asgardian's points on the Black Bolt Talk Page. Rather than respond, he said he would get a Third Opinion. Instead, he abandoned the discussion, and proceeded to revert the article. It is for this, and his repeated incivility, that User:Daniel Case blocked him for a week. Asgardian responded by lashing out, claiming that because I suggested the block, that the block was weak, as if Daniel Case is somehow unable to make responsible decisions himself. His conduct in the section created as a result of his last block provides a fairly good idea of the incivility, logical fallacies, personal comments, make statements listed under WP:OWN, and intellectual dishonesty that characterizes his behavior. Not surprisingly, this fourth block was also upheld by all administrators who reviewed it, a point that doesn't seem to faze Asgardian. His rude behavior did not change subsequent to this block, either.

Now, he's up to his old behavior again, deleting book and story names from the Black Bolt article, and speaking disrespectfully to others. I tried to remind him that the previous discussion on the BB Talk Page was not resolved, and that if he wanted to bring up that disagreement again, we should discuss it. He deleted my message, and left one on my Talk Page, directing me to two other Talk Pages, and claiming his comments [17][18] were not uncivil because "The editor undid a great deal of good work and reinserted work with all the problems previously mentioned." He genuinely does not seem to understand that whether the editors' work was not to his liking, or even non-constructive, does not justify these comments, and that he can address the problem without such rudeness. He proceeded to revert the article again, without discussion, the exact thing for which he was last blocked. It is for that reason that I felt that a longer block is required.

It's been opined that an "uninvolved" admin would've been better to impose the block. The reason I chose to block Asgardian myself is because after my last block of him, I tried to utilize other resources and suggestions by other admins, to little or no avail, and there does not seem to be a very strong network in place to deal with people like this. For example, one admin told me to keep trying to talk to Asgardian. When I tried to tell him that I tried this repeatedly, and that Asgardian just ignored me, this admin insisted that I simply "keep trying". Another admin, I believer User:Emperor, suggested starting a discussion on the Comics Project page, but as I recall, no one responded to the thread. Another suggestion was to start a consensus discussion on such matter. I tried contacting close to 50 other editors, but only a few responded. Of those few, a couple refused to post in the relevant section on Asgardian's block because they felt they didn't know enough about the matter, even though the relevant Diffs were made available to them. One refused to comment because his experiences with Asgardian were negative, and was apparently bitter over his own past personal dealings with admins. User:Hiding was also not very helpful, IMO. Even Daniel Case himself, who initiated the last block, told me subsequent to his block that he was now "involved", and didn't want to deal with Asgardian any more. It is for this reason that I felt that blocking him myself was necessary, as did User:Emperor and User:Hiding, who have affirmed the validity of this block. I'm going to address the issue of objectivity, and other points that Asgardian has raised in response to this newest block here. Quotes of Asgardian's statements are in bold, followed by my responses:

Points of contention over current block

"As can be seen here, he been counselled by two very experienced editors 3" I'm not sure to what this link was supposed to direct us, but it shows all the sections and posts of my Talk Page from Sept - Oct 2008, regarding his last block. I notice his use of the word "counseled", as if to imply that the other editors were somehow address some problem on my part, but keep in mind that all the administrators who chimed in over that block upheld it. So I'm not sure what he's getting at here.

"and again offered a gentle warning regarding this recent block here 4" The linked page shows no such thing. It shows User:Hiding reacting in anger to a comment I made recently on User:Emperor's Talk Page in which I stated that I did not wish to discuss the current matter with Hiding because our previous discussion last year was not constructive. Thus, Asgardian's statement is false on two counts: It pertains to last year's block, not the recent one, and contains no "warning" by Hiding. Please take note of this mendacious tendency on Asgardian's part to use deceptive, euphemistic language to distort things like this.

