Wikipedia talk:Account suspensions

Tally (10/4/4)

Keep page

1. SlimVirgin - "good idea, see whether it works" [1]
   • "There's no reason admins shouldn't have a protected page for discussion. It's a lot better than it happening by e-mail and on IRC as currently happens." [2]
2. Guettarda - "transparency is good - better than discussing these things by email or irc." [3]
3. Dan100 - "I fully support this proposal. On Wikipedia I would describe myself as a "law-abiding citizen". I tend not to break the rules. Therefore, I have nothing to fear from this :-). And even if one admin does go too far, there are plenty more reasonable, objective admins around to sort the issue out." [4]
   • "This is how I am viewing this page: a clear endorsement for using small blocks for problematic users (a slap on the wrist). It's also more open - block logs are filled with lots of different blocks for myriad reasons; this place can clearly highlight policy breaches and the consequences. It is also a deterrent - a clear display of what will happen if you break the rules. This is good. I think keeping people on the task of writing an encyclopaedia within our rules is more important than slightly nebulous concepts such as perception." [5]
4. -- Uncle Ed There are 490 admins - okay, maybe only 100 active. If any admin discovers that another has gotten above themselves, they can undo (a) page lock, (b) page deletion, (c) user suspension.
5. Filiocht Unprotected, and with the stated aim of replacing discussion on IRC/Mailing lists, I am more than happy to support a trial of this page. Thanks for the clarifications, Ed. [6]
   • "I agree with dab: this page is pointless really, and protecting it only serves to reinforce an idea that admins are getting above themselves. In addition, there is a danger that it will encourage admins to enter into controversial blocking without bothering with the troublesome work of using other, less confrontational, problem-solving methods. As I have said elsewhere, fighting fire with fire just burns the whole place down. This page may well become just another can of petrol." [7]
   • "It would be possible to read this page as the cabal have created a place where they can boast of their high-handed actions while denying the victims the right to respond. Of course this would be a gross misrepresentation of your intention" [8]
     • Interested to find my comments from the talk page torned into a vote here without my say-so. Bolding now not to shout but for emphasis as my nect comment is important to me and could easily get lost in the crowd: I am willing to vote in favout of a trial of this page, with the proviso that it be moved to Wikipedia:Policy enforcement log (or something similar) and that a proper vote on its continued use be called within one month of today. Filiocht | Talk 08:54, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
6. CryptoDerk "I'm all for a system that reviews admin actions" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Policy_enforcement_log&diff=15778594&oldid=15764993
7. --cesarb Useful, as long as it's not protected without reason.
8. This is an important page and needs to stay. User:Sam Spade
9. khaosworks. It's worth seeing just where this takes us. --khaosworks 02:57, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
10. Having a protected page is a good idea because it ensures that it is truly admin-only. That helps get rid of a lot of chaff, and I'm sure if there are any wrong calls, other admins can undo the damage and shift the conversation back to WP:AN/I. --Deathphoenix 28 June 2005 05:37 (UTC) (Note: my vote might not count, since I'm not an admin.)

Do not keep

#user:geni "major policy change .... The only reason which admins can block for ... is disrupting wikipedia (which is controversial)" [9]

1. dab - "I don't see a reason to have this page, much less to have it protected. We are discussing problematic blocks on WP:AN/I." [10]
2. nixie, If someone wants to know why I've made a block and it's not covered in the block log I assume they would ask me. This page also associates a user with bad behaviour, the problem being that it may colour other peoples judgement with future disputes.
3. JYolkowski "Use WP:AN/I for this, unnecessary duplication with the added disadvantage that the page is protected." [11]
   • It's not "open" if non-admins can't edit the page. m:Protected pages considered harmful. If people are disrupting discussion, roll them back, don't create a protected page. [12]
   • "I might think this page might be useful if it weren't protected, but that isn't currently the case." [13]
   • "Protection indicates a lack of trust of non-admins. It doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose that couldn't be accomplished by rollback. [14]
4. Instead of inventing new reasons to block users, admins should spend more time being useful. Grace Note 02:25, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral/Mixed

1. JRM - "I don't object to some sort of trial at all—but what is being put on trial? I don't mind sounding obtuse if that's what's needed to get the explanation for idiots. [15]
   • "I can see some use, but what you're saying makes no sense to me." [16]
   • "the general tendency of admins to stick together just because they're admins." [17]
   • It's a block log you can annotate.
   • It's like WP:AN/I, but explicitly editable only by administrators.
   • It's a replacement for the out-of-band IRC/mailing list channels in getting feedback/support on a possibly controversial block.
   • "Other admins will do the same, and do things differently; we hardly if ever compare results, to my knowledge." (emphasis added) [18]
   • "A protected page is still subject to scrutiny by anyone who cares to scrutinize it. In-line discussion by non-admins is made harder, though. There are obvious pros and cons to that, just as there are obvious pros and cons to separating article pages from talk pages." [19]
2. Bovlb long summary, then goes on to say "This procedure would be lightweight enough that it would reach decisions quickly." [20]
3. My objection was to its existence as a protected admins-only version of WP:AN. In the current version I'm still not convinced it's useful, but if it makes anybody happy by all means go ahead. --W(t) 22:58, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)#
4. I'm not sure what exactly is being voted on.Geni 02:17, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
   • Yeah, the poll seems to be confusing Let this page remain permanently vs. Limit its use to admins only. *sigh* I'll have to split the poll in two now. Anyway, the page has remained unlocked since since the 2nd day or so, with no graffiti or reverts. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 28, 2005 20:59 (UTC)

Other threads

From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Policy_enforcement:

Recording tough calls

Most blocks don't need more than a one-line comment. We can all read about it at the block log.

