Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archived discussion

Hi there. A discussion I created here was archived and hadn't properly been sorted out or discussed. Can I copy and paste the discussion back onto the page? How do I go about re-iniciating the discussion? Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

What I tend to do is to start a new discussion with a link to the previous, archived one. Giant Snowman 17:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

That is also the advice I have been given, and have followed with good results. Some copy and paste can be helpful, but the main thing is the link to the archived discussion.

On the other hand, at AN/I requests sometimes fall through the cracks and are auto-archived with no admin attention whatsoever (sometimes with no participation at all, other times with consensus from non-admins but no resulting admin action or even comment). I'm not sure what to do in that situation. Perhaps forum shopping should be allowed in such circumstances? Currently that would be seen as disruptive. But reopening such requests at AN/I seems rather pointless. Andrewa (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Other closures

The edit notice on the project page currently reads in part If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you. {my emphasis)

However wp:closing#Challenging other closures reads in part If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard. (my emphasis again) This was confirmed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Request to re-open RfC, and (implicitly) by subsequent consensus at wp:AN to overturn the RfC close in question. So thanks to all those who participated at both AN and AN/I, we got there.

But it would have been resolved far more quickly had I not been misled by the edit notice (and yes, possibly had I been more familiar with wp:closing). Surely, requesting a reopen of an RfC or other discussion after attempting to discuss with the closer is both a specific problem and a dispute?

Can we reword the edit notice to make it a bit clearer? I have at this stage no specific suggestion. But it should be consistent with wp:closing#Challenging other closures, and currently it doesn't seem to be. Andrewa (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks to the people who do good work on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I've had it on my watchlist for just a few days and I can hardly stand the negativity and complicated duplicity. Keep up the good work and know that you are appreciated. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit request to protect resource.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add this report to ANI list, it is semi protected and I cannot add it myself. (originally at WP:AIV but I'm told that that is the wrong place.)

<start>

User editing against consensus and refusing to follow the MOS.

ZH8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated vandalism/disruption against consensus established at a talk page here, where consensus was unanimous (except for ZH8000). Also against the manual of style (MOS:GEOUNITS). Edits [[1], [2], [3] and [4]. In each case quoting an internal Swiss style guide for writers in Switzerland (which was rejected in original consensus), as though it over-rules Wikipedia WP:MOS, and also repeated unfounded aspersions on motive. - 148.252.128.196 (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

<end>

Done Wug·a·po·des 18:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

AN v ANI

Hi all! Do we have a list somewhere that lists all the possible topics that are more appropriate for AN than ANI and vice versa? Thanks! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 17:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong noticeboard, you'll want to take this to AN/I </humor> ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if you're looking to get someone blocked, banned, etc. ANI is the place to go. If you just need admins to help out with some banal task (clearing a backlog, etc.), then AN is the correct venue. --Jayron 32 17:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Jayron32, so, at least a few of the posts at ANI might have been better suited for AN and vice versa, but we don't make a fuss about it because NOTBURO and/or the community has never thought it important enough to merit a strict lineation? (Or perhaps ANI was created to keep AN from flooding with topics that may not be of interest to all admins, and that's why it's a subpage... Hmm...) Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 17:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Basically. Sometimes people will move a discussion if it is in the wrong venue, but it's not a huge deal. ANI was spun out to keep the "lets let people bitch at each other until they shout themselves out before dealing with them" discussions from the "Hey, there's a bunch of RFPP requests going stale, can someone get on that" stuff. --Jayron 32 19:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
As Jayron32 clarified, this is exactly why the "bitching" topics are swiftly moved to ANI so that it doesn't fill up AN. ANI is frequented by non admins, but topics on AN generally need the help of someone with the admin bits, Non admins comments on AN are less frequent, unless it is a discussion on some kind of proposal. So this understanding generally helps to decide the appropriate venue. DBig Xrayᗙ 21:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
One of the notable (in the normal sense) divisions is that though block requests go on ANI, appeal requests go AN Nosebagbear (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 November 2019

This edit request to WP:AN, WT:AN and WP:AN/I has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace WP:AN with the following:

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]]
{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from shortcut}}
{{R to project namespace}}
}}

Further, please consider replacing WT:AN with the following:

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard]]
{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from shortcut}}
{{R from remote page}}
}}

Finally, please replace WP:AN/I with:

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]]
{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from shortcut}}
{{R to project namespace}}
}}

This will allow for the redirects to be placed in the correct rcats. Thank you for your consideration. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Done Primefac (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2019

This edit request to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have no proposed change to the page. I would ask that the closure of the Hayley McLaughlin AfD discussion be opened here, as an adminstrative discussion, as I cannot do this as a non-logging editor. If a registered editor or administrator will kindly do so, and post the matter to the page of the editor that deleted the page, I can enter the discussion. The issues prompting the request are the fact that the matter was closed too quickly (given the run up to the U.S. and European holidays), and that in the course of that discussion, there was considerable and unnecessary animus (in violation of AGF and other WP principles, policies, and guildelines) against non-logging editing, as allowed since the founding of WP, and further unwarranted accusation of POV editing despite tremendous evidence to the contrary. The closure of the discussion, given the holiday, left the behaviour of the 1 or 2 offending editors unattended, and denied other editors (not working daily because of the holiday) a say in the final disposition of this article. Please, someone open this, so that fairness can return as a hallmark of this decision. Cheers, will look to the closing editor's Talk page to see if this is done. 2601:246:C700:9B0:ACE8:FBE5:9149:3FE6 (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC) 2601:246:C700:9B0:ACE8:FBE5:9149:3FE6 (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Not done. No administrative action is needed related to closure of the AfD. If you dispute the closure, your first step should be discusssion with the closing admin. If you still feel there was a problem with the closure, then WP:Deletion review is your destination. —C.Fred (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Wot FRED sed.-- Deep fried okra 03:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Would it be presumptuous to request an explanation?

"Xeno has elected not to receive administrator permissions."

I nominate Xeno for admin. <-- does this require the clerks to add the RFA? EllenCT (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This thread Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Resysop request (Xeno) would seem to contradict the above post. MarnetteD|Talk 03:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for any confusion, I’m back in the saddle again. –xeno^talk 04:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno, it's the ability to read deleted/suppressed content when researching new RFARs you need imho. EllenCT (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

2019 Ayia Napa rape allegation case

Not sure where to ask anymore. Does this subject not have an article, or am I missing it? Feel free to start deletion proceedings if you want. I don't want to do a ton of work if this subject is already covered, so I'm asking here. I haven't used wiki much for 10 years, so it's hard for me to find active pages to ask questions. So here I am. Probably breaking a bunch of guidelines and policies! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher This page is for discussing the operation of the Administrator's noticeboard. You can try the Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Youth Defence page

Hi there,

An editor named Bastun is ensuring that this page is loaded, biased and incomplete. Is this acceptable in Wikipedia?

For example, he is referencing the National Library of Ireland to back up a claim that Youth Defence have 'neo nazi' links - but the claim was removed from the NLI's website almost immediately and Bastun had to rely on the wayback machine to find it. This is not fair or neutral reporting of events, and breaches Wiki standards.

One member of Youth Defence - the PRO - attended an event in Germany, that does not mean the whole organisation has 'neo-nazi' links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaelach2019 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Gaelach2019 This page is for discussing the operation of the administrator's noticeboard. You should post this to the main board, or to WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Continued Harassment by user:NormanGear

user:NormanGear is engaged in continuous harassment. Systematic reversal of my sourced, relevant materials on page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaniards claiming repetition. I have been editing on Wikipedia for several years and thus far, never encountered such antagonistic conduct. Melroross (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Harrassment/personal attack conduct by

Harassment, belligerant and disruptive continued conduct by user:NormanGear

This user has been engaging on harassment and continued disruptive conduct to my edits, namely on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaniards and previously also on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_people. Has invoked “repetition” to justify their systematic reversals of my verifiable, relevant inputs. Previous “talk” pages resulted in confrontation. Ow this user simply attacks my edits. This is highly invasive and frustrating. Melroross (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Melroross, this is the talk page for the administrator noticeboards. Behavior issues should be reported at WP:ANI, but you should attempt to resolve them with the other editor first. You'll also need to provide specific evidence of policy violations (in the form of DIFFs) in your report. John from Idegon (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Bias and Aggressive User

Hi,

I would like complain about user: HistoryofIran. I several time tried to sustain healthy conversation with him/her but, unfortunately facet with attacks to my competency which I do believe that is not right. Also there are other several users work together, to create fake illusion that I am vandalizing pages or I use long statements to deceive reader. I need discussion to be opened as this user reverts all my edits and rejects to get involved to discussion.

Sincerely,

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirhasanov (talk • contribs) 22:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

New reports go on the main project page, not its talk page. Also, please sign your comments. El_C 22:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for note mate ! Sorry.

Mirhasanov (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Page appears...active.

Something is causing the ANI page to radidly shift a few lines back and forth for me right now. Damned near unreadable. Qwirkle (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Stopped since I posted this above. Can’t see a cause for it or the end of it. Qwirkle (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It's probably your browser's HTML renderer freaking out due to the abundance of useless and in some places flat-out broken formatting that some individuals are placing on the page right now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

A wikipedia user who have sent request for deletion whitout eny real evidence for reason of deletion. possibal vandalism

Link it counts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_3#Template:National_Bolshevism_sidebar what it is about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:National_Bolshevism_sidebar user who requested that it would be deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frietjes __________________________________________________________________________________________ Unless that it meets as i dont see it does the requierments for deletion according to wikipedia rules as people use templates like this for numoures reasons as off further easy acceses to national bolshevik organisations. / or concepts of national bolshevisme. i woud rather appricate it if a admin looked further into this request and possibly give the user a warning if it is counted as vandalism and a invalid request for deletion.

4 reasons for me making this artical

1. im currently studying the main national bolshevik organisations of the world for an article on national bolshevism. 2. im often visiting national bolshevism to read about the people who are supposedly part founders of it. 3. I am also currently investigating into some of the subtitels of national bolshevism such as strasser brothers links to the founding of the idea. and the russian guys who are writing further on it. 4. i would find it really inaccurate to remove a template just cause a user doesn't seem a reason for its existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.221.118.59 (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the operation of the Administrator's Noticeboard only. Please make your comment on the main Noticeboard page. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is a link to the noticeboard you want, 92.221.118.59. Bishonen | talk 17:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC).