"What concerns me is that because Nightscream is involved, he cannot possibly be objective." Of course I can. The fact that two people have had past dealings with one another may at best raise a question of objectivity in theory, but in practice, it's hardly impossible. I'm rather dispassionate about my Wikipedia work, and don't let things get to me emotionally. If you want examples, here are a few:

• I endured an enormous amount of vitriol and abuse, and even repeated vandalism to my Talk Page over my responses to User:Liaishard's extra-policy edits on the Corey Clark page. The manner in which I was able to keep cool in the face of that abuse, and cite policy to her, is the reason why Administrator Geniac voted to support my nomination for admin.
• Here's another example of a rather abusive editor attacking me on my Talk Page for upholding policy, and here's my completely assertive but polite response to him, in which I cite policy, admonish him not to threaten anyone, and even offer to help him learn more about editing WP. Nightscream (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
• In this section, User:David A contacted me regarding problems he was having with Asgardian. Here is my response, in which I tell David A that he has not illustrated any behavior on Asgardian's part that I could see that violated policy. What? I sided against taking any action against Asgardian in a conflict? Well, yes. David A did not make his case, and I wasn't going to arbitrarily side against Asgardian simply because of past conflicts. Granted, I had to change the section title on David's talk page because the one Asgardian chose was clearly uncivil, and I warned Asgardian about that, which Asgardian presumably ignored as usual, but I took no further action against him.

This shows lack of objectivity? Hardly. Ultimately, all you have to do is look at the validity of the block at hand on the basis of its own merits. Given that User:Emperor and User:Hiding support the block, that should tell you something. But if anyone reviewing this block feels that subsequent blocks of Asgardian should never been enacted by me, then I would request that some uninvolved admins make themselves available to review future infractions by him, without the rubber stamping and walking on eggshells exhibiting in the past by others, and I will be more than happy to agree to that.

"He also seems to be using the power of adminship as a gentle threat and ultimatum, as can be seen here 5." A legitimate administrative warning to cease violating policy lest one be blocked, is not an "ultimatum", or a "threat", gentle or otherwise. Again, what part of Wikipedia policy pertaining to such warnings is not being followed here? Am I not an admin? Is giving such warnings not a part of admin duties, which is why we have entire groups of templates for them? If Asgardian wants to argue that the warning was not justified, that's fine, but that's not what he does. He simply uses propagandistic labeling of such things as "threats" and "ultimatums", as if doing so will change the nature of their legitimacy. I've pointed out this to him before, and naturally, he is never able to refute or rebut this.

"As I said, I do not see this as fair. This entry 6 also shows that his last block of my account was inappropriate." No, it shows the other editors/admins upholding the block, and agreeing that Asgardian's behavior merited it. One editor, Jc37, opined that I was not uninvolved, but neither he nor any of the other participants argued against the block itself. Another mendacity noted.

"As to the material itself, I see this as a misunderstanding. When Nightscream posted his warning of a block, I offered up the following 7, which linked to discussions that have been in play for a time prior to my recent edits of Black Bolt. It basically shows that there is now a new article format emerging, which focuses on being out-of-universe. There is considerable discussion here 8..." First of all, out-universe has always been Wikipedia's guideline when writing about fiction, so this is not new. In fact, during our October discussion on the Black Bolt Talk Page, it was I who had to point out to Asgardian that keeping explicit book and story titles and dates was consistent with this, and that Asgardian's removal of them was not, and Asgardian who responded that "Guidelines are just that, guidelines", as seen here. Second, neither of these discussions Asgardian links to make any mention of books titles, storyline names or publications dates being removed from the text in favor of keeping them exclusively in the references. They appear to concern the reformatting of the Fictional character biography and Publication History sections. Nothing having to do with whether to mention titles.

"What is ironic is that I did insert dates and titles when trialling this format 9 [19]..." These links are merely to the Abomination article and the Rhino article, and not to any Diffs. But to just to double check, I checked the Edit Histories, just to see if I could find these edits Asgardian mentions. My check of the Rhino history showed no apparent inclusion of dates that I could see. My check of the Abomination history did turn up this inclusion of dates on his part (note the "objectivity" in which I confirm his assertion, even though the diff he provided did not), but what does this mean? Because he included publication dates in Artcile A, that allows him to delete them from Article B? No, I'm sorry, but it does not. He was not blocked because of what he did on the Abomination article, he was blocked for reverting the Black Bolt article, without discussion, and for incivility. That he can point to an example of a valid edit does not excuse the behavior that is not valid.