Tough calls should be recorded at Wikipedia:Policy enforcement so everyone can see that it was a tough call. I created it as a protected page, to discourage debates, "gaming the system" and other delaying tactics.

If the person is clearly subverting Wikipedia policy - like NPOV or civility, suspend them first and discuss it later. If you're wrong, you (or another admin) can always undo the suspension - and you can apologize! But if you're right, we'll all breathe a little easier and can go on with our work. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

All further discussion of this page has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Policy enforcement#Other threads

I would like to have the opportunity to clarify this on the page, but am unable to because the page is locked. I don't feel this is an appropriate use of page locking. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ta bu, are you still around and wanting to edit that page? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

For the next 8 minutes, yes. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policy enforcement

Wikipedia:Policy enforcement is very contrary to the wikipedia way of doing things, and is just furthering the idea that administrators are the rulers of wikipedia instead of the janitors. Could someone unprotect please? --W(t) 02:06, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

It's unprotected for now, but will be protected again after it's all set up. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Let it fly for a bit to see where it goes. Something like this is needed, and it's only just been set up. It maybe just needs some discussion and editing. Give Ed a chance to outline how he sees it working. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

He's free to outline where he sees it going, but that does not require making special admin-only pages. --W(t) 02:11, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

I suppose it's better than making these decisions by email. The argument in favour of making it admin-only is to avoid it turning into an admin-bashing page like these ones are. I don't think it's the ideal solution, but it's an idea worth thinking about. Guettarda 02:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The decisions shouldnt' be made in private email discussions either. I haven't seen any evidence that it's impossible to discuss blocks here because of disruptive users. --W(t) 02:18, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

I agree with Weyes, m:Protected pages considered harmful. I'm not going to unprotect it right now (although I have unprotected the talk page, protecting talk pages is silly) but I hope that Ed realises the error of protecting the page and unprotects it shortly. JYolkowski // talk 02:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with having an open place where admins can discuss issues? At the moment, if we want to ask for admin advice here about a disruptive user, the user we need advice about just continues the disruption on this page. The only current alternative is to contact other admins by e-mail, which makes it non-transparent. With Ed's proposal, we'd have a page to discuss difficult blocks with other admins, where other users could see what's being discussed but without being able to disrupt it. I think the talk page should be protected too until we see how it works. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

It's not "open" if non-admins can't edit it. What's so wrong about non-admins editing a page? If someone's disrupting discussion, roll them back. Page protection is not the answer. JYolkowski // talk 02:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, it's not "open", it's "public" and highly visible - unlike this particular discussion which no one bothered to reference from the other thread. I think it is mostly the prospect of being excluded from policy discussions while others take things over secretly which disturbs the non-admin community the most. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:29, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm with JYolkowski on this one. I never locked WP:AN, and the 3RR page is not locked... why should such a similar page be locked? I would like to see the page unlocked. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From what I have seen, this is how Wikipedia admins behave now. They throw their admin weight around, they use it to enforce POV on articles they follow, and they pick users to assault and harass. I've been on the receiving end of abuse from some of the names who've signed in to support the "We are the law, we are above the law" perspective that they have operated under. No request for intervention will ever work, because the admin will call you an abusive user and both the admin and his/her cronies will mercilessly attack you. Emailing the Wikien-l mailing list is equally pointless as the same jerks who will attack you on Wikipedia are the ones who are on the Wikien-l mailing list.

"Because I say so" works well for a despotism. It's a shame that's all Wikipedia seems to be. Enviroknot 03:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hardly. Ed locked the page, and this is considered controversial. Admins are currently discussing whether or not to unlock it. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedians are current discussing whether to unlock it. --W(t) 03:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Got me :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 03:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LOL! You really are an example of an innocent user who's been "assaulted and harassed." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Given the amount of time you have spent harassing and insulting me and deliberately protecting Yuber, I have no more comments for you, Rogue Admin.Enviroknot 03:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but is that a threat or a promise? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neither. She is a Rogue Admin, she knows it, but does not care. Policy proposals like this only encourage her despotic methods. I reported a 3RR yesterday, because it happened. She hemmed and hawed and refused to enforce it, despite being willing to come up with any excuse to attack me, because I was reporting her pet vandal Yuber. Enviroknot 03:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You really do need to buy a dictionary. Or at least get over yourself. --Calton | Talk 05:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When did admins stop being ordinary editors with a couple of extra buttons and start being vigilantes? They are supposed to be representatives of the community, enforcing the will of the community, not nobles who punish the serfs as they see fit. Clearly, admins who take actions outside policy will support this. A means to ban dissenters without even bothering with the arbcom. Exactly what some of the more hardline admins have been looking for. Maybe we should have a fork. An Adminopedia and a wiki. Grace Note 04:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, will of the community is unrelated to Non-negotiable Policy like NPOV and civility. (Whether something is neutral/biased or polite/impolite is of course a matter of judgment, but whether Bias and Incivility are okay have already been decided by the Foundation: and the decision was: they are not permitted. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

and you know as well as I do that there is no comunity consensus for admins to attempt to infoce those policies.Geni 13:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I rather have to agree with Grace Note on this one. Unlock the page, please! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. I fully support this proposal. I trust admins - I see no evidence of 'rogue' ones, that's just bitter people talking, not an objective observation. On Wikipedia I would describe myself as a "law-abiding citizen". I tend not to break the rules. Therefore, I have nothing to fear from this :-). And even if one admin does go too far, there are plenty more reasonable, objective admins around to sort the issue out. Dan100 (Talk) 07:07, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I can see no justification presented here for protecting the page, therefore I believe it should be unprotected ASAP. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:31, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...I am really undecided here. I am very hesitant of creating a page where only administrators may discuss something. However, I believe User:Enviroknot's comments above are not really relevant to this discussion and are a good example of how irrelevant comments may be disruptive (Enviroknot, I mean no disprespect: I just don't feel that some of your comments are really pertinent to this topic). At the very least, if the page does remain protected, the talk page should not be protected so that non-administrators may voice objections to the discussion—perhaps somewhat like RFAr proposed decision pages where only the arbitrators may discuss, but anyone may comment on the talk page (maybe the page wouldn't even have to be protected). I am not supporting this policy—still considering it—but it if does continue, this is how it might be done. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's a wonderful example of how it doesn't matter: Yes, the comments may be a bit annoying, but they've in no way hindered this discussion. --W(t) 08:17, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