Response to accusations

This edit request to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please post the following to WP:ANI#User 199.66.69.88 accusing multiple people as disruptive on my behalf, including my signature as rendered in the following block quote:

I stand by my statements that the individuals at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak are engaged in disruption. I specifically request a WP:BOOMERANG for xinbenlv (who opened this thread without notifying me of the discussion, as required), who took it upon himself to falsely tag my posts with a disclaimer that I had only ever participated in discussions regarding the Wuhan coronavirus. As a cursory review of my contributions will show, this is entirely false. I am growing very concerned with xinbenlv's behavior in these discussions and elsewhere, including a blatant anti-anonymous editor animus.
I further request that reviewing administrators consider the behavior of Regice2020, who has called for unregistered editors to be excluded from future requested move discussions in a transparent attempt to exclude me from such discussions. This same person has, without a shred of evidence, accused me of sockpuppetry on this very page! (Knowing the existence of ANI is not suspicious in the least. And calling anything I've done "disruptive" is ridiculous.
Sleath56's behavior is concerning as well. Not knowing the difference between an accusation of "disruption" and one of "vandalism" and coming to this board insisting some intervention be made is bordering on WP:CIR territory.
Other participants at the talk page have indeed been disruptive, though I have always assumed good faith (as has been evidenced by the tone and tenor of their participation) that their disruption was the result of a failure to understand the nature of the community process rather than a deliberate attempt to bludgeon a pro-PRC perspective.
All that said, I believe it may soon be time to seek general sanctions for the entire Wuhan coronavirus topic area. The individuals involved in bludgeoning requested moves and endlessly starting new threads in what very much looks like a WP:FILLIBUSTER have not shown any sign of slowing down despite the timely, patient intervention of multiple experienced editors. This race to ANI is a sign that the efforts to contain the dispute thus far have failed. Please step in and provide some assistance. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you in advance. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Done aboideau^talk 16:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Another one for WP:ANI#User 199.66.69.88 accusing multiple people as disruptive:

I see no need to address spurious accusations on the terms of such an accuser. By what right should any of you control the direction of this discussion?
Perhaps you find it amusing that I've leveled complaints at the other participants to this thread, but the most basic look at those participants will show that everyone who has participated in this thread (with one exception, against whom I naturally have no complaint) has been a participant in the discussions at the talk page (and specifically those who have so desperately demanded a pagemove). Nobody has had a chance to participate, and as has been the modus operandi of the talk page since the "no consensus" RM, it has been filibustered by those in favor of a pagemove. None of you has given a chance to any ANI participant—administrator or otherwise—to really review this case, which in my experience is par for the course.
At its core, this is a content dispute that those who have brought this complaint seek to cast as a behavioral dispute. Those experienced in ANI dealings will recognize this as a very common stratagem. I urge you to look beyond the claims made above by xinbenlv, Regice2020, and Sleath56, who have not provided a single diff of the claimed misconduct on my part on the talk page. Look at the diffs I've provided. Thank you. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks in advance to whomever crossposts this! 199.66.69.88 (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Done xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 00:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

If there's lots of edit warring on an article, dont you take that to ANI?

Could be wrong. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Lots of IP users?

Don't get be wrong because I love our IP-using comrades; Spectrum and the others do amazing work. I just noticed AN/I has recently has had a lot IP users posting there. B0b and Spectrum have been extremely helpful contributors, and 199.66 seems to have found their way around.
I just want to know if anyone else has seen this as a trend like I have or is it just all in my head? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I have seen this. I think their contributions are helpful although I don't know why they are using IP addresses when they can create accounts. Maybe because their accounts were blocked?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: B0b does it for ideological reasons and has for a while now. As for Spectrum, they aren't really single user instead a group of people who use the same set of public computers. I'm not sure why 199.66 doesn't register an account, but most people seem to agree their actions indicate they're a newbie. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Dunno if it’s a trend myself. @SharabSalam: I can assure you I’m not block evading, sanction evading, trying to evade scrutiny, or otherwise violating policy. Don’t worry, I’ll probably be gone in a week or so. That ANI thread against me just dragged me back into the “ANI regular” habit. I’m not intending on staying around long enough to need an account. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@199.66: Why are you leaving?

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Real life, etc. I'm just not looking to stick around. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IPs are human too. OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Brings a new meaning to that essay.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you create a category called 'Category: Wikipedia sockpuppets of Redrose99' please?

(non-admin closure) OP sock-blocked. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Redrose99 is a sockpuppeteer, I expressed a concern about it this afternoon at school. 86.154.221.201 (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Redrose99 is a sock of Northernrailwaysfan, so any related socks would be in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Northernrailwaysfan. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that 86.154.221.201 is also a sock of Northernrailwaysfan. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64, it would be really weird for the editor to be acting against themselves like that ("revoking" one of their socks' talk page access), but the behavior certainly looks like Northernrailwaysfan behavior to me and is strangely obsessed with their socks, so I think you're right. Fire away. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Standardize ANI thread headers?

Why aren't ANI thread headers standardized like ANEW? Seems like the headers are the "wild west" where anything goes. We get headers like "#That asshole Levivich is at it again" and it just sets a particularly negative tone for the whole thread. Or, streissandy headers like "#Someone called Levivich an asshole" which make matters worse from any objective standpoint. Even a header that's just a username can give a false impression. And these "bad headers" carry on into the archives and get linked later. So, I'm suggesting restricting editors' choices when it comes to naming new threads, because often editors are angry and make poor choices for thread names. Maybe something like "[Editor reported] by [reporting editor]" or "[Page name]", something that will be useful to ANI patrollers and that will ensure neutrality and accurate descriptiveness. Just an idea. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: I see the point. "[Editor reported] by [reporting editor]" seems like it would work best and would match the ANEW board, minus the "result" part. I would extend that to AN as well. Amaury • 23:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

A template to subst could also help with page links, userlinks.. and maybe prompt the filer to list diffs, and include a "short" description of the problem. Basically more like ANEW all around. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Because situations are complex so descriptive headers are useful. Headers also tell people which threads they want to ignore. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Perhaps this could be solved with pre-loaded templates for the common reasons for reports. CIR issues by X, personal attacks by X, etc. Anything that doesn't fit any of those, the filer would just choose a standard "X reported by Y." Amaury • 00:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I support "X reported by Y".-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Not really. As an example, I ignore anything involving ethnic/nationalist conflicts. I recommend everyone ignore those as their life on Wikipedia will be much happier. X reported by Y for personal attacks doesn’t let me know it’s in Kosovo (random country with such a history) and I want to ignore those.

I’ll also add that I really don’t see this as much of an issue except for the crowd that frequents ANI more than they should. People like to complain about unfairness, but it’s stuff like this that makes the process more opaque for anyone but regulars to these boards. A simple thread started like any other thread and not requiring the use of Twinkle serves its purpose, and all mandating a format will do is push people to AN where descriptive titles will always be allowed, and I’d much prefer to keep the worst drama at ANI rather than AN. The positives here are minimal and in the minds of denizens of these boards. The negatives to people who are there rarely outweigh them in my opinion.

Tl;dr: WP:NOTBURO helps those of us who just want to quickly get attention or see what needs our attention. Nothing is broken, let’s not try to fix it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with TonyBallioni. Standardized headers work for ANEW because it deals with a very specific issue involving, generally, two editors. AN/I deals with myriad issues and benefits from a looser reporting style, including allowing for more descriptive headers. As an admin attempting to best apply what limited time I have reviewing areas that need admin assistance, having more descriptive headers is very helpful. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agree with Tony. Headers should be descriptive, and the variety of things discussed on AN doesn't lend itself to standardized headings, unlike ANEW. Any editor can change disruptive headings. — Wug·a·po·des 00:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

We need a standard AN/I thread header that is recommended, not required, to be used. The problem with not having a standard AN/I header is that editors make false impressions and exaggerated claims in the headers. I think if there is a template for this as Levivich said, it would be great.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
What TonyBallioni says - the huge variety of "incidents" can't be really straitjacketed into a formula. Alexbrn (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

While it is true that the huge variety of "incidents" can't be really straitjacketed into a formula this should not be interpreted to mean that we should not strive for neutral headings. "Keep headings neutral: A heading on an article talk page should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." Bus stop (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with TonyBallioni - at first I would have suggested adding to the editnotice to suggest descriptive thread names, but there's such an information overload there already that I doubt it would be noticed. How about a standard template for "That jerk Levivich is at it again". No, I don't mean "That jerk <username> is at it again," I specifically mean a template just for Levivich^[FBDB]. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Now your last suggestion is something that could get unanimous support (apart, possibly, from one editor). Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm fairly certain EEng would support it. That could be the standard header for all ANI reports, like: "That jerk Levivich is at it again, and also AIV is backlogged." Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Concur with TonyBallioni. This is a solution in search of a problem; one hopes that AN/I isn't always about tattling. I might suggest it is possible to change cultural norms by a larger group of people simply adopting a standard style.--Jorm (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree that there is any reasonable way of standardising section titles, and my experience has been that objectionable titles are changed pretty quickly, but we should be better at closing discussions quickly when they are about content disputes or when no admin action is requested or required, pointing posters to the other pages where disputes can be settled. I often see posters here getting frustrated because some other people lead them to believe that this is the forum for their complaints, but they are eventually, after much discussion, told that it is not. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: My view is that per WP:TALKNEW section headers are already required to be neutral, and if one isn't any uninvolved editor may change it to make it so. Therefore what we really need is a not a standardized thread header, but a culture change so that TALKNEW is enforced more rigorously. I don't mean to call anyone out by this, I haven't exactly been good about changing inappropriate section headers myself, though I think the culture change will percolate more rapidly if admins lead the way on it. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for your comments. I hear that people don't think this is a good idea, and that's fine. But there are a couple of logical fallacies in these arguments that I want to address.
- A solution in search of a problem – No, it's not. There is a problem. The problem is that ANI headers don't tell us what the hell the ANI thread is about. For example, right now, we have the following headers: "Weird attack" (really? Like terrorist attack? Personal attack? DDOS attack? Where? Who?); "Repeated bogus OR accusations" (are they bogus? or is that what the thread will decide? Is this neutrally-worded?); "User:[editor] relies on the WP has no rules and ignores key policies" (this is a personal attack in the form of a header). This is an actual problem.
- Any editor can change a neutral heading, therefore headings are neutral – Except not. The three examples above have been on ANI for days. No one changes them. What's more, we've had edit wars over changing the wording of section headers. One person's neutrality is another person's non-neutrality. How do we decide whether "ignores key policies" is a neutral header or a personal attack? We have no standards for ANI headers.
- It may be that my solution is not the right solution, but the headers need work. If we are going to say that "anyone can change a header to make it neutral", then I would encourage editors to start doing that. I will. My prediction, though, is that changing headers is actually going to increase, rather than decrease, the drama. I understand why editors would not want some inflexible rule about header formatting, but I don't know why editors would be opposed to some kind of guideline or something that says, "Tell us the user, the page, the policy; don't be vague; don't make personal attacks." Perhaps those instructions already exist somewhere (WP:TALKNEW), but they're not being followed. I think we would all benefit from more descriptive, more neutral, headers. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so much in favor of standardizing ANI thread headers as I am in favor of not tolerating possibly prejudicial section headers as it is not inconceivable that charges being brought can be determined to be unfounded. Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah it seems rewording non-neutral headers has more consensus than standardized headers. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that section headings should be pretty aggressively neutralised when needed, and will be on the lookout for such problems. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, stop being an asshole, Levivich, or I'll report you at ANI. Guy (help!) 12:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Changing headers round 2

Some people are now citing this discussion as a way to neutralize headers after there was already a consensus against standardization. The thing being “neutralized” is being replaced by the rejected standardization above. I would like to clarify that WP:TPO applies here generally: we should not be touching the writing of others. If editors in the community find a header to be problematic, it can be addressed at ANI, rather than have people clerking and policing section headers. The clerking is not a role we need at ANI, and you just get people going back and forth over what is and isn’t allowed. Finding a loophole in community consensus and jerryrigging it into a guideline by enforcing said guideline like it’s never been interpreted before is not a solution here. There is not an expectation of neutral headers here. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA apply, but fit all the reasons mentioned above for why not to standardize, “making neutral” doesn’t help. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Well per WP:TPO that you cite Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. So in these kind of situations the appropriate policy is WP:TALKNEW. What part of TPO are you referencing for what we should do on section headings? PackMecEng (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