"...but at the suggestion of a very experienced editor 11 actually changed my style to have all titles etc exist outside the article as references 12 and was thanked for this." The first link does not link to any post by this "very experienced editor" but to Asgardian's Talk Page, on which there are a group of posts in several different sections by four different editors, none of whom make any mention of titles and dates, or provide diffs to any relevant edits to that effect. The second link is simply another link to Peregrine Fisher's Talk Page, on which no mention of these things is made.

"All this I linked for Nightscream but he didn't seem to realize these changes were all post-October 2008, which is when the last discussion occurred." Well no, quite the opposite is true. It appears that Asgardian abandoned the October Black Bolt discussion, even though he stated he would go and get a Third Opinion, and when he instead went and reverted, he was blocked, and then backed off the matter. His attempt to again delete the titles and dates from that article without discussion, appears to me to be a case of his having bided his time, waiting to enact those edits in the hopes of escaping notice, which is entirely predicated on the passage of time. Where he gets the idea that the opposite is true, that I am unaware that the discussions are post-October 2008 (what, is he under the impression that I think they're from three years ago?), I have no idea.

"The only reply on this front that I received was a block for a month, for the simple fact that I removed the titles and dates and directed them to a Reference section. I did not delete them entirely..." First of all, the edit in question does not show Asgardian "directing" anything into a Reference section, with the exception of dates of a "Secret Invasion" story and The Last Fantastic Four story. All of the other formatted references were already in the article, and had nothing to do with this particular edit. Indeed, the point of contention of editorial aspect of this conflict is my position that titles and dates should be in the explicit text as well as in the references, as the latter serves WP:V, but the former serves better reading and historical context. If Asgardian, or hell, even a majority, disagree with this, that's fine, but that's why there has to be a discussion on it. Asgardian refuses to engage in it, preferring to revert without one, and point to discussions in which he claims these matters were discussed, when in fact, they were not.

"...and Nightscream actually retained all my other edits even after restoring the titles and dates." Yes, that's correct. Instead of blindly reverting, I looked closely at his edit, and noticed that while some of it violated the discuss-before-reverting policy, other parts of it were good, and so, instead of just pressing "Undo" and "Save", I went through the article, distinguishing between the two, so as to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Is this a bad thing? Because it sounds like yet another example of the objectivity on my part that Asgardian insists I do not have.

"As to the charge of breaching WP:Civility, I disagree. This edit is referenced 13 but the worst of it is using the term "sloppy" for one sentence, which was said with no venom, and in the overall context of the article it was considerably improved." The use of the word is inherently venomous. There is no such thing as "saying it without venom", and this is in line with his long history of rudeness to others. The fact that Asgardian used this language in the Summary of an edit that improved the article has nothing to do with this, a non sequitur that I pointed out above, but which he continues to repeat without responding to this rebuttal.

"The second allegation concerns this 14 which I find to also be unfair, given that I actually used the term "please" twice and even after giving a brief explanation of what was incorrect with the style, actually provided a link to the discussion on how the articles were changing. I do not believe this to be abusive or counter productive. I think this is simply a question of intepretation and point of view by Nightscream." The use of the word "please" does not mitigate the use of statements like "you reinserted badly written material with poor grammar" and "no one will defend material that is sub-standard." Criticism can be more constructive than that. Citing incorrect grammar isn't unreasonable but "bad" and "sub-standard" are needlessly pejorative.

"There is, unfortunately, also an accusation by Nightscream present - "You're just trying to once again sneak your personal aesthetics regarding book titles into articles without discussion." - from 15 which I suppose breaches WP:Civility." I find it interesting that Asgardian is able to rationalize or ignore his entire history of rudeness, personal attacks, false accusations and insults, but somehow, he is able to find a comment that actually offends the Civility policy.