On further reflection, I am against the protection. In addition to the other objections, it would be a shame to cut out comment from the insightful non-administrators (such as TBSDY and Weyes here, and I recall User:Thryduulf contributing a lot before he became an administrator). — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• unprotect, merge, redirect (if you ask me:) dab (ᛏ) 09:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I think rather than protecting the page, a better solution would be to remove nonconstructive attacks from that page (e.g. if Admin X states that User Y vandalized page Z, then user Y retaliates by calling admin X an idiot/troll/sock/whatever, user Y's comments should be removed (of course, if Y civilly explains his actions, more power to that). Radiant_>|< 09:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • sure, treat a project page like an article page. Revert inappropriate edits. dab (ᛏ) 14:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Purpose

What, just "policies"? We don't have to specify which ones? Isn't that a little on the convenient side?

No wait. What I meant to say was: this page is redundant with Special:Log/Block and/or Special:Ipblocklist. Isn't it?

No wait with feeling. What is the purpose of this page, actually? It doesn't say. I suppose it's not to reinforce the clique of adminship by encouraging them to "me, too" the decisions made, and/or delineate the subcliques by encourage "me neither" responses? Because whatever it's supposed to do, I do believe that's what it's going to end up like, sure as WP:AN/I is doing it now. JRM · Talk 02:01, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, and we should let Ed see whether it works. There are cases of serious policy violations where our hands are almost tied, and they shouldn't be. Noel, perhaps you could edit the page to tighten up that the specific policies have to be named. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm genuinely confused—what does it do? I don't object to some sort of trial at all—but what is being put on trial? I don't mind sounding obtuse if that's what's needed to get the explanation for idiots. :-) JRM · Talk 02:10, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

It's a place to list and discuss blocks that might normally be regarded as controversial. For example, if we block a user for disruption, which we're allowed to do, or borderline vandalism, which someone else might not regard as vandalism. Or block for an NPOV violation, which again is a subjective judgment. We can discuss those issues here with other admins, and may only proceed with the block if other admins agree. Then we can list the blocks here, and monitor how effective they are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I misread this - I thought it would be a place to discuss potentially controvertial decisions before they were implemented. Am I mistaken? Regardless, transparency is good - better than discussing these things by email or irc. Guettarda 02:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

policy does not allow us to block for NPOV violations.Geni 12:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we could use the talk page for that, which is why it also should be protected. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

What's the problem with using WP:AN/I for this, like admins already do? This seems like unnecessary duplication with the added disadvantage that the page is protected. JYolkowski // talk 02:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with having an open place where admins can discuss issues? At the moment, if we want to ask for admin advice on WP:AN/I about a disruptive user, the user we need advice about just continues the disruption on that page. The only current alternative is to contact other admins by e-mail, which makes it non-transparent. With Ed's proposal, we'd have a page to discuss difficult blocks with other admins, where other users could see what's being discussed but without being able to disrupt it. I think the talk page should be protected too until we see how it works. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

It's not "open" if non-admins can't edit the page. m:Protected pages considered harmful. If people are disrupting discussion, roll them back, don't create a protected page. JYolkowski // talk 02:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Oh, and I also unprotected this page. JYolkowski // talk 02:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If a disruptive editor continues the disruption on WP:AN/I, wouldn't that be grounds for bringing the matter before the ArbCom? As I understand the purpose of that page, & Ed's proposed page, this is supposed to be a forum for admin/janitors to get a second opinion about people one may think is troublesome, or need to find a solution than outright banning. Further, if someone posts a dispassionate paragraph saying (to the effect) "I think editor XYZ is causing trouble in this article, & this is why" & editor XYZ immediately appears with a response saying "So you've come here to spread more lies about me", would anyone be surprised if I or any other reader conclude that editor XYZ has just confirmed that he/she/it is causing trouble in Wikipedia? -- llywrch 05:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Function

This is where we record suspensions after making them.

There are three kinds of users who edit pages on this website:

• Those who come to make an accurate, useful and unbiased encyclopedia
• Those who are experimenting, playing around, etc.
• Those who are determined to thwart Wikipedia's goals

Those in the latter group should be excluded. And admins should not have to spend days, or even hours, filling out paperwork for this. If a few genuine, heartfelt attempts to explain the rules won't work, suspend the person.

When they come back, they can try again.