That portion of TALKNEW has never been enforced at ANI because of the nature of the board neutral headings are often not desirable. If someone is repetitively disruptive, we want to know that and saying it in the header helps to draw attention to the issue. You also left out the portion of TPO after what you cite: Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible. Given both the nature of the board (seeking administrative intervention on conduct issues) and the above consensus against having forced section headings, almost any header change is going to be controversial. In the rare cases where it’s actually necessary, an administrator can do it and also warn the person involved if necessary. We do not need people clerking ANI as the neutrality police. It would make an already unpleasant board even more unpleasant. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The question is not forced section headings but neutral ones. Yes consensus above was against standardized section headings, the question here is not that. I would argue the uncivil crap in heads is the unpleasant part that needs to be discouraged, not encouraged. Again that is inline with standard practice at ANI and all of Wikipedia. Finally what you quote is more a suggestion on how to deal with it if it is controversial, not a "do not do it if it is controversial" deal. You are also ignoring the majority of the policy if that is what you choose to focus on. PackMecEng (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

My objection is to a side discussion about reading a guideline to apply in a way it’s never been applied causing multiple people to believe that it is acceptable to clerk ANI and police the comments of others. Even if policy allows it, it just creates more issues in practice. If there is actually a problem, an administrator can change it since the board is asking for admin intervention. The fact that in the overwhelming majority of cases no administrator acts should be a signal that most of us don’t consider it an issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I suppose since there is no reason it has to be an administrator and that it is allowed, encouraged in fact, by policy that there is no actual issue with changing to a neutral heading. the well no one does it is not a strong argument in this case either. So since most people above found that it should be neutral, inline with policy, that is what we should do. Be the change you wish to see for civility on this website. PackMecEng (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Any editor may (and imo, should) refactor disruptive comments and headings. Whether they have +sysop is irrelevant for me. Consensus through editing is a valid approach on all pages, including AN(I). — Wug·a·po·des 23:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree consensus through editing is appropriate, and is basically what I’ve been arguing (that there’s an existing consensus these headers aren’t disruptive.) Re: my comments on admins, I was pointing out that on a board requesting admin help, if no sysop thinks it’s an issue worth solving, it probably isn’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

So your argument is an unwritten and unspoken consensus that is inconsistently followed overrides Civility and TALKNEW? That is simply not true. PackMecEng (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

My argument is that you’re not reading those policies and guidelines in line with how the majority of the community has historically read them, not that they don’t apply. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

So how would you apply those policies here? PackMecEng (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: You reinstated a section header at ANI that reads User:TTN Again... tireless, longstanding inability to understand why he's a problem. How do you think that makes TTN feel? If you didn't like the rewording that I chose when I "neutralized" the header, you could have changed it to something else, but instead you chose to reinstate that language. WP:TALKNEW says Keep headings neutral ... Don't criticize in headings ... Don't address other users in a heading ... Never use headings to attack other users. I don't believe it improves ANI to have section headings that don't follow those guidelines. Surely you can change it to something better? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

My point is that actively changing them against consensus is more disruptive than just leaving then. There is no consensus for individuals to clerk ANI as the neutrality police. I don’t see anything in that header that is a big enough issue that it requires you to change it. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I gave a guideline and policy that expressly support the change and there is consensus in the above discussion for neutral headings (not standardized) on ANI. You do not have consensus for what you did, nor is it backed by any type of policy. Your only defense is "some of the time we do it this way" and that you do not see anything wrong with the title. Neither are not good enough to override policy, a guideline, and consensus. PackMecEng (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say that i don't find any consensus in the above discussion for, so called, "neutralized" section headings at ANI and personally find headers like "Possible issues with X" uninformative. I can imagine editing headers in rare instances where they cross clear NPA boundaries (eg, X is a piece of s&*^) but see no need for ANI headers to be "neutral", in general. ANI is the board where users drop by to complain and it is okay, and indeed useful, to convey the crux of the complaint in the section heading (eg, Unsourced contribution by..., Personal attacks by..., Anti-semitic symbols being added to images,....). Abecedare (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- The section in question is here, titled User:TTN Again... tireless, longstanding inability to understand why he's a problem. From reading the discussion is actually seems the opposite is true in that section, that the filer seems to be more the problem. Which makes the heading less descriptive since it is incorrect. Generally when I talk about neutral headings, as described by policy, it is along the lines of what you mention. Just keep it civil, nothing wrong with descriptive as long as it is civil and actually descriptive. Those are basically the arguments that Bus stop, Levivich, Phil Bridger, the IP editor, Amaury, Wugapodes, and SharabSalam are making. While Tony is making the anything goes kind of argument. PackMecEng (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  - Please do not speak for me. I’m perfectly capable of doing that myself. My argument is that there is no community consensus for self-appointed neutrality clerks at ANI, and that the issues with having people take it on themselves to strictly enforce a guideline the community has never applied stringently to ANI are generally worse than some subpar headers. In the case you are citing, the header has done nothing to bias the discussion and it isn’t a vehement personal attack. The community is capable of handling these things in the thread itself, and we don’t need people policing headers on an already overly litigious board. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
    - That is my read of your argument, not me speaking for you. Since it is not backed by anything but your personal opinion as demonstrated above. So from where I sit you want to go against community consensus for no good reason. Heck you cannot even point to where your supposed consensus comes from. The best you have is WP:SILENCE and WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS both of which do not even come close to overriding a guideline let alone a policy per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. They are not even consistently followed so it is arguable that they are even applicable. What is the benefit to having uncivil pov section headings that do not describe the actual situation? Because that is what you are arguing for and enforcing with your revert. It is only making things worse, stop that. PackMecEng (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  PackMecEng, the header you mention, while not what I would choose/recommend, is descriptive of the complaint. Given the context of ANI, there is no presumption that all section-headings, or all complaints, will be accurate or complete (just as at WP:AIV, it is understood that not all reports are valid without us having to prefix each use of the word 'vandalism' on the page by 'alleged'). Secondly, changing a section heading without adding an anchor or re-notifying the affected parties, is actively harmful since it breaks the link and may mean that those persons (especially if new to wikipedia) may not be able to locate and respond to a complaint against them.
  
  My recommendation is to change the section heading only in indisputable cases of NPA violations, trolling etc (and in those cases warn the OP and make sure that all the parties involved are properly notified). "Non-neutrality" per se should not be the standard applied and borderline headers should be left alone lest perfecting them become a meta-distraction far removed from the task of building an encyclopedia. Abecedare (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I can see what you mean with a where does it end kind of argument and that is certainly a tough call. I can also see where you are coming from on the broken links and that it would also be good to make sure to notify the people involved. Those are solvable though. I do not think though that a one sides and incorrect description of the complaint is more helpful than a neutral description of what is actually happening. I do have to ask though, when you have ever seen an indisputable case of NPA? I think every time I have seen it brought up in a large forum there are at least a few that disagree. PackMecEng (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
PacMecEng, the response to an one-sided or incorrect header/complaint is to evaluate them and issue advice/warnings/blocks etc as needed. Just as we don't typically redact ANI complaints simply because they are "one-sided and incorrect" (even if there is a definitive consensus that they are so!), we don't need to edit headers for those flaws (again, barring the usual exceptions). Sorry if I am being repetitious in this meta-meta-meta-discussion (Ency. writing -> ANI report -> Form of ANI report -> Discussion about the standards determining the form of ANI reports). :) Abecedare (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
But that is not he basis of the argument above. It was cited numerous times that the headings help super busy admins get to the root of the issue! Which cannot be the case if they are one-sided or incorrect. It is weird seeing a different standard for one or two boards while everywhere else policy and guidelines are clear on what they should be and how they should be handled. I just have a hard time understanding the why and no one has given any policy based explanation or actual consensus as to why we should ignore policy. The closest I have seen is a "well this is how we have always done it" and that holds no weight. At least with your rebuttals you give some info on the why and the effects of such changes, which I do truly appreciate and plan on taking some more reflection on. PackMecEng (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Even inaccurate headers draw more attention, and if people are claiming false things about someone else, having more attention is a good thing. Please also stop denigrating the fact that en.wiki is largely run on a common law-like system where practice forms the basis for policy and how policy is read. This is a large part of the reason the project has been so successful.
Pointing out that your actions are disruptive because they fall outside the generally agreed upon way of implementing policy is not saying “We aren’t open to change!” It’s saying that if two people feel that they alone have the correct reading of policy and that they need to be enforcing it since no one else has for 19 years, those people likely are not reading that policy in line with consensus.
Beyond the technical aspects, there’s the sheer social impracticality of what Levivich and you are calling for. You piss people off when you essentially accuse them of attacking others, especially when they probably don’t see it as an attack. In the specific case, we are going beyond the traditional British/American disagreements on what WP:CIVIL means, as we have multiple people from the same cultural background thinking opposite things. Do you really want to see what happens when we throw in different countries? The reason we’ve never enforced your reading of TALKNEW on ANI is, as I’ve said before and Abcedare pointed out now, the nature of the forum makes doing so next to impossible, and attempting to require it would cause more disruption than just telling people to knock it off in the thread itself. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a cop out. It being hard is not an excuse to not follow policy or consensus. The common law analogy, as pointed out to you before, is also not accurate. What happens is people disagree with policy and then change that policy though community discussion and strong consensus, you do not get to ignore that policy. That is what is really disruptive and damaging to the project as a whole. Also do you really want to make the argument that a disruptive, pov, uncivil, and inaccurate heading are a good thing? Because it is not, it just wastes peoples time and makes everyone look bad. You say well it might upset the person that wrote the bullshit title, what about the person accused in such a title? You cannot have it both ways, when someone takes the step to make disruptive section heads like that they cannot then turn around and cry foul when it is brought up to community standards. I am also waiting for a single shred of policy or consensus that backs up pretty much any of your claims. It is starting to appear that they do not actually exist. If you are able to produce something we can go from there and have a policy based discussion on how to proceed, past that I think we should let others comment at this point. PackMecEng (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

By definition, an accusation cannot be neutral. ANI is all about accusing others of wrongdoing. On an article talk page, it's crystal clear. Calling out an editor by name in a header is wrong. However, it is the express purpose of ANI to call out editors by name. How is it more neutral to not name the offense? No-one gets hauled up on ANI to be praised for Pete's sake. Why is it more harmful to head a discussion "John from Idegon is violating WP:CIVIL at WT:MAINPAGE" than to head it "John from Idegon"? Anybody who has been here longer than a minute knows the ONLY reason an ediitor would be reported at ANI is for wrongdoing. And Tony is spot on with the utility. I too, avoid nationalism like the plague, and I extend that to the quagmire that is American politics. In many cases, including the offense is less damaging to the reported editor than not doing it. By including what the percieved grievance is, other editors can clearly and quickly see if the report has any merit by reviewing whatever facts are presented by the OP, feeding back to the OP what will be needed to make an actionable report, and quickly closing those cases with no merit. We've all seen a newer editor make their first report here. It's generally TLDR, frequently doesn't include any evidence and not seldom, totally without merit. Knowing what you are looking for when reviewing the OP is nothing but helpful. If the accused editor committed the offense, I cannot imagine how detailing what the offense was in the header is in any way more harmful. And if they didn't, that's in the closing, right next to the header. What's the problem.