Legitimate criticism of one's behavior is not a violation of Civility. It's part of what the editors and admins on this site must do with an editor who routinely violates policy. With respect to accusations like the one above that go to a person's motive, they should not be made unless the accuser can illustrate how he/she has excluded other possible, less nefarious motives. This is not a distinction often made by others. When someone accused me on the Sicko Talk Page of making edits to push a POV, I asked him how he excluded the possibility that the edits were not made in good faith, even if in his opinion, they appeared to be POV. Not surprisingly, he refused to answer this, even though I asked him this repeatedly. By contrast, I have shown how Asgardian's motive is clear. He has a history of violating policy pertaining to WP:OWN, WP:Consensus, and being blocked for it, repeatedly, by multiple administrators. When he is unable to respond to rebuttals in a discussion, says he'll get a Third Opinion, but then abandons the discussion, reverts, gets blocked, and then waits four months before reverting that particular type of edit again, and then rationalizes by linking to discussions that he says explain this, but which in truth contain no mention of the particular issue in conflict, it is not unreasonable to see what he's doing. Thus, there is no "breach". Just noting a habitual policy violator.

Keep in mind that he falsely accused me a couple of months ago of IP sock puppetry, simply because the IP editor criticized his lack of civility, without providing any evidence or reasoning that this person was me, as if he's unaware that other people have criticized his incivility. I pointed out that I've never been to California, where the IP was traced to, but live in New Jersey, which a check could verify, but he never acknowledged or apologized for this. But despite that fact that I illustrate the motive for his behavior here, suddenly it's a breach of Civility.

"To conclude, I find this block on one month to be excessive. I am a strong contributor to Wikipedia, and am actively trying to better the articles, which has been acknowledged by others on many occasions, such as here 16. If some fault is still perceived on the issue of civility then I am happy to wait out a 7-day block." Putting aside the fact that many, if not most people here, are strong contributors who better articles, that this does not justify Asgardian's behavior, and that it's hardly his place to decide how long his blocks should be, he was already blocked last time for two weeks, and went right back to making obnoxious comments to the admin who blocked him. So if a two-week, fourth block is not enough to get him to understand not to behave this way, who is he to dictate that he should now be blocked for only one week?

"I would, however, be very grateful if I could join a group discussion in the near future which finalizes a format, and then continue editing from there, as I believe no one has issue with my content contributions." Asgardian has been given numerous opportunities to join group discussions to discuss such things, and he typically stonewalls when his fallacies are refuted. As for no one having an issue with his content contributions, the various administrators who have blocked him and upheld all of his blocks, including the three who agree upon this current one, all have issue with him, as have others. Nightscream (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

and there does not seem to be a very strong network in place to deal with people like this. This to me has been and continues to be a massive problem on wikipedia. Regardless of what some people say there seems to be an unspoken system in place where if someone has made X good edits, certain individuals and groups of individuals will rise to their defense no matter what they've done. Frankly it needs to stop because it is bad for the community. it is probably the worst thing for the community that can happen. Some editor with a chip on his shoulder who thinks he is lord and master of an article who treats others like crap creates many issues. First he discourages editors on that particular article. They feel like wikipedia is a closed community and they're not welcome so they leave. In addition to that outside editors not involved in the situation see what happens. Some of them might just get disgusted that someone has chased away one or more editors and try to do something about it. But then they get a lesson in wikidrama 101. You have admins afraid to start wheel wars over blocking an obviously problem editor because they feel someone will just unblock him. People start long sub-pages, committees, someone calls the president, etc and after hundreds of thousands of bytes, nothing is solved, everybody is pissed off and because this editor didn't face any repercussions, he feels like its license to continue to act this way. This continues on and on and on until at some point this person pisses on enough of his supporters that eventually they're blocked. Something that probably should have be done months and years earlier. In the meantime some editors may become disillusioned with the process and decide wikipedia isn't worth the hassle. Some admins might be frustrated by the inability to do what is right and they all leave. In the end the person finally ends up blocked and told to shape up or get out but because of these people who are willing to basically excuse anything because of a few good contributions, the person has managed to leave a path of destruction in their wake. you might think "Oh I know who he is talking about" but you don't. Because I can think of half a dozen examples of this completed saga, and I can think of several more that are on-going. Each one of them is one case too much. p.s. I'm still reading the rest--Crossmr (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

–Tl;dr. If you know enough about a user to write all this, you probably shouldn't be pulling the trigger. I'll try to read this and get some traction...but it really is just too long. Protonk (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User Hiding's thoughts