And they good part is, with 100 admins able to undo a block by any one admin, there's little chance of egregious error. (Assuming the original admin doesn't launch a blocking war - ah, but that's against the rules too, so that shoul cover everything)

We're not here to create a blog community, but to create an encyclopedia. The rules are VERY EASY to follow, and if you can't figure them out you can always ask. The only people who will get suspended are those who are not even trying to comply with policy. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

But then I have to ask: what's wrong with Special:Log/Block and Special:Ipblocklist? I can see some use for a wiki-only peer feedback channel explicitly for block decisions (the way IRC is often used now) as outlined by people above, but what you're saying makes no sense to me. Admins can already block people without "filing out paperwork", and other admins can and do unblock when they disagree. What does this page add? Ease of archiving? More lines than the block log comment allows? JRM · Talk 02:25, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

May I cut in, JRM? Tell me what part of Log/Block or Ipblocklist admins can explain in detail and with diffs exactly why they've suspended a user. No one can edit lb or ipbl! But at least admins can edit pe. and everyone can comment ont talk:pe. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:56, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

No of course you may not! I asked you a question, I don't expect any answer! :-P So my guess above was right: this page is intended to be a Special:Log/Block with more room for justification than the single-line brevity the block log demands (and the added benefit of being able to watch the page, which you can only do by vigorous refreshing in case of the block log). From what I've seen here there seem to be multiple camps now on what this page is supposed to be good for:

1. It's a block log you can annotate.
2. It's like WP:AN/I, but explicitly editable only by administrators.
3. It's a replacement for the out-of-band IRC/mailing list channels in getting feedback/support on a possibly controversial block.

End of observation. (What, you expected a value judgement too? Not now.) JRM · Talk 03:11, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

I found your observations very JRMane. Let's add them to the [[Wikipedia:Policy enforcement] page. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you've misunderstood the purpose of the page (or perhaps I have). The purpose, as I see it, is to set up and monitor the effect of short blocks of users who violate policy other than 3RR and vandalism. It is a specialist page, if you like, a subpage of WP:AN/I. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

That would require a major policy change which I don't think there is the slightest chance of getting a consensus for. The only reason which admins can block for which tends to be contivesal is dissrupting wikipedia. Not a handful of articles wikipedia.03:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a defence of the blocking policy, not a reason for having this page. WP:AN and its subpages are working just fine for discussing problem users. Yes, there's the odd "oh no I didn't" thrust in between comments, but it's in no way hindering discussion. --W(t) 02:27, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I might think this page might be useful if it weren't protected, but that isn't currently the case. JYolkowski // talk 02:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protected pages in the main namespace are considered harmful. There's no reason admins shouldn't have a protected page for discussion. It's a lot better than it happening by e-mail and on IRC as currently happens. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:33, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I should point out that WP:FA is not protected, and will remain that way. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is. There is no relevant category in Wikipedia:Protection policy covering that. It indicates a lack of trust of non-admins. It doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose that couldn't be accomplished by rollback. JYolkowski // talk 02:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I fully support this proposal. On Wikipedia I would describe myself as a "law-abiding citizen". I tend not to break the rules. Therefore, I have nothing to fear from this :-). And even if one admin does go too far, there are plenty more reasonable, objective admins around to sort the issue out. Dan100 (Talk) 07:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

protect talk?

I don't think Wikipedia talk:Policy enforcement needs protection - not if there's no abuse of the page.

If admins need a transparent admin-only discussion page, we can create one easily enough. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:33, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

this page might be useful if it weren't protected

To what use might we put the page that can't be served just as well on its talk?

the clique of adminship

What clique? Are their admins who are abusing their privileges? Point them out to me, and I'll ask Anthere or another Steward to suspend their admin rights.

And while she's making up her mind about it, why, I'll simply undo whatever harm they've done. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Its members are listed right here. :-) I was speaking in the abstract: I'm not referring to some specific shadowy conspiracy of individuals, but the general tendency of admins to "stick together" just because they're admins. As regular editors do when faced with newcomers on a page, but then specifically for admin-related matters. Yes, admins will disagree on things, sometimes vociferously—but then they will also back each other up over nothing more than "I trust his/her judgement", which is honest, laudable and pointless. OK, "clique" is exaggeration—I don't know what you call this. Peer pressure? Nepotism? Something much weaker than that, but in the same direction. JRM · Talk 03:04, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

On what basis do you make this claim? I would imagine that it is true that in disputes between admins and non-admins, it is more likely that I will agree with the admin. But that is because a good percentage of such disputes are between admins and obvious POV pushers, which is going to mean that it's much more statistically likely that I will agree with the admin. Can you provide any evidence that admins back up other admins saying things like "I trust his judgment"? john k 19:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Modification: I assume that you can find instances of people saying things like that. I doubt that you will find ones where this is the only argument made. At any rate, I know that if I were to say such a thing it would probably mean something along the lines of "I know this user is not a destructive POV pusher or putter-inner of original research, and while I don't know terribly much about the subject at hand, the comments of his opponent reek very strongly of POV pushing/original research." john k 19:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May I interrupt? I frequently tell certain admins that I trust them, and I daresay it was my telling SlimVirgin just that [21] that gave me the idea of starting this WP:PE page. It was not my only reason, but it was enough for me to "block first" and investigate afterwards. Then I thought I better explain what I found out, and the whole thing developed from there. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

No, I cannot offer you such evidence. This is not fact I present you with; it is, like many other things that have been stated on this page, I haste myself to say, a gut feeling. A perception of a general tendency. The statistics that are involved are also self-reinforcing: it starts to become more probable that you agree with the admin because statistically, you were more likely to do that and be right in the first place—in cases where there might be an argument against, why bring it up? It's probably wrong or irrelevant; you might even hurt your relationship with your peers. By agreeing with the most likely outcome, you reinforce the belief that admins make correct judgements, which is good. The administrator is probably right because they have the experience.