I'm not an administrator and neither are the two editors primarily advocating for the change. Please don't take this as rude, but you are wasting your time here. This IS the administrators noticeboard. I agree with Tony that the first section reached a consensus to maintain the status quo. The support for change is mainly 2 editors. The support for the status quo is many more. Most of the status quo supporters are administrators. Respectfully, if you want the administrators to change the way they run their noticeboard, you have their answer already. If you want the community to tell them to, start an RfC at VP. John from Idegon (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Further, admins and page stalkers frequently change obviously malicious headers. There is no problem changing "John from Idegon is being an ass at the article talk page" to "John from Idegon is being disruptive at the article's talk page." None. Happens all the time. If it isn't broken don't fix it. John from Idegon (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not purposing section headings with the name only or anything like that but if there is a section heading like User:John from Idegon Again... tireless, longstanding inability to understand why he's a problem that does not describe the situation and in this case is not even accurate. The admins are not the only ones that decide how ANI is run, policy does. They are of course welcome to try and change policy or run a RfC that exempts those boards from them though. Honestly it is on them on why they think it should not be applied when it is expressly written, with broad community consensus, that it should be. Also as just a head count, most here support a change to neutral rather than status quo. Consensus was against standard headings though. You say admins and page stalkers frequently change obviously malicious headers but that is a direct contradiction to what Tony is arguing. Heck it is darn near what we are all saying. PackMecEng (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No. I said that we don’t play neutrality police on headers. We don’t. We can change ones that are obviously malicious. That’s the distinction John from Idegon and everyone else are making and you aren’t. Again, please stop summarizing what I’m saying to others. I think my words speak for themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure you are agreeing with me, TonyBallioni, so please copyedit your reply. You're missing a verb. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes :) Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah okay so now if they meet your nebulous definition of "malicious" we can change them? That is progress in the right direction. So what is malicious? PackMecEng (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Word games aren't useful here. No procedure at Wikipedia rigorously defines the terms used, and that won't be happening here. The basic strategy is that anyone can edit, but if they are reverted they should not start a battle. That particularly applies to admin noticeboards and the headings thereon. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so what policy or guideline is that under? If policy and guidelines are special for admin boards I assume that is documented somewhere? Plus it kind of conflicting with what Tony was saying above where they should not be edited at all unless it malicious, let alone going by a BRD style of flow. So it would be good to know what malicious is to him. PackMecEng (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Abecedare, Wugapodes, John from Idegon, and Johnuniq: Under whatever standard you believe should apply ("neutral", "malicious", "accurate", "helpful", whatever it may be), do you think User:TTN Again... tireless, longstanding inability to understand why he's a problem is an appropriate ANI header? Do you think it should be changed? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Herostratus: Would you be okay with tweaking the title to say TTN Again... tireless, longstanding inability to understand why he's causing problems, TTN Again... tireless, longstanding inability to understand why he's being disruptive, or some variation of Persistent longstanding disruption by TTN? That way, it can't be interpreted as more malicious than you intended it? Dark Knight 2149 05:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I can see where everyone is coming from, and at the end of the day I don't think there's a clean answer to your question, Levivich. Do I think the heading needs changed? No. Would I revert someone who thinks it does? No. I think I agree with Abecedare's assessment above: "the header you mention, while not what I would choose/recommend, is descriptive of the complaint....'Non-neutrality' per se should not be the standard applied and borderline headers should be left alone lest perfecting them become a meta-distraction far removed from the task of building an encyclopedia." — Wug·a·po·des 05:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I should probably point out that TonyBallioni's belief that "That portion of TALKNEW has never been enforced at ANI because of the nature of the board neutral headings are often not desirable" is technically false. In a Janaury 2019 dispute, there was a firm consensus that headers between two opposing parties should remain neutral. However, as far as this situation goes, Eagles247 basically spat in the face of that consensus by exhibiting ownership over the section header and aggressively edit warring to keep his preferred title in place [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. A little background, I have been working on a case against TTN (which is nearly complete), and Eagles247 was aware of this and wanted to beat me to the punch. Because I called him out in a comment related to the case, he essentially filed a retaliatory report. Even though he himself snidely remarked on my talk page that "I filed your ANI report for you", his excuse for keeping the title was "I filed this report about YOU!" and the prevailing mindset at this thread was that the title didn't have to be neutral.

So we basically have contradictory consensuses and enforcements applying to different ANI threads. As far as the TTN situation goes, we shouldn't play double standards. I believe we should keep Herostratus' header in place, unless the community wants to go into the archive and change the previous header back to its neutral counterpart. Otherwise, we're just being corrupt and hypocritical in favour of one side of the situation. Dark Knight 2149 05:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

There was no formal or informal consensus that talk headers need to be neutral in the discussion you link to, and that and your subsequent diffs seem to demonstrate that you have a problem with not editing others' comments more than anything else. There is nothing in WP:TALKNEW that suggests threads formally making accusations in the appropriate administrative forum need to be neutral, that's just silly, so people need to stop referencing it and stop edit warring based on it. TALKNEW is clearly about maintaining objectivity, neutrality, and no personal attacks in the article space. None of these ideals are relevant at ANI when you're formally complaining about someone. As an uninvolved admin, I'm far more likely to block users for violating WP:TPO than a nonexistent standard that ANI reports need to be neutral. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Swarm: (Without addressing anyone involved in that discussion or anything other than the title consensus) Yes, there was in fact a consensus for that [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. WP:TPO has nothing to do with talk page headers and WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN contradicts your allegation. With all due respect, you should reread both. Dark Knight 2149 06:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

None of those diffs support your claim that there is a consensus that ANI headers need to be neutrally worded. That is simply a false claim. WP:TPO refers to the basic principle of not editing others' words, which is relevant when a user is making a complaint and they include their complaint in their section header. What's more, these headers are important to signal to administrators what problem needs what resolution. If a header is inappropriate, it should be left to an administrator to change, not any random or involved freewheeling user. We do not need non-admins unilaterally policing people on the literal admin's noticeboard. WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN specifically says to "avoid disputes by discussing a heading change". None of these principles supports the notion of reported or involved users being able to unilaterally delete accusations from section headings in AN/I complaints. That behavior comes across to me, as an uninvolved administrator, as WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. I think a formal community consensus would be needed to implement your vision at AN/I. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Negative. WP:TPO explicitly refers to editing the text of other users comments ("It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct others' spelling errors, grammar, etc. Doing so can be irritating. The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.") and says nothing about headers. The behavioural guideline WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN is listed under Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments are... and it states that "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc." None of the diffs fall under WP:TPO and any hypothetical blocks wouldn't stick if that was cited as the rationale. @Drmies: You were a key administrator involved in the February 2019 discussion linked above. Would you say that there was a consensus for neutral headers in controversial disagreements between two editors (at least, in that individual case)? Dark Knight 2149 06:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Darkknight2149, I have tried to read over this entire thing but my head is spinning already: I'm getting to old for ANI or ANI talk threads. I do recall the spat from last year, vaguely, but it might be another one I'm remembering: it is not the only time that I argued that section/report headings should be neutral, as much as possible, and that admins could and should enforce that. I see that Tony Ballioni disagrees with me here and that is sad, since we are longstanding socks of each other. I also see that someone said "ANI reports are by definition not neutral", and I disagree with that as well. A disagreement can and should be phrased in neutral terms, if only because highly partisan reports will be quickly dismissed by administrators--a tactical concerns. And if I have a dispute with Tony, it does not behoove me to start a report saying "Tony Ballioni, that tedious motherfucker, is at it again" or something like that. (I think that should be obvious...) And a heading like that, I believe we should refactor.

OK, now I see the subsection that you're talking about; I would say that I felt enough support there for the name change, yes--but those few related comments, that's hardly as strong as an RfC and I wouldn't put that much weight on it. However, if it does come to an RfC, you will find in me a firm proponent of an administrative prerogative to more or less enforce a neutral header. And in general, I also believe that the administrators noticeboards should be administrated by administrators: I believe that editors should leave that prerogative to administrators also. Yes, I have blocked an editor for reverting administrative decisions/edits on ANI. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but this line of argument is not convincing. Even if your belief that we should enforce neutral headers is taken for granted, you're still ignoring the point where it says not to create conflicts by making contentious header changes without discussion. That clearly translates to not making contentious header changes where you are an involved party. Like I said, we do not need involved users creating additional conflict by unilaterally enforcing their contentious perception of what an appropriate header is at AN/I. If a header is actually problematic, bring it to an uninvolved admin's attention and they will examine it and potentially change it if they agree with you. However your actual approach that you can and should unilaterally change headers as you see fit is obviously disruptive and directly in violation of what the relevant policy says. The mandate you're asserting does not exist. If I see you edit warring over headers at AN/I, I'm not worried about the merits of your change, I'm simply blocking you for disrupting AN/I (I mean that in general, not as a warning). If you think the policy should be clarified to explicitly extend to AN/I complaints, I have no problem with that, go start a discussion and try to get the wording amended. However based on what it currently says, it doesn't conclusively agree with you, no matter how much you want to claim that it does. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't have a belief that all headers should be neutral. I'm instead calling attention to the contradictory consensuses/enforcements on this issue and stating that we should be more consistent. If Eagles247 does not have to establish a neutral title, then there's no justifiable reason that Herostratus should be forced to do so. In the 2019 thread, there was a solid consensus that contentious threads between two users should generally have neutral titles. (The only disagreement from third party users in that discussion was how the neutral header should be styled) This doesn't have to be the consensus moving forward, but we need to pick one or the other.

As for the other thing, my edits technically fit the perimeters of WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN. The guideline directly states that "Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc." The part you are citing is "Whenever a change is likely to be controversial, avoid disputes by discussing a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible", which is a recommendation.

In this instance, Eagles247's title would have been considered contentious and controversial. Not to mention that many other users besides myself have spoken out against TTN (which they continue to do, even now), and he was sanctioned by ArbCom for very similar behaviours in the past. The ANI notice itself says "I filed your ANI report for you" (the revert even contradicts the ANI notice). On top of that, there was already a clear precedent for this situation with the January 2019 thread that called for a more neutral header. I also wasn't reverted by any third party users or uninvolved administrators, I was reverted by Eagles247 himself. Persistent disruption by Darkknight2149 is not only contentious, but inaccurate as well. It's only considered "contentious" because the other party claimed ownership and edit warred to keep it in place. Dark Knight 2149 09:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you. Herostratus's section header should not be arbitrarily altered. At least, not after such an alteration has proven contentious. Levivich is in the wrong. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

DarkKnight2149, I actually think your “contradiction” is in line with what I’m saying: if there is an issue, it can be dealt with in the thread itself and there isn’t a need for unilateral enforcement. The community has never, as a whole enforced neutral headers on every complaint and unilaterally changing them is out of line with the norm. In cases such as the one you cite, it can decide to require it via discussion, but that’s the exception to what generally occurs. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