Given my name's mentioned up there and I'm described as being unhelpful, I'll chuck in my two cents. User:Asgardian does not contribute to Wikipedia in a collegiate manner. While he/she makes useful edits, the user ignores many of the behaviourial policies, specifically WP:OWN, WP:AGF and WP:CIV. Regarding User:Nightscream, I firmly believe that due to the fact that Nightscream is involved in editorial disputes with User:Asgardian, User:Nightscream should not be blocking User:Asgardian. That User:Nightscream finds that opinion unhelpful is perhaps suggestive of a deeper issue. I'm fairly involved in the issue myself, so I know the ins and outs of it, and I honestly think that pretty much sums it all up. User:Asgardian should likely have been blocked, USer:Nightscream should not have been the one placing the block. Both users need to modify their behaviour accordingly. Hiding T 10:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• I note that it is alleged above that I have reacted in anger. I have not reacted in anger, I have attempted to clarify the actual position in a level-headed manner. That Nightscream chooses to portray this as anger is somewhat ironic, given the accusations the user has levelled at Asgardian. Hiding T 13:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

To any admins reviewing this, I offer the following quote by myself above: "But if anyone reviewing this block feels that subsequent blocks of Asgardian should never been enacted by me, then I would request that some uninvolved admins make themselves available to review future infractions by him, without the rubber stamping and walking on eggshells exhibiting in the past by others, and I will be more than happy to agree to that." Thus, I not only do not find the opinion that involved admins are preferred not to be the blocking admins in such disputes, but I explicitly stated that I agree with it, provided that others are willing to get involved. I normally would not respond to this, but since Hiding has a habit of deliberately distorting my words, and attributing statement to me that I did not make (he did this twice in this post on my Talk Page) it is unfortunately necessary to clarify for reviewers what my position actually is. Nightscream (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think admins in general are always willing to do this. All you would have to do is post at WP:ANI when you want someone independent to have a look. I don't think anyone needs to agree to WP:MENTOR Asgardian. But finding an independent admin to act when necessary should be easy. Mangojuice^talk 18:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Relevent ArbCom case

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. Asgardian was sanctioned for incivility and edit warring, and placed on 1RR for 1 year. The sanctioned expired in December 2008. Just for context. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My experience with Asgardian

I have, in the past, been inovlved with this since, having had no involvement until I declined one of his unblock requests, I was asked to intervene and make a few of the blocks as an uninvolved admin.

I cannot consider myself uninvolved now. Last November, while Asgardian's probation was still on, I decided to gently warn him about some of his sarcastic edit summaries instead of blocking him outright, thinking that might work better.

This was the response I got. If that doesn't count as having tried and failed to deal with the problem through user-to-user interaction, I don't know what does. I do see this block as justified, given the context. However, someone else (no longer me, alas), should probably have made it. But that is ultimately secondary to the fact that the block should have been made. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that response was totally uncalled for and if it were me I would have blocked for those comments. Why do we even keep this person around? -MBK₀₀₄ 15:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the block