None of this is consciously reasoned out like that, of course. Unless they're really doing it to make some point, people will not literally say: "well, regardless of the merits of the case, I'm just going to go with X here because he's X". But neither can I bring myself to believing this never plays a significant role. "Me, too" can be much more damaging than it appears at first sight. JRM · Talk 19:15, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

But this assumes that we know who's an admin. I would submit that this has nothing to do with admins, per se. It has to do with having experience working with particular users and having some sense of when to trust them. Since most users who have been here a long time will ultimately become admins, this often becomes trusting admins. But it has nothing to do with trusting people because they're admins. It has to do with trusting people because they have proved trustworthy in the past. Beyond that, I think you're imaginging situations that don't actually occur. Obviously, none of us gets involved with more than a small percentage of the edit disputes going on at any given time. Usually this is because we don't know much about the subject, or don't notice it, or whatever. But when we do get involved, I see no reason to believe that anyone's views are influenced by the idea that the admin involved in the dispute is probably right, so we should agree with them. john k 19:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You could be right. Since my original point is too ill-defined to defend by logic, I'm going to have to abandon it. JRM · Talk 19:32, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Specific policy violations

I don't supposed that anyone noticed that I blocked someone already. Does that mean that no one, including geni, thought the 3-hour block was in error? I created this page to make such blocks more transparent, but everyone's focussing on the thickness of the window and the shape and color of the smudges on it. What about looking through it?

Does anyone think the suspension was too long? unjustified? That the user was "really trying to help the project", or what? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds more like you're asking us whether you were right in wiping a particular spot on the window... If you just wanted to get feedback on the decision, you should have (cross?)-posted to WP:AN/I. Of course people are going to pay more attention to creating a new outlet for discussing decisions than the decision that happened to kick it off.

However, let me give some honest, specific feedback then: your block was probably pointless and ineffectual. Blocking a user for being an argumentative weenie will only reinforce their belief that "teh admins" are out to get them. A three-hour block is supposed to benefit the encyclopedia? It's just going to show the "newby" that we know how to spank people who are cheeky, so he'd better behave. If he comes back, he'll just know that one Ed Poor is a bad uncle, and the other admins are probably not to be trusted either. So now he's an argumentative weenie with a grudge. Were you "wrong" in issuing the block? Meh, I don't really care; I'm a vile utilitarian in this regard, and think judging it by its effectiveness is more useful. It's too early to call the shot on that, though.

A valuable footnote to the above is that I'm what some people like to call a "newbie admin", that is, one who has not yet fully reveled in his abilities to block evildoers. I've blocked a few egregious vandals, but I haven't tackled any grey zone stuff, and I'm not planning to either. I'm insanely patient; as long as I can revert, protect and calmly argue, I'll do that before I'll even consider a block. Again, I'm not interested in the moral high ground on admin behaviour; I'm only doing what I think is most constructive. Other admins will do the same, and do things differently; we hardly if ever compare results, to my knowledge. JRM · Talk 03:53, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

or it means that people were not online or that they had other things to do. how many admins do you think bothered to investigate the case if it breaks ten I will be suprised.Geni 12:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quorum for admin actions

At the risk of butting in, it seems to me that what this page is about is that some admin actions are uncontroversial and the relevant admin just goes ahead and does them, but others are more controversial and the admin in question might or might not take the action, and then solicits either retrospective or prospective second opinions respectively from other admins. WP:AN/I has, in practice, been serving this purpose for a while.

One way to formalize this practice as a policy would be to have a (possibly admin-only) page where admins report on controversial situations and state clearly either what action was taken, or what action is proposed. Other admins then list "votes" that agree or disagree with the (proposed) action. If the action is proposed, then if and when the net number of admins agreeing is N, then the last admin actually takes the action. If the action was taken already, and a net N admins disagree, the last will reverse it. N should be small, say 2–4.

This procedure would be lightweight enough that it would reach decisions quickly. It has the advantage that the action will often be taken by an uninvolved admin. It also means that actions reflect a rough admin consensus (and corporate responsibility), and may serve to avoid block wars. I think that part of the concern over recent anti-admin trolls is that admins can feel very alone when exercising their powers.

Note that this procedure does not, strictly speaking, require consensus to implement. Any number of admins can simply volunteer to be bound by it. Think of it as a harmonious administration club. Bovlb 03:52, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Ennobling the adminship

Are we just going to dispense with the arbcom now? Now that Ed has made admins into little Judge Dredds, who ban users on their own say-so? Now he can ban them for whatever he pleases, so long as he can get a couple of activist admins to agree that he was right to do so?

And he plans to do it on a protected page, denying his actions the scrutiny of ordinary editors. Since when did adminship move from being "no big deal" to representing an imperium?

And people get angry with Eequor for saying there's a cabal! Grace Note 03:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are a few points I feel that must be addressed regardless of the merits of this particular idea:

1. Admins already hand out blocks like little Judge Dredds. In fact, people more or less expect them to. Yes, of course they still need to have a good reason, but they're generally assumed to have a good reason. Sometimes people will contend they don't. Admins are expected to make lots more good calls than bad calls, however.
2. Banning is not the same thing as blocking. To my knowledge, there are no proposals on the table that advocate giving admins the right to prevent an individual from editing, indefinitely, without going through the ArbCom. Accounts may be disabled, though, if they use patently offensive names and/or engage in automated vandalism of Wikipedia (the "Unpardonable Sins"), but these are highly specific circumstances.
3. A protected page is still subject to scrutiny by anyone who cares to scrutinize it. In-line discussion by non-admins is made harder, though. There are obvious pros and cons to that, just as there are obvious pros and cons to separating article pages from talk pages.

If you think this is "ennobling the adminship" and a departure from the status quo, I have bad news for you: we're already there. Start organizing the Rebel Alliance. JRM · Talk 04:07, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Please unlock this page.