To answer Levivich's question at the end of the previous section: Yes, User:XYZ... tireless, longstanding inability to understand why he's a problem was actually indicative of the problem, because OPs who start ANI threads with hyperbolic titles are not reliable narrators. I don't see a need to clerk headers at ANI as it can lead to more disruptions/reverts, while also making threads more difficult to find if the OP uses the name of the thread to notify others. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
If an editor started an ANI report against me with User:SharabSalam tireless, longstanding inability to understand why he's a problem I would definitely change that title and I presume anyone would do the same. Having a standard title is actually a good idea. I can't understand why there are users who disagree. It makes sense to have a standard header. I mean "SharabSalam reported by X" is much better than "User:SharabSalam tireless, longstanding inability to understand why he's a problem".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I think the problem is that the heading is both insulting and noninformative. Consider the difference between the following:
- User:Reyk reported by User:Whoever
- User:Reyk is a pest and has been for years
- User:Reyk is pestering everyone at WT:Articles for Deletion
The first tells us nothing. The second tells us nothing except to expect an angry rant in the body of the post. With the third, at least we get some idea of what the complainant's angry about. Reyk _YO! 12:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I think "User:Reyk reported by User:Whoever" is enough information in the section header. The problem with the third one is that it could be false accusation and it is highlighted in the section header. When someone adds something to the body, the edit summary will also include that accusation which might create an illusion that the accusation is true. In my opinion, "User:Reyk reported by User:Whoever" is enough. The details should be in the body not in the section header.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The second two are insulting. I'm with Sharab. It's bizarre to me that anyone would prefer either of the second two over the first. Especially since they get archived like that, so the insult is saved forever and then the insult is repeated whenever anyone wants to link to that thread. I'm hearing that what we want is to allow people to insult each other in section headings because it's informative. Otherwise, we'd have to read the thread to find out what it's about and nobody wants that. As Swarm said, Levivich is wrong for removing an insult from a section header and Tony is right for putting the insult back because this is ANI where up is down and insults are helpful for dispute resolution. Got it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I think you're putting words in my mouth that I never said. Perhaps you should stop that. Reyk _YO! 13:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I have put no words in your mouth. You said the third one is better than the first because "at least we get some idea of what the complainant's angry about" but the third one is insulting and the first one is not. So which is better? I say the first, you say the third. Where am I misrepresenting your position? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Nope. Example three is not an insult, or at least is less insulting than the second, because it describes (alleged) behaviour whereas the second is mere namecalling. If someone thinks I'm pestering people at WT:AFD then they have to say so in the body of the post anyway, regardless of the heading. And I see no reason why the heading shouldn't reflect the content of the post. I oppose ANI archives restricted to headings all saying "User:Herp reported by User:Derp" because that'll make it hard to find anything. Reyk _YO! 13:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You are putting words in everyone’s mouthes, Levivich. Neither Swarm nor myself said that insults were helpful for dispute resolution. I will not speak for Swarm, but my point was that your action was more disruptive than the header itself, and that given you knew that the community did not support what you were doing (you used the exact header there was consensus against) it was inappropriate to change it. Additionally, I don’t find that header particularly insulting. It’s subpar, sure, but it’s what you expect from a complaint. We shouldn’t be encouraging people to make ones like that, but it’s certainly not bad enough to go around actively changing.
This is a rather small incident, but the reason it’s worth objecting to is that making this something that regularly happens would almost certainly make ANI worse because people will disagree on what should and shouldn’t be removed. The community is able to deal with things in situ. It doesn’t need people policing headers who aren’t involved in the merits of the discussion. That just increases drama. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I changed two headers. The first one, the OP objected but didn't revert me. That header change was reverted by two people: DK, who reverted because (per their post above) another header in another thread from 14 months ago wasn't changed, and so this header shouldn't be changed unless we go back in the archives and change that header as well. The second revert was by you, Tony, for reasons I still do not understand despite how much you've written here (Is it that no headers should be changed? Or that this header wasn't "bad enough" in your opinion, and thus should be put back? Or that the original header is better than what I changed it to? I'm still not sure).

The other header I changed, I got a "thanks" from the OP, and nobody has touched it or complained or even noticed.

So you tell me where the "disruption" surrounding header changes comes from. You don't see me edit warring over it. But it seems like "changing headers leads to disruption" is a self-fulfilling prophecy if we revert "neutralized" headers to non-neutral headers simply for the sake of "enforcing" a "no clerking" rule (which I gather is basically what this is about, but I'm still pretty confused).

The bottom line is that headers like these:
User:X Again... tireless, longstanding inability to understand why he's a problem

User:X is a pest and has been for years

User:X is pestering everyone at WT:Articles for Deletion

...are better than a header like this:
User:X reported by User:Y.

At least that's what the consensus here seems to be. I don't understand it. I think it's crazy. But it's how people want ANI to be run, so be it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Well change is hard and people appear to enjoy working in toxic environments. I don't understand it either, they are more concerned with the feelings of the abusive person over the person being abused. I guess that should tell ya something. I suppose the next step is village pump to reaffirm that yes policy and guidelines apply everywhere including admin boards. PackMecEng (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I would welcome a VPPol discussion on this, or at the least starting an RFC in a subsequent section here. Recent arbitration cases (e.g., Sep 2019, Jan 2020, Feb 2020, Ongoing) have shown that the meatball:CommunityDoesNotAgree on how to handle issues of incivility that are not particularly egregious. I think this latest row is a symptom of that larger community issue rather than specific to this instance. — Wug·a·po·des 21:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
For my part (I was pinged on account of one of my headers being changed from (essentially) "User X is an asshole" to "User X reported by Herostratus"), I agree with using neutral titles, I guess. I objected to it in that particular case, ostensibly because I wasn't consulted, but actually because I was peeved about something else (my case being turned down).

On the actual merits, "User X reported User Y" would be OK. Probably an improvement. There are some cases where it's not that simple... "Group of non-Simians editing article X" and so on. But, you can have a flexible approach.

I suppose to implement you could put an addition on the big notice that comes up (advising one to notify the plaintiff and so on) to use "User X reported by User Y" unless its an exceptional case. Herostratus (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I maintain that this particular case should maintain Herostratus' title, per what was decided at the other TTN-related thread ([24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]). I would only be okay with a change if we're willing to go into the archive and change the previous header back to the rejected neutral version. Otherwise, we're basically ruling that people defending TTN don't have to use objective ANI headers, but the people speaking out against him do. That puts one side of the conflict at an unfair disadvantage. Dark Knight 2149 00:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Some pre-prepped headers could be useful, but I disagree that there should be a need to stick to "User X reported by User Y" except for exceptional circumstances - a descriptive variety, whether of the norm or not is heavily beneficial. I'm all for neutralising poor headers (and making accurate if not), but not for limitations on their nature within those constraints Nosebagbear (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI viewspike

What's with this [32]? E Eng 23:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Random fluctuations in the space-time continuum? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 23:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

More likely a great disturbance in The Force. E Eng 23:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, how odd. El_C 00:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Someone famous (on Twitter?) linking to a post there? Primefac (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe. Must be something. What a mystery. El_C 01:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

No No, Random fluctuation's not in the space-time continuum, it's Eddy who's in space-time continuum. Paul August ☎ 00:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you're right, Roxy. Some of my clocks were out by an hour this morning, which must have been caused by the same fluctuation. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Next day, back to normal. Not even the slightest spillover. Funny thing is, there were two prodromal days leading up to the full outbreak. E Eng 13:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Is it T-series' subscription bots that stopped working after T-series got to 100M subs first?? TLOM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 08:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

From draft to article

Not the place for article requests; draft now at AfC. ——SN 54129 12:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Apostolic_Movement Progettistauniversale (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Progettistauniversale: If you mean you would like to submit it as an article, thanks very much for that. I have submitted it for you, but the review process is extremely backlogged. Many thanks for your interest in the English Wikipedia today. ——SN 54129 12:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Our friend OSBO

The ANI page is currently graced with at least two of the most Obvious Socks Being Obvious imaginable, Sixty-day Wonders who emerged fully formed, like Venus from the sea-foam. Where’s a good proactive checkuser when you need them, anyway?

Oh, yes. That’s right, he left just after ARBCOM clipped his wings, almost simultaneously with an ARBCOM member pointing out that one of wiki’s worst long-tern serial abusers could just come back and sock if he wanted to.

A trout in the milk is suspicious, but this is more like a whale. Qwirkle (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

"Blocked by User:NinjaRobotPirate"

Not blocked by User:NinjaRobotPirate. ——SN 54129 16:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Can I please go one day without getting a ping like this? Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Doubtful. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 01:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished. — Wug·a·po·des 01:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Have you tried not blocking people? Natureium (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

<3 TonyBallioni (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

If you requested a rename I bet the the pings would be different. creffett (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Protection request (original post did not have a section)

Hello,

I am wondering if it is possible to lock up the protection on List of Assyrian tribes and revert it to its previous form. This page had over 60 000 words and has been decimated into a mere sentence by certain users. Assyrian tribes and settlements are closely linked together and many times interchangeable.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashurpedia (talk • contribs) 19:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ashurpedia: Please use the main noticeboard page rather than the talk page. Also, please make a new section when posting a new query, to avoid confusion within a thread. SemiHypercube 20:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

What can I do?

I seek your advice, because I have been unable to deal a situation for months. How can I deal with an editor who is very enthusiastic, but whose edits are negligent and whose knowledge on the topic is highly limited. Fixing his errors is time consuming, reverting them could easily cause edit warring. Almost each sentence that he writes contains an error, mostly major errors - so requesting a third opinion is not feasible. I have wasted much time with reviewing his amateurish edits and explaining him his mistakes during the last six months. I know that anybody can edit WP, but I think this policy does not mean that anybody can edit any article. I am thinking of requesting a topic ban for some months. Do you think this would be a good approach? Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Such cases are legion. You will have to give a link to the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC).

@Borsoka: they're clearly editing in good faith, surely. And while the enthusiastic amateur might irritate the expert, this is supposedly the encyclopedia anyone can edit. However, I admit that the crusades is a phenomenally broad subject, and that last FAC was, in truth, a bit of a train wreck. ——Serial^# 09:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Assuming you mean your long-running dispute with User:Norfolkbigfish, this appears to be a straightforward content dispute, not something requiring admin intervention; admins have no special abilities or authority to judge content disputes. NBF isn't some kind of overenthusiastic newcomer, but an experienced editor (who has actually been here longer than you); have you tried civilly discussing the issues rather than the bombardment with warnings and personal comments from you I see on User talk:Norfolkbigfish? (At least one of your comments there—claiming that a book being published by Oxford University Press makes it reliable—is nonsensical and I can entirely see NBF becoming irritated by it; although it's owned by Oxford University, OUP is a commercial publisher who'll publish any old tat if they think there's money to be made. Yes, OUP publish many well-regarded books; they also publish The New Adventures of Mr Toad: Operation Toad!, Savoring Gotham: A Food Lover's Companion to New York City, Bee Boy: Attack of the Zombees and Six Words You Never Knew Had Something To Do With Pigs.) We have lots of active editors working on the medieval period; have you tried asking for independent input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages? That project is largely moribund, but hopefully people like Ealdgyth will still be watching it. ‑ Iridescent 09:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. 1. Yes, I know that anybody can edit WP (and I also referred to this basic policy above). However, ignorant and negligent amateurs can destroy a community. 2. No, it is not a content dispute - we can talk of a content dispute if both parties can verify their statements. Yes, I spent months to explain him his errors. Iridescent, do you know who is the historian to whom I referred (whose book was published by OUP)? Borsoka (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, I'm amazed that an editor didn't respond well to another editor spending months explaining why they are wrong. Normally that works flawlessly. Especially when done in snarky comments in the article itself. Guy (help!) 11:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, normally it works, although I am sarcastic - like you :). If my understanding is correct, I should take him to AN and propose a topic ban, presenting my argumentation proving his inability to improve articles relating to the topic. Is this correct? Borsoka (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Iridescent, yes I have been around WP for some time. Hopefully this has taught me enough to know I make mistakes, support my edits with reputable (mostly academic) sources, act in good faith and look for consensus. These disputes are, as you suspected, largely content related. Challenge is that this is quite a moribund corner of WP so second and third opinions are few and far between. This is a challange on summary articles like the Crusder States which are highly contestable in academic circles.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Iridescent and Norfolkbigfish, yes I have been around WP for some time. Hopefully this taught me enough to know I make mistakes, support my edits with reputable (mostly academic) sources, act in good faith and look for consensus. I have also experienced that WP is a healthy community and is able to detect disruptive behaviour. I am sure you have also experienced that there are editors who can manipulate the community for years, pretending that they have actually read the books they are citing. Some of them even eager to use the cited sources selectively to mislead other editors. These editors are sooner or later banned from the community. Do you agree? Borsoka (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

misrepresentation of sources, POV pushing and signs of sockpuppetry

Not the place for this. Someone will comment eventually. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Hey can someone take a look at my report in the Administrators' noticeboard/incidents (Afer Ephraimite). -TheseusHeLl (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Template:Confused?