I think this block was inappropriate. I see a combination of several factors that led to this block: first, Asgardian has not been incivil in the comments that led up to this block. He has clearly been incivil in the past (the "Mr. Clean-up" comment, for instance, and there are probably worse). But the edit summary where he referred to removing "sloppy game content" is civil: (1) it's a comment on content, not on a contributor or even a specific contribution, and (2) while "sloppy" is a negative term, it's not an inflammatory one. Nor is his civil though possibly pushy request to another editor to desist from certain edits, and his criticism of those edits problematic. Second, I note that Nightscream gave a warning on February 10, and only issued a block on February 11 after Asgardian's response [20], in which Asgardian politely referred Nightscream to a discussion he felt was behind the edits Nightscream was concerned about, and also said he didn't think his comments were incivil. Even if Nightscream disagreed with that, I can't understand why this block was placed, unless it was to punish Asgardian for disagreement or disobedience regarding Nightscream's own civility warning. Third, Nightscream is not being independent here, and even worse, he thinks he is. This can be seen from, among several factors, Nightscream's response to Asgardian's unblock request with opinions about article content, the extreme length of Nightscream's reply, and the fact that Nightscream has been warned before that he is too involved in this dispute. Additionally, in Nightscream's original February 10th warning, he takes a position on a content dispute in the same message as he threatens a block. To be clear, I'm saying that to me, there's more than the mere appearance of a conflict of interest, one actually exists here. Now, maybe Asgardian's contributions before should have led us to show him the door permanently, but they didn't. If he behaves that badly, fine, I wouldn't defend it. But he didn't this time. Mangojuice^talk 16:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Respectfully disagree with Mangojuice. Occasionally saying 'no' is an administrative duty. There's a game that disruptive editors play: misconstruing our recusal standards in attempt to politically disarm any admin who tells them 'no' (but never demanding recusal of any admin who supports the disruptive editor). We don't hold it aginst administrators when they write a thorough report. I'll withhold opinion about this particular block, but note that past experience with content contributors who exhibit habitual incivility is that--when given lenient treatment in the hope that their behavior would improve--they tend instead to get worse and to tie up a lot of administrative time. Durova^Charge! 17:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian was blocked because he proceeded to revert the edits in question without discussion, even though the fact that the issue was in conflict was brought to his attention, which is the exact reason he was blocked last time. As is mentioned above copiously, the discussions he linked to had nothing to do whatsoever with the issues of conflict, despite his attempt to portray them as thus. The boldface quote-and-response Exchanges #6-11 above specifically deal with this issue, which you can review yourself. Nightscream (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Durova, with due respect, you do not disagree with me if you aren't talking about this case. I am well aware the accusations of administrator involvement are frequently abused, I don't take them at face value, I've looked at the history. (And all I was saying with the length thing is that it goes beyond thorough, to show a level of emotional attachment, and interest in the underlying content disputes, that is troubling.) Nightscream -- even if no discussion took place at all, this block would be inappropriate because at heart it's an editing disagreement between, mainly, you two. It wasn't edit warring, it wasn't disruption, I can't even call it against consensus (and even if it was a change from the old way of doing things, WP:CCC and WP:BOLD still applies). So that doesn't justify the block, and it also leaves the nagging question why you said the block was for incivility when there was no incivility after your warning. Mangojuice^talk 18:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Napoleon Dagalea

Could an admin more experienced in Afd matters take a look at this afd? I find it a little odd that a lot of newbies have a very good knowledge of the wiki and headed straight into an afd.--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've refactored the AfD to make it readable and tagged the comments with {{spa}}, but, well, honestly, never have I seen such a drawer of obvious socks - all created at the same time, all formatting in exactly the same way, all making the same formatting and spelling mistakes, all bluelinking their userpages with variants of the same message... so obviously Angdl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in disguise. Tsk. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 11:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.--Lenticel ^(talk) 11:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooh! Tagging them as {{SPA}}s is now a personal attack, according to the IP editor who just turned up to complain. I love Wikipedia - it gets more insane by the day. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 12:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence of Angdl's post here wins the "thing that made me laugh most on Wikipedia for a long time" award. Honestly, if you're going to recruit meatpuppets, at least get them to vote the right way... Black Kite 13:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice way to shoot yourself in the foot. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Anonmoos' copyright violation

User:AnonMoos keeps restoring plagiarized text[21][22][23] even with repeated warning and proof that the text is plagiarized[24] from this source. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting a 404 File Not Found on that source, but the material is also present here. At a glance, it seems to predate our publication. I'm looking into it more deeply. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I had added a v to the end of the link, I don't know how. Here is the correct article link http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1030121.html --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Investigation shows that this text was added in October 2008, here. There's obviously no question of source, as it was cited. The material added suffers both from close paraphrasing and also literal duplication more than sufficient to make it a copyright problem. For the benefit of onlookers, I'll note that User:AnonMoos did not place this text and seems to have cleaned copyright infringement from the article him or herself on a number of occasions, but has restored this text, evidently because s/he believes that the replacement proposed is non-neutral. I'll let the user know that this is not a proper solution for copyright infringement, which must be removed. If new language proposed is not agreed upon, an acceptable short-term solution pending arrival at new text might be to restore the article to this point and work forward from there. I'll also notify the original contributor that such additions are not acceptable under our copyright policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV needs attention

Resolved

 – Xeno took care of it Enigma^msg 20:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Enigma^msg 20:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

i r the banninator!!!!111one –xeno (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)