I never saw the need to lock WP:AN, we have never locked WP:FA (editors other than Raul are actively discouraged from editing that page) and our whole philosophy works on openness. Our edit history will show vandalism. I have no issue with locking the page to stop page moves, but please, unlock this page to show that we are an open community! I mean this as no offense to Ed (I know he means well, and I know what he's trying to achieve), but we must practice what we preach. Grace Note has made a good point, and though is a controversial figure, we should be listening.

If the page needs locking because of vandalism, do it. But don't permanently lock it! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very much agree. Post a notice requesting that admins only edit this, but adminship is not an editing privilege. -- Netoholic @ 05:25, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

If there's going to be discussion as well as just a block log here, I don't see the reason for that either really. --W(t) 05:34, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Regardless of the relative merits of keeping it protected, people just aren't going to stand for it. Thinking of "ennobling admins": noblesse oblige. JRM · Talk 05:39, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to have this page, much less to have it protected. We are discussing problematic blocks on WP:AN/I. dab (ᛏ) 07:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this is more like a problematic block log, where discussion is not made and merely flags that the block could be a problem. Regretably, because it is locked I am unable to clarify the text of the page. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with dab: this page is pointless really, and protecting it only serves to reinforce an idea that admins are getting above themselves. In addition, there is a danger that it will encourage admins to enter into controversial blocking without bothering with the troublesome work of using other, less confrontational, problem-solving methods. As I have said elsewhere, fighting fire with fire just burns the whole place down. This page may well become just another can of petrol. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Concur with dab and Filiocht. Furthermore, iff there is a need for a page of the type that TBSDY describes, then it should be named less generically.&mdas;Theo (Talk) 09:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are 490 admins - okay, maybe only 100 active. If any admin discovers that another has gotten above themselves, they can undo (a) page lock, (b) page deletion, (c) user suspension.

And that will be the end of it, because if the 1st admin "fights" with the second one then it's probably not clear cut and it goes to one of our many other excellent pages for policy clarification. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 10:55, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

That is, of course, likely to happen. However, my point was that the page will tend to "reinforce an idea that admins are getting above themselves", and the perception will not go away just because an other admin steps in to undo the specific instance of damage. Indeed, the perception will possibly not go away even if no damage is done at all. To play devil's advocate and put it crudely, it would be possible to read this page as "the cabal have created a place where they can boast of their high-handed actions while denying the victims the right to respond". Of course this would be a gross misrepresentation of your intention, but then, what is your intention?

What I'm missing is a clear explanation of why the page is needed (what will it do that does not already have a forum?), how this explanation of function would relate to the page name, and of why the need for protection. It is the lack of clarity around these three questions that leads me to question the need for the existance of this page. How can we be asked to try something out when we have no idea what that thing is or what it is for? Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:19, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Role of admins

an idea that admins are getting above themselves

Please list (or summarizes) instances in which admins are geting above themselves, acting irresponsibly, running roughshod over other users, etc. I'd like to know.

This is not a rhetorical question, I'm not using it to make a point. I'm shifting the topic and trying to address your concern. If admins aren't doing their job and this page empowers them to do even more bad things, then I'll delete it. I didn't start the page to make things worse.

cabal and victims

I just care about building a good encyclopedia. Anyone who wants to help me is welcome here, as far as I'm concerned. I guess this sounds elitist. Well, not everyone is cut out to be an encyclopedia writer or editor.

You have to believe in the mission, and you have to accept the methods. Thi mission is to create a neutral encyclopedia, so let's make sure all POVs are fairly described in that 0.3% subset of controversial articles. And the method is to discuss changes politely, so let's all "[[Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks" (q.v.).

Those who can't or won't do that should not be tolerated. I mean, would you want to work on a project which others were tryingto sabotage? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 12:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, I did not say that admins were acting out of order, I said that that perception exists and needs to be addressed. With all due respect, you have failed to address the question, "what is this page for". Nor can I see any personal attacks in what I wrote above. Finally, I believe my record shows that I do my bit to produce a quality encyclopaedia; on that matter, you're barking at the wrong boy. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:39, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I trust admins, as they've been openly voted into their position by the community. There's also enough of them that if one does make a mistake, there's plenty more to sort the situation out. So I trust admins to take appropiate action against those who just want to disrupt the place, and also those who just can't accept our (community-determined) policies. Dan100 (Talk) 12:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

we already have the power to block for dissruption. If you are unsure of your descision then you should consult with the comunity.Geni 12:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The page is not for "unsure" cases. Better do nothing then, I'd say. It's for reporting to the community. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

This is how I am viewing this page: a clear endorsement for using small blocks for problematic users (a "slap on the wrist"). It's also more open - block logs are filled with lots of different blocks for myriad reasons; this place can clearly highlight policy breaches and the consequences. It is also a deterrent - a clear display of what will happen if you break the rules. This is good. I think keeping people on the task of writing an encyclopaedia within our rules is more important than slightly nebulous concepts such as "perception". Dan100 (Talk) 12:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

What is this page for?

Wikipedia:Policy enforcement is a place for admins to record and discuss actions taken to enforce Wikipedia policy. The page has an associated "talk" page, where ALL Wikipedians can comment on and extend the discussion.

And it is currently unprotected! Admins will protect it only if comments, etc. interfere. Obviously changes like Ta Bu is trying to make, refining the policy statement, etc., are fine. But those "posting" on it, gaming the system won't be allowed there.