By popular demand, there's now a {{Confused?}} template, for use when you suspect an editor may be confused, which happens now and then at AN and ANI. It produces this:^{[Confused editor?]} Click it for further details.E Eng 19:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know for sure quite what it is, but something about this template gives me huge "For more information please reread" vibes... (good job!) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I know the perfect editor to use that template! --Izno (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe I can say, without fear of contradiction, that you have me and some other editors confused. E Eng 22:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Article 370 misleading claims and Disruptive behavior of user:kautilya3

Hi, I want to bring to your notice that I had edited at page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370_of_the_Constitution_of_India#Presidential_order_of_2019 But the user kautilya3 is continously removing my edits. The claims under the section Presidential order 2019 are dubious. There was no state government in place when the order was issued last year, yet the author is claiming presidential order 2019 was issued "in concurrence" of state government of jammu and Kashmir. Kindly resolve the dispute of my edits. The user is making misleading claims. Instead of being rational the user is having ulterior motives of pro india government. This goes against the policies of Wikipedia. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashwritesback (talk • contribs) 14:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Article List of Canadian Artists

Hi, I just noticed in the List of Canadian Artists that the headline reads "too many red links in this article" So I thought I would try to create an article to help out. When I tried to create an article for the artist "Terry Ananny" it said I couldn't! That an article was prevented by administrators from being created!! What gives with that?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.48.45 (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Anon, Terry Ananny has been protected since 2014. Even if it were unprotected, you still would not be able to create the article; only users with a registered account which has made 10 edits over 4 days can create articles directly. You can use the articles for creation process to write a draft that another user can move to mainspace for you. — Wug·a·po·des 19:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

There has been long term socking trying to promote Ananny. I don't find it surprised that the IP asking why they can't create the article is the same one who added this promo link to List of Canadian women artists a few months ago using the same ISP linked to the same geolocation as other blocked socks. Not to mention there are no redlinks at List of Canadian artists.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Brumby page feral changed to Brumby.

Can someone please have a look at the Brumby page. I keep on getting blocked. I have been trying to edit the page and keep on getting banned or the page reverted. I have supplied evidence to suggest that the Brumby is the correct terminology and not Ferial. As Ferial is demeaning and allowes the exploitation of this animal. The word ferial is not the term that should be used under the ecological banner as it is a self limiting climax Species. So more akin to Naturalised. A federal Australian judge also agrees that feral has these connotations. There seems to be a lot problems with editors not wishing to change a page that has existed priity much unmodified for 10 years. There is new ecological science that needs to be presented and appraised also that is supportive of the symbiotic nature of this animal with its eco system. The way the article is written is to highlight it's ecological disadvantages before it's advantages, Science has changed over the last 10 years. There is a lot of money and reputation with the horse industry...this page really has some behind the scene intentions. Shenqijing (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brumby here is the link. I have taken this to talk but still get it reverted and blocked Shenqijing (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Shenqijing, this is the talkpage for the noticeboard, which has very few readers. If you're looking for admin assistance it's better to post on the noticeboard itself. However, I doubt you'll get anywhere with raising this issue there either - its a content dispute which is not something that admin tools can resolve. All the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Connection Graywalls and IPMontrealIP to Gutierrez

ThatMontrealIP and Graywalls: What is your connection to music and Mr. Gutierrez, especifically? Please be transparent and explain your interest.

Absolutely! My concern is that there may be a connection between GrayWalls and Gutierrez. Also, ThatMontrealIP and Gutierrez. Everyone editing must be transparent in their intent and connection. I'm a fan of music (Cuban - Gloria Estefan, musicians), music, film, artists. The reference to "great pianist" is found on may classical artists post edited and they are not called to question. Some have poor reference sources. Mr. Gutierrez' post has undergone scrutiny since 2006. I am not the only editor. I enjoy finding citations needed for wiki posts. I am trying to include appropriate sources and make an excellent article. Thanks - I think this is what we all want. Let's resolve issues. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

User has been forum shopping. She has been using the old technique of accusing those who oppose her WP:COIness of having a conflict of interest themselves.. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the problems with partial blocks, but it looks like a sitewide block is becoming likely, anyway. El_C 20:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

What can I do?

I already raised this question, but it remained unanswered. Instead my case was decided without proper investigation. I am always optimistic, so I again raise the question: "How can I deal with an editor who is very enthusiastic, but whose edits are negligent and whose knowledge on the topic is highly limited? Fixing his errors is time consuming, reverting them could easily cause edit warring. Almost each sentence that he writes contains an error, mostly major errors - so requesting a third opinion is not feasible. I have wasted much time with reviewing his amateurish edits and explaining him his mistakes during the last six months. I know that anybody can edit WP, but I think this policy does not mean that anybody can edit any article. I am thinking of requesting a topic ban for some months. Do you think this would be a good approach? Thank you for your comments." Borsoka (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

A topic ban is appropriate for users who engage in disruptive editing within a definable topic area, but are otherwise generally constructive and good faith in other areas. The purpose is to protect the damaged content area. It's really up to you whether you think that's an appropriate solution. Then it's just a matter of convincing the community. To do this you just need to articulate your case, clearly, concisely, and with plenty of diffs. If you cannot gain a consensus to support a topic ban, you or others may discuss alternative remedies in subsequent subsections. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I am really grateful for it. At which forum can I ask for a topic ban? Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Borsoka, WP:AN or WP:ANI. Follow the instructions at the top and leave a notice on the other editor's talk. Before you start a discussion be aware that your own conduct will also be scrutinised, and you will be expected to have at least attempted discussion and dispute resolution. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I know that my conduct will be scrutinised. I have been discussing the issue for more than six months. I sought dispote resolution (multiple times). Now, I have been convinced any form of dispute resolution is waste of time in this specific case. Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If you have been engaging in dispute resolution for six months, that's a good thing. It shows that you've been working on this from a content angle tirelessly without resolution, which suggests that a behavioral resolution is impeding progress. Just make sure you define and pin down the specific behavioral issues at hand and provide diffs that clearly show the problem. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 10:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Monitoring request

Hello. May I have an administrator help me with any posts I make or may make, in future, on British or Irish political article talkpages? Just someone who can point out to me if I shouldn't have posted at a place or if my posts are worded in an unhelpful way at said discussions. If a designated administrator sees 'nothing wrong' with such a post(s)? then all the better. Just need a monitor to give me advice if/when needed. Someone, I can turn to. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you under sanctions? Primefac (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)

No. Haven't been for years. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You have over 337,000 edits. Why would anyone need to monitor you? This is an odd request, just trying to understand the nature of it, the cause that brought you here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably related to Special:Diff/967261467 ☆ Bri (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Any volunteers? TBH, I'm feeling intimated by this sandbox's notes, which is why I've slowed down my editing production. GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and I've no interest in mentoring anybody, particularly one with over 24x the edits I have. That said, I'm offering this as an informal WP:3O. I looked at the previous Arbcom case and the list of "notes" Snowded is compiling and I have to say: this isn't a good look, Snowded. The Arbcom case was eight years ago, it involved serious misjudgments on GD's part, there have been no enforcement blocks since then, and there is nothing apparent in edits since June that would indicate that GD is infringing their restrictions. I also note that the restrictions on GD were on diacritics, with which none of the diffs compiled are concerned. No readily apparent reason to suspect GD is repeating their previous negative behavior seems to exist. It looks, in fact, very like assembling a list of grievances and cherry-picking some very minor comments for some unrelated end. I will explicitly refrain from speculating on what that end may be or any possible motivations for it. I would suggest that Snowded either 1) explain what they feel requires compiling this or 2) take a case to AE if they feel that there is a case to be made or 3) remove these notes which come close to WP:ASPERSIONS. There appears to be no need for bad feelings on any editor's part. I hope this helps defuse things. Admins, please feel free to move my comment to another venue if that appears appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn, not sure if you intentionally did not ping Snowded (so I will not either) but they (as far as I am aware) have not been pinged or notified of this discussion. I mention this only because the first half of your post sounds like you are addressing them. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)

Primefac, I actually did intend to ping Snowded and yes, I did intend them to see this. Trying again (and apologies in advance to Snowded if this generates a double ping): @Snowded: Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You need to check your history this is not about diacritics, before the Arbcom case GoodDay was topic banned from all BI articles for inserting comments on talk pages without proposing changes and generally creating conflict on issues which had been resolved. Its been a background level of sniping for years on issues like the use of Constituent Country but of late the behaviour seems to be increasing. For example the Derry/Londonderry compromise has kept the peace on wikipedia for years and GoodDay is well aware of that. On the basis that a case might have to be made to reinstate the topic ban I started to record instances in case it continues, in a sandbox. Happy to delete that and keep notes off Wiki but I prefer to do things in plain sight, and I would prefer not to have to do this in the first place. Like several editors I am a veteran of the massive disruption that took place on BI articles and I and others put in a lot of work to stabilise the situation - and the peace had held for years now. No one wants to go back there -----Snowded ^TALK 19:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn:, I recommend that you review the said discussion at Derry & note the timing of the posts, as well as all participants. IMHO, that discussion had already petered out (before Snowded posted there), with nobody taking the suggestion of opening an RFC. Note: I've struck out my post concerning the topic (and my response to Snowded's johnny-come-lately post), due to a chill feeling. PS: I'm still curious as to who the old Unionist editors are, that Snowded refers to in his sandbox & suggestions they are looking for trouble. I'm sure they'd like to know that they've been mentiond, there. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

BTW, is there a moratorium on any of these articles for limiting discussions or outright banning discussion, for any length of time on certain content topics? I may have missed such moratoriums & would be grateful, if someone would point them out. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Welp, that went over like a lead balloon. I did, in fact, look at the Derry talk page and GD's talk page and the other diffs. If those constitute evidence of a battleground attitude that infringes the previous topic restrictions, some-one's sensitivity scale is miscalibrated. Maybe its mine. I'll stop sticking my nose in where its obviously not wanted and apologize to both of you that the was not, in fact, helpful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You've nothing to apologise for. Though I don't think it really necessary. I'm considering seeking mentorship. If I'm going to be followed around for my posts at British & Irish articles (which are few & far between), then it should be by a designated editor. Either I'm in the wrong, or Snowded is. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No one is following you GoodDay, if anything it is the other way round - how many obscure Welsh Prince articles are on your watch list :-) I'm more than happy to remove the material if that is the consensus position but as I said I prefer to do things in plain sight. You might remember that I was one of the editors who argued actively for your reinstatement on the basis that your normal editing focus is highly productive. -----Snowded ^TALK 19:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The Welsh Prince article. Is that what your beef is, what's gotten you so riled up? Well then, I believe I will indeed seeking mentorship. BTW: Note that I posted at the Welsh Prince article, after you pestered me at the Derry discussion. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Snowded: Just so you are aware, "evidence collection" pages that are not quickly used in one of our dispute resolution mechanisms have been deleted as attack pages before and their owners have been trouted (or worse). (There is also a reasonable view that they are harassing even if they are not blatant attack pages.) I am not claiming that will happen in this case, but I would suggest you find somewhere else to keep your notes of any concerns you might have. --Izno (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Fully aware of the "not quickly used" criteria and its a working page which is normal when building a case. It is interesting to note that after following me to the Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr talk page to make a fairly typical comment (which he did regret to be fair), he had posted about this on an Arbcom member's talk page within three hours of my creating said sandbox. The next bit of work I was planning to do was to gather other examples of where he was clearly following myself or others to BI related articles. If I can't complete that this week, due to work committments or if I feel differently after sleeping on it (its late at night here) or GoodDay gets a mentor (which I think is a good idea) then I'll delete it. Strike that I'm not going to have time this week anyway and it is wasting people's time here. I've taken the material off line and if GoodDay wants a copy of my watchlist I'll happily supply one for the record :-) -----Snowded ^TALK 21:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You're the one who follows me around. Exactly how many of those article do you have on your watchlist, btw? Anyways, it's amazing that I haven't counter-punched more often. All you've been doing, is making my Wikipedia experience miserable. Why don't you just leave me alone & go do something else. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Need clarification of wikiprofessionals close

@Seraphimblade: could you clarify what While not everyone supported deletion of the UPE articles, enough editors did to achieve a consensus behind this as well means? I interpret this as effectively amending WP:G5 to include, Any page created by a Wikiprofessionals editor, regardless of whether it was created before or after the date the company was site banned. Is that the intent? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That's correct. Hypothetically, anything we know to be UPE would be a G5 in any case, since the editor was essentially forbidden to create it. That said, in this case the clear consensus was that the known Wikiprofessionals articles should be deleted en masse. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, Maybe you want to create a new WP:XCSD to cover that, so it's easy to identify them in logs, etc? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That's not a half bad idea, especially given that I suspect more of these will be turning up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page

Is this wording at the top of the ANI page sufficient, or do we want to change this to, "you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page in a new section", or "...at the bottom of their Talk page", or similar?