The separation into admin-only and free-for-all is to facilitate inter-admin communication in a transparent and public way. Not everyone has IRC, and private email or instant messaging excludes others in a way that prompts strong and persistent feelings of being left out. One user described it nobles meting at punishment to serfs as they see fit. [22] -- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected, and with the stated aim of replacing discussion on IRC/Mailing lists, I am more than happy to support a trial of this page. Thanks for the clarifications, Ed. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry that I wasn't more forthcoming. The idea did not spring out of my head fully-formed like Venus at the foamy seashore. Everyone here has been helping. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Given that clarification, would the page be better named "Policy enforcement log" or "Policy enforcement oversight" to mitigate any assumptions of bad faith?—Theo (Talk) 14:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the log suggestion is good; the name should reflect the function. Filiocht | Talk 14:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm dipping in a little late here, but I don't see how this page is that much different from WP:AN/I if it were unprotected. If people want to unprotect it (after the proposal period, I mean), we might as well retire the page and use AN/I instead. --Deathphoenix 28 June 2005 13:12 (UTC)

Just in case you hadn't noticed, the page is currently "unprotected". You can check the protection log to see how long ago that was - but I think it was a day or 2 after original page creation. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 28, 2005 21:37 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's okay to unprotect it while the page is still under proposal. My comments are regarding the "production version" of the page. --Deathphoenix 29 June 2005 13:39 (UTC)

Admin oversight

From above:

Admins already hand out blocks like little Judge Dredds.

I don't know who Judge Dredd is, but that sounds like an abuse. Are these actions being recorded or justified anywhere, other than in the sea of "block log" and "blocked users"? Where are the diffs? How can others comment? What's the review process?

I fear that some admins are actively working against Wikipedia policy, and as an admin myself I feel the need to investigate this. It's way too much trouble, without some transparency.

What if admins start automatically reversing any block that has even a hint of arbitrariness, and record (a) the initial block and (b) the peremptoriy reversal at p.e.?

Example

02:50, Jun 23, 2005 Ugen64 blocked "User:Yuber" 
with an expiry time of 24 hours (violating arbcom 
injunction, 2 warnings given)

I haven't even looked at this yet. How can I check up on this? Not that I'm doubting Ugen, I've never even heard of him.

But what if I want to learn from his good example? Or what if I worry that he's setting a bad example?

What if I want to know what the arbcom injunction is, so that I won't get a similar one? Etc. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:35, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

ask on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration or make sure you are online on wikipedia 24/7/52. unless of course you are prepared to accpt that things will happen that you are unable to keep track of.Geni 23:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks for fixing the links, Slim. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Edit Wars

This page is for blocks other than for 3RR and simple vandalism.

Shouldn't even 3RR blocks be open (public, transparent, discussable)? Sometimes those a pretty close calls. The mailing list is full of arguments. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Err they are see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRGeni 02:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Review of blocks

I've never seen this page before, but all of the sudden a perfectly valid block of the pelican shit vandal was removed by Ed Poor and I was chastized and given a link to this page. Is this Ed's area for watching over administrator actions and removing them without asking what the block was about or doing a little bit of digging first? If so, it should be in his user space. As it is, this page is redundant with other areas of Wikipedia. CryptoDerk 21:16, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

No need to be rude about it. I appreciate your diligence, but:

• your block comment did not give me enough information
• I was not chastizing you
• Admins are generally trusted, sure, but is a review process completely out of line?

if it involves pulling a block for no good reason yes.Geni 02:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Um, at the risk of sounding silly: can we agree that CryptoDerk might have explicitly mentioned he was blocking a pelican shit incarnation, but Ed might have, you know, asked CryptoDerk about the block before simply undoing it? I'm not convinced by the argument that bad contentious blocks should be undone as soon as possible to avoid hurting a user, because a contentious block can go either way, and if it's right undoing it is going to hurt Wikipedia. (I shudder at the thought of someone unblocking Willy on Wheels because they don't see rightaway what's going on.) If you want you can keep blocked users informed on their talk pages that you're looking into matters, but just retracting blocks left and right is a little too bold. The user base is not an article; Wikipedia:Be bold doesn't apply here, neither for blocking nor unblocking. JRM · Talk 06:54, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Update: I just saw in the block log that Derk did mention he was blocking a PS incarnation. What do we need? A separate page for the PS we can link to just as we have one for Willy? Do we then have to require that admins link to it? JRM · Talk 06:55, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

A simple "do not lift blocks before discussing it with the blocking admin" rule is in order, I think. Filiocht | Talk 07:53, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

When I reblocked I did mention it was the pelican shit guy. I didn't when I blocked the first time. When I block someone who is in the process of vandalizing, I typically don't bother with a long explanation, I just go with the typical "vandal" as it's faster. In any case where someone is blocked, just by looking at the edit history you cannot, in general, tell what that person did. They may have created a bunch of nonsense pages that have since been deleted. In the case of Willy on Wheels vandalism, after all the pages are moved back and the redirects are deleted, it would look like that person never did anything at all. As such, a block set by one admin should be removed by a different admin if 1) the blocked person has discussed it with another admin, the mailing list, etc. or 2) a discussion with the blocking admin occurs. I doubt the pelican shit guy sent a bunch of emails telling you to unblock him. Good faith dictates that you should presume that I set the block for a good reason. I'm all for a system that reviews admin actions, but reviewing and acting are two different things. CryptoDerk 18:38, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well put. Please accept my apologies. And perhaps what you said should be made a policy (see Wikipedia:unblocking). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:39, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Since it sounds like common sense to contact the blocker before unblocking, I've added that to WP:BP (not as anything mandatory, but as something to consider). Feel free to reword etc. Radiant_>|< 22:33, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not known for my common sense. I'm more a "person who can see through a stone wall in time". This whole page is an experiment in openness and transparency. I wish I hadn't started it off locked. No one has vandalized it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:19, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Layout

Would anyone object if every "case" had its own subsection? The way it's done currently (with '#') is kinda hard to edit, since you cannot even add whitespace between each "case", resulting in a large block of text, full of wiki markup (diff links, complex signatures, template calls, etc). --cesarb 00:29, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:00, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Subpages / FAQ