I recently checked a User's talk page to see if they had been appropriately notified of a case raised about them, and not seeing one, I posted this informal heads-up (diff) to let them know of the pending case (diff). Turns out, they already knew, due to a comment included further up on their long talk page by the initiator of the ANI case, in the form of a reply to an earlier discussion. This reply meets the letter of the ANI must requirement, but not the spirit of it, imho. In particular, I had not found the notice, after going to the User's talk page specifically to look for it. I think it's plausible that the page owner might not have seen it, had they not been checking that earlier discussion for other reasons. In any case, under current wording, an ANI-case initiator could game the system by burying a notification on purpose.

How about this for new wording: "... you must leave a notice prominently displayed on the editor's talk page." This adds just two words, and leaves it more open to case-by-case interpretation as far as where to put it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Your hypothetical situation is problematic and should probably be dealt with as it occurs. Your proposed change is likely unnecessary bureaucracy. Your example case, however, falls under the "exception to the rule" that happens for just about any rule; it is perfectly reasonable for a user holding a discussion with another user to mention an ANI in a thread about the same issue. Forcing that notification to happen in its own bolded section seems unnecessary. It's likely that 80% of the time a proper notice will be left, 19% of the time no notice will be given, and 0.8% of the time your example use will happen. I don't think we need to mandate the use of {{ANI-notice}} just to catch that 0.2% of "left a buried notice hidden on the page." Keep in mind also that user talk notices pop up as a new message, so even if it is buried somewhere, the intended recipient will still receive (and receive notice of) the note. It's "nice" for a patrolling admin/user to be able to quickly determine if a notice has been left, but the notification is primarily for the parties involved, not the minders. Primefac (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems that in the case that you describe the notice had its intended effect: that the user in question knew that the discussion was happening. The fact that you, who were not under discussion, couldn't see it immediately is irrelevant. As noted by Primefac the person receiving the message gets a notification saying it has been left. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

These responses make sense. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the template should include a big red flashing exclamation point. Or at least a new heading. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Could we please administer a steadily increasing electric shock? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

children's rights

Hello I am an Iranian lawyer sending you a letter. Unfortunately, in the Persian Wikipedia, the pages related to suicide and suicide methods for children do not contain any warnings. After talking about this with the administrators of Farsi Wikipedia, they accused me of supporting censorship. I had a question for you. How to put an age limit mark on a box of movies, animations and computer games for children. But are suicide pages, suicide methods, and sex pages easily accessible to young children without the slightest warning? Isn't this a gross violation of children's rights on the Internet? I urge the Wikimedia Foundation to investigate this to prevent harm to infants and children.

thank you for your attention

Ali Naderi An Iranian lawyer Behrouz.lawyer (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Behrouz.lawyer, Wikipedia isn't censored. Are these articles breaching any of Wikipedia's policies? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Behrouz.lawyer, we have a similar policy here. See WP:NODISCLAIMERS. This has been debated many times which has resulted in the linked policy, and common parental control suites already block explicit Wikipedia articles. It is mainly the parent's responsibility to moderate their childs activities, not ours. We can't help with anything on the Persian Wikipedia here on the English Wikipedia, you'll have to bring it up at their appropriate noticeboards there. Ed6767 talk! 20:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

For what reason do you emphasize that you are a lawyer? 331dot (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

A TLDR of the fawiki discussion boils down to this (with machine translation):

User said "one of my friends in the Attorney General's Office, in response to my questions [on whether Wikipedia is censored or not?]"
Then basically made legal threats saying "Call the Attorney General's Office. They say that action has been taken." (due to the graphic material)
Then was then blocked for 1 month

Looks like an interwiki issue to me, fawiki denied to take action in the face of legal threats and blocked, so moved on to enwiki. Ed6767 talk! 20:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The words "child" or "children" appear once at Suicide methods. I wonder what the pages related to ... suicide methods for children is referring to? Is that a separate topic on fa.wiki? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place to complain about issues on fa.wiki, but it does sound like that has already been resolved. It's worth stating that we do not respond well to legal threats. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's the fa thread, run the bottom section through Google Translate. The OP appears to be claiming that Wikipedia is going to be censored by the Iranian state if users don't remove sexual content from the project. Unbelieveable, rightly blocked for a month over there, so now he's come running over here trying to figure out how to censor them. You want a disclaimer? See WP:Content disclaimer. We host objectionable and offensive content that may be illegal in other countries. Wikipedia is not subject to Iranian law, nor is it subject to offended users' sense of morality. WP:NOTCENSORED. End of discussion. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, looks like the editor is still spamming these comments elsewhere. Evidently WP:NOTHERE? Ed6767 talk! 15:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

They were also blocked by Nyttend for similar behaviour back in April. P-K3 (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

And they've been blocked again by me for this. Definitely NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Good block. I was aware that this user was likely to be indef blocked but didn't think this thread alone was enough to justify it without drama. In hindsight I feel foolish for not doing so. It's arguably open-and-shut on the merits of this thread alone, without the additional context. The last thing we need is a religious extremist, who is literally representing a theocracy, who wants to censor our project in order to uphold religious morality laws that do not apply to the project. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

New proposal

I have made a new proposal regarding WP:ANI at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Make_future_WP:ANI_threads_individual_pages,_like_WP:AFD Ed6767 talk! 01:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like that. It was rejected before. Maybe now is the time. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Kevin Deutsch article editathon

Courtesy link: Talk:Kevin Deutsch § The Rolling Stone correction to their Kevin Deutsch story

Needs admin attention to deal with problematic user snowfire. FTIIIOhfive (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

And you're warned for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Added a courtesy link to the discussion in question. There appear to be more personal attacks with But especially not that hater snowfire! in Talk:Kevin Deutsch#White privilege among these editors. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah we don't want to keep going. Let's just compromise like we agreed. Harassment not going to happen. LaneyJfromHoward (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Here’s the ANI discussion: [33] and the SPI investigation: [34] Result: five socks blocked, including the OP here (FTIIIOhfive) and the commenter above (LaneyJfromHoward). -- MelanieN (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Protection of Cavoodle page

Hi there, I'm not sure if this is possible but would we be able to protect the 'Cavoodle' page please. It keeps getting vandalised and redirected to the 'cross breed' page. Although they are not recognised by a number of kennel clubs, they are recognised as a designer breed. For example the are searched for on Google about five time the number of times people search for a 'Norwegian Lundehund' which has it's own page that does not receive vandalism. There are a couple of bad eggs which have nothing better to do with their time than to vandalise pages they disagree with but I don't think they should be able to vandalise pages to give themselves a little sense of power. Leo — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoRussoLeo (talk • contribs) 13:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

LeoRussoLeo, this sort of request should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for Page Protection. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoRussoLeo (talk • contribs) 13:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

For the record, there is a consensus against this, so if necessary the redirect will be the version protected. Primefac (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, ha - now I remember why this is so familiar, I temp-blocked LRL as one of my first SPI clerk tasks! Shame on me for forgetting about that. Might end up needing that indef after all... GeneralNotability (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Archiving unaddressed discussions after three days

After I reverted a bot archiving a report I filed here three days ago and that hasn't been addressed by an admin, GiantSnowman has reverted me. Why is this, and why can't a report remain on this noticeboard for ... I don't know, a week, until it has received some attention from a non-involved editor or admin? JG66 (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You (disruptively - and twice!) reverted a bot archiving a large number of discussions, not just your own. If you want help, speak to me. Giant Snowman 12:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

JG66: The incidents thread in question strikes me as something that would be better handled at WP:DRN. –xeno^talk 12:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

xeno, thank you for the suggestion, and GiantSnowman, further to our discussion elsewhere. 'Fraid to say, I just see WP:DRN as yet another area that I'm completely unfamiliar with and looks so time-consuming to engage with. I say this after trying to get the issue addressed here and after having had what I considered a pretty solid case against the same user similarly ignored at AN/3RR last year. The editor's had past form at this noticeboard for WP:NPOV on the same band's articles (eg, in January 2017); seems to think information can remain unsourced for years; and insists that tacit acceptance of this outweighs key policies. (PaleCloudedWhite's opening statement at that linked AN/I discussion is uncannily spot on, btw, with regard to my experience of this user's approach both in 2019 and over the last week or so.) Yet here I am, having to do all the work, just to get this behaviour and these latest policy violations addressed.

I'm tempted instead to just handle each album article in its own right. At Template:Citation needed#Use, it's stated: "Remove the template when you add a citation for a statement." Carliertwo reverted my edit(s), removing the tag, but did not add a source. I can open RfCs for specific examples of original research and puffery, I guess. I'd be happy to ping you both as and when but, really, this is pretty draining and stupid when all I'm trying to do is impose some basic principles that would never be challenged at any other music act's articles. JG66 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Please re-post your case in brief on ANI main page (supported by links/diffs of the problematic behaviour) and ping me and I'll take a proper look! Giant Snowman 15:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I believe I’ve run into one of the usual suspects...