Cesar, thanks for the re-format with headers. I've gone ahead and moved post-block discussion to subpages. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 28, 2005 21:27 (UTC)

Ta Bu, you were right about admin wars:

• Can I have have fun and start a "suspension war"? (No. That would be gaming the system.)
  • Please note that Wikipedia:Gaming the system is not (yet) an official policy of Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:04, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...so I took out the reference to the Wikipedia:gaming the system guideline. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 28, 2005 21:27 (UTC)

Actually, I've removed it completely. Admins should not be able to have fun at the expense of other regular editors. While it may have had some humour value, we must be careful of presenting a view to editors who are not admins that we don't take blocking seriously. Yes, it may seem like I'm humour impaired today, but when it comes to stuff like this it would be best if we remained on best behaviour. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 02:03 (UTC)

Justification for blocks

In a deeply nested comment above, JRM wrote:

I just saw in the block log that Derk did mention he was blocking a PS incarnation. What do we need? A separate page for the PS we can link to just as we have one for Willy? Do we then have to require that admins link to it? JRM · Talk 06:55, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

My original idea for creating this page is to have a place to discuss policy enforcement before and/or after it takes place. Sometimes what seems obvious to one is unclear to others. Somtimes what one thinks is obviously right may turn out to be his own particular conception.

I'm hoping we can refine our methods and maybe even contribute to the development of wise and effective policy here.

And how does everyone feel about using subpages for extended discussion of the rightness or wrongness of administrative actions? I made two subpages already and moved some discussion there. Will it be too hidden way down there, or what? -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 28, 2005 21:34 (UTC)

Use of this page

I seem to be the primary admin using this log page. It hasn't really caught on yet. I hope it does. I think if policy enforcement is made more clear - and if it's not sabotaged by complaints by policy subverters claiming their "rights" are being violated - we will get a number of related results:

• more confidence in the admins
• less tension between "sysops" and "ordinary users"
• less trouble with policy subversion
• better understanding of policy

Clear and swift policy enforcement ultimately means LESS time wasted on "policy issues" and more time spent on the articles. (If we want to debate a policy, we can go directly to that policy page and lobby for a change, instead of turning every goldarn policy-enforcement occasion into a Supreme Court case.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 20:32 (UTC)

I hope other admins will make use of this too. It's a very useful tool. Dan100 (Talk) July 2, 2005 17:06 (UTC)

I've just put up a report about User:Cognition, a LaRouche activist/supporter, who's been blocked for disruption. I put it here as it fits the definition of "controversial blocks." However, I wasn't sure whether to include just a log of the block, or a full report, so I've done the latter, but if that was the wrong thing to do, feel free to delete it/shorten it. I've also reported it at WP:AN/I, or else Cognition will doubtless accuse me of trying to hide it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 3, 2005 10:40 (UTC)

I've tried to make it useful, and no one has vfd'ed it. I even made Template:Userblock as a shortcut. It's like template:user but it shows all their blocks, too. Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 16:07 (UTC)

Part of the reason for not updating is that I thought this page was not for uncontroversial blocks (i.e. 3RR, Vandalism), only when there's a need to explain why the block was imposed to begin with. --khaosworks 22:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• This page feels redundant with WP:AN/I. Then again the latter is overcrowded anyway so a split may be useful. Radiant_>|< 08:28, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Page redesign

Can we try transclusion here? As at Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship. --Uncle Ed 17:20, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Question about sock puppets

There's an editor who has been making widespread use of sock puppets as part of an edit war. What is the normal procedure for handling this kind of situation? I posted a note on David Gerard's page, but haven't recieved a response there. The policy page wikipedia:sock puppet does not give a clear blueprint to follow. Thanks, -Willmcw 00:32, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone actually use this?

This page seems mostly redundant with WP:ANI. With six edits in the past month, it appears mostly unused. Any plans for this page? If so I propose a move to Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Account suspensions. If not, I propose {{historical}} and/or merging with ANI. Radiant_>|< 00:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Based on the number of responses you've recieved, I'd say go for the historical. I'd recommend first posting on WP:AN about it, though. Blackcap (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that this is the very first page listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list (because of the alphabet, but still). If the page isn't in use, the reading list should be clarified for the benefit of new or candidate admins. Chick Bowen 15:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I still use it, and would like to continue doing so. The size of AN/ANI is one factor, esp. when it comes to multiple entries. El_C 20:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I say suspend it. I've never so much as heard of this besides the reading list before. --maru (talk) contribs 21:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Nah, you don't want to do that. It will look awkward for me to be adding entries to an inactive page, which I will! El_C 23:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the page is useful, as AN and AN/I get clogged. Obvioulsy it has fallen into a backwater, but that can be fixed by adding the link the the list of related pages at the top of the AN and AN/I pages. Moving it to a new name, as User:Radiant! suggests, isn't a bad idea either. -Will Beback 23:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism

FTR When I wrote that Hounen Matsuri translated as Penis Day I was doing nothing wrong and didn't deserve to be blocked. 132.241.246.111 06:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. Perhaps the reason for you being blocked was that the administrator in question did not have enough information on the subject. The term Penis Day is usually viewed as a sexual vandal joke. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Tagged as historical

I've decided to be bold and tag this page as historical, seeing as how no one has added a single new user in four months. If people are actually going to use this, they can go ahead and remove it, but seeing as how it's not well watched or used, and is largely replaced by WP:ANI, I don't think there's much of a point. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 22:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrectedly used hyphen(s)

This project page has one or more incorrectly used hyphens, which editors can find by searching on the page for "ly-".
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens, sub-subsection 3, point 4. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)