...but they aren’t doing the problematic behavior they are Best Known For. Report or wait until they starting acting up/out? Qwirkle (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

IME if it's them and they know their sock is suspected, they'll stop using it. Alexbrn (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Keyser Söze? Never heard of him. (and neither have you) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

One of the best unscripted police line-ups ever. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 04:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I apologise for acting like a bull in a china shop

with respect to my allegations of incivil behaviour by User:DePiep. I'll discuss my remaining concerns with the individual editors involved. Sandbh (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion

Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion is now operational, as a venue for prospective discussion closers to discuss how specific discussions should be closed. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

User Glucken123 for RAA on Lincoln Project Wiki Page

duplicate of thread at AN. Primefac (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

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

I keep having my topic deleted by user: Glucken123, he has deleted my topic twice now and is acting in bad faith and attempting to whitewash the Wikipedia page for the Lincoln Project. I did not add any edits to the page but included in the talk page that there are credible sources which state that Lincoln Project inadvertently spread Iranian disinformation about proud boys emailing potential Democrat voters. This user repeatedly deletes my topics without giving any rationale and I would like to request administrator action. Pformenti (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

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

User: Solavirum

It's been a week (04.10.2020-11.10.2020) that the user Solavirum has been demonstrating acts of misconduct and disintegrity. Acts such as, but not limited to: reference misuse and misquote, repetition, coming to own conclusions and using them in main article with no apparent proof, not checking the content of reference articles and relying on their titles only, advising other editors and behaving the opposite after modifying (even removing) their edits, disrespectful attitude towards fellow editors such as in the revision description here ("what the hell are you talking about"), and more. Those points are a clear violation of Wikipedia's code of conduct and guidelines.
It is worth noting that in the past other editors have tried to pay user Solavirum's attention to Wikipedia's guidelines. Claiming "victory" in an ongoing war where the word itself is not explicitly mentioned in the reference is a personal conclusion. Perhaps because, as the user expressed himself/herself "I didn't want to paraphrase it, because as a user from a combatant country, I might be slightly biased at least." as shown here.
Based on all the above and the detailed points, I ask the admins Ymblanter Johncdraper Rosguill Dvtch to review this case and ban the aforementioned user from editing this article. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, this is not the page where you appeal, but anyways. Most of the statements here are of no value to their selves. WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH first. Also, you always have the opportunity to WP:BOLD stuff you think that are wrong. And about the disrespectful stuff, I've received much worse statements towards me, so no big deal actually. As for the victory thing, it can be discussed, as the reference stated that the operation was a 'success', which means victory in most cases, in any case, check WP:NOTPERFECT. And for the last statement, of course I can't claim being fully unbiased, I'm from Azerbaijan editing an article about Azerbaijan. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 19:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course. All Azerbaijani's are unbiased when editing about Azerbaijan. Everyone knows that.

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Page size

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is far too large. How can we go about splitting it? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You can archive anything that is finalized, but you really can't just split it. It gets way large sometimes, and splitting it has been discussed before, but there isn't a way to logically split it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
TBH, it's already split into WP:AIV, WP:RfPP, WP:UAA, etc. This is the board for everything else. Individualizing threads, as is done at WP:AfD has been discussed and rejected. At least this way, there is a centralized venue where we can find that which interests us. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
In this context it should be mentioned that a discussion below contains the suggestion to increase the archive period, which would further increase the page size. ◅ Sebastian 18:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC) (Ping: Onetwothreeip, Dennis Brown, Deepfriedokra)
Actually, this was implemented, not just discussed. ◅ Sebastian 18:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
A {{section sizes}} template was added to the page header during this discussion; it was producing an error message. I fixed it by adding the page name: {{section sizes|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}}. If instead it was meant to calculate the section sizes for this talk page, simply change it to {{section sizes|Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard}}. How has it taken this long for me to notice that AN and AN/I share a talk page? All the discussion in one place instead of two or more? That's almost unWikipedian. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown, Deepfriedokra, SebastianHelm, and BlackcurrantTea: How about splitting complaints against IP editors to another article? These are typically much more straightforward, almost routine, and usually do not require any scrutiny from the broader community. They are clearly very different to the protracted disputes between established username editors. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I haven't found they are significantly different enough to warrant treating them differently. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Dennis Brown. It would also be one more noticeboard for admins to check, potentially getting backed up like AIV or RFPP because relatively fewer people watched it. Onetwothreeip, is your concern that it takes a very long time to load when you're reading it? If so, catch up by reading diffs from the history page instead - that's what I do. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, now I realize what I should have replied to my parents when they scolded me for the mess in my room! Seriously, though, we have a straightforward solution for cleaning up the current mess: #Archiving only closed threads on ANI. (Maybe I had better given that suggestion a title like “Reduce the size of ANI with minimal human effort”.) ◅ Sebastian 13:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, we can certainly distinguish between behavioural and personal issues that require consensus, and routine administrative tasks like addressing blatant vandalism. BlackcurrantTea, that's one of the main concerns, and even if your solution works, that would only work for you, me and whoever else is doing that, and not everyone else. Even for the individual there are certainly problems with that solution as well. SebastianHelm, does this mean the size of the page will decrease as this gets implemented? Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The simple answer is: Yes. I took a look at the version of 2020-11-20T11:38:43, just after we closed 18 topics. If those topics had then be archived by a bot, the page would have shrunk by 42%. (Computation: Word count of closed topics = 16278, total word count of page = 38596)

For a more thorough analysis one has to compare this with an existing tool, OneClickArchiver. However, that has to be run by humans and one needs to consider other factors beyond the topic of this section, size. There's some discussion of those in section #Archiving only closed threads on ANI below. ◅ Sebastian 23:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Are you saying that the article could be reduced 42% from what it is now, simply by archiving the closed sections? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

No. Now it's much less, because discussions haven't been closed. If you search the last 500 edits for “DiscussionCloser”, it occurs only 3 times. I, for one, stopped closing them after I realized that that was counterproductive, given the way archiving is currently set up. (Search for the word “counterproductive” below to read more about that.) ◅ Sebastian 23:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

What is much less? It does look like there are many closed discussions that could be moved into the archives. The page has already shrunk by 42%? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You can count words, too. Would you like me to show you how? ◅ Sebastian 11:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it's not clear to me what you are saying. What are you saying is now "much less"? Are you saying the page has already decreased by 42%? If not, then what does 42% refer to? Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I really don't see what could be unclear about this: The page content constantly changes – of course it is different now from November. And yes, much less than 42% of the text is closed now, as anyone can estimate by just looking at the page. (Tip: You can see that almost at one glance at 20% zoom level, if your browser supports that.) ◅ Sebastian 13:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

ECP and ARBPIA

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions explicitly forbids IPs and non-ECP editors from participating in "internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." Maybe this needs to be mentioned at the top of the page? Doug Weller talk 08:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Is it April 1 or are you hacked? You can't seriously ECP-protect every noticeboard under Israel-Palestine discretionary sanctions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 08:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, this is definitely not a conventional interpretation.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes and I was an idiot. But we need to add this to the headers. Doug Weller talk 08:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

...for the area of conflict is the salient part of the sanction itself. If an AFD, WikiProject, RFC, etc isn't in that area, then ARBPIA is completely irrelevant. Concur with Ymblanter that this is a rather extreme interpretation of that ruling. Primefac (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

That's a horrid over extension. Net calamity. Hope it's reversed soon. Wondered what was los. Terrible! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Gah. Totally serious not being mean. Someone needs to be COVID-19 screened soon. It does not just affect the lungs. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  - So... I guess no one can read today? :-p Primefac (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering why a million noticeboards were ECP'd for arbitration enforcement. Really don't think they should be. I think a notice should be fine. Invalid ^OS _talk 14:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Only 2. What we need is a version of {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement|relatedcontent=yes}} which of course would include an explanation. We could add that to the major noticeboards. @Ymblanter and Primefac: I have never suggested that an AfD, WikiProject, RfC isn't in the area should have ECP. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  - I must have misinterpreted your statement with the quote you provided, then. Apologies. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    - I am coming back from four hours teaching, and there are too many negations above for me, but what I think is that if there is a discussion on a general noticeboard or at AfC or wherever and new users are disrupting it they should be prevented from further participations, for example by blocks and protections. Concerning the motice at this talk page, I am not so sure. There are definitely many types of disruptive behavior which is discouraged or even explicitly prohibited by policies / ArbCom / community. I am not sure we need to list all of it on the general purpose talk pages, otherwise they would soon have kilometers of notices on the top. I will gladly listen to the opposing arguments though.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Totally confused, why was AN/ANI/BLPN protected as arbitration enforcement, and why would they have {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement|relatedcontent=yes}}? If there's a PIA discussion happening, admins can just remove non-ECP messages if they really want, but the question is really is such content disruptive, or is the enforcement more disruptive? I would assume the latter... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Once again the protection was due to a brain fart on my part and I undid it shortly there after. @ProcrastinatingReader: are you suggesting ignoring the Arbitration decision? Because it's pretty explicit. For instance, why should editors who can't edit articles be able to !vote to delete them? There was a clarification case on this and I don't think we can toss it out on this talk page.Doug Weller talk 19:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  They shouldn't, so I'm not questioning your protection of the AfD. I'm questioning tagging major noticeboards (which you said after unprotection) with that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  Just to be clear why I think that's a bad idea, refer to WP:ARBPIA4 for the restrictions in "related content" areas, and the requirements to do so. First, per #ARBPIA_General_Sanctions: discretionary sanctions and 1RR would be enacted on major noticeboards. Then refer to #General_sanctions_upon_related_content. {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} would have to be placed at the top, and {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} would have to be added to the editnotice. It does not make sense to add that giant scary notice to these very high visibility noticeboards that deal with disparate issues of which PIA content is a tiny fraction. Every notice someone adds, the less chance anyone will read any of them. Luckily, ArbCom gives an out: Editors should apply the ARBPIA General Sanctions templates to related content only when disruption creates a need for additional administrative tools.
  Also per this I think this is a very poor idea for BLPN: non-ECP editors have valid concerns of BLP violations on articles in the scope of PIA4 should be free to raise their concerns at BLPN. Even if these BLPN discussions are technical violations of PIA4, or rare, it's a clear net negative to prohibit them from happening. Every other ARCA I've filed people like Newyorkbrad have stated sanctions should be enforced with common sense; I cannot imagine arbs pictured main noticeboards splattered with notices and arbitration enforcement when they drafted PIA4. All this seems like a solution looking for a problem. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  Agree, we have enough difficulty convincing people to not report WP:OUTING here, and to notify reported users. Are we really going to also say "and also make sure your edit doesn't concern Palestine-Israel" also? Because, hypothetically, that might be what they are doing? Banner blindness is enough of a problem already. We should stick to the important stuff. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  
  I never even considered 1RR, that's ridiculous and not allowed. And not appropriate to ARBPIA articles normally, ECP is enough. Just as 1RR isn't standard for AP, etc. And since the amendment specifically mentions noticeboards, I presume they meant it for noticeboards. Doug Weller talk 06:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  I'm surprised you are not aware that PIA is not AP2, and has topic-wide restrictions. Also that you only picked out 3 letters of my 2 paragraph response. In any case, ARBPIA4 was passed one year ago. I imagine since then all 15 arbs have visited AN/ANI/BLPN at least once. Do you not think they might've said "oh, there's no arbitration enforcement plastered on this noticeboard, our decision isn't being followed! let's bring this up" if your interpretation is actually what they meant? I encourage you to test your theory out at ARCA, but in the meantime, since there is unanimous consensus on multiple noticeboards against what you are trying to do, I presume you will not do anything. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Archiving only closed threads on ANI

This topic in a nutshell: To solve the problems related to the size of ANI, it is suggested to streamline the process of archiving by relying on • people to close threads, and then • bots to archive them.

Newimpartial rescued some open threads from Lowercase sigmabot III, which raises the question: Why don't we set up archiving such that only closed threads are archived? Not sure if Lowercase sigmabot III can do that, but there's gotta be some bot up to the task. ◅ Sebastian 16:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Most threads aren't formally closed; the bot (correctly) archives threads where there have been no recent updates. If the bot is archiving threads too quickly, the answer is to increase the archive period; insisting that all threads be closed would be purest bureaucracy-for-bureaucracy's sake as well as an open invitation to edit-wars and bad feeling. ‑ Iridescent 16:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Who talks about all of Wikipedia? This discussion is about this one particular page, which already works differently from the rest of Wikipedia in many ways. It's clear that your thermostat solution doesn't work: The bot is working too quickly in the case above, but at the same time too slowly per #Page size above. Yes, many threads aren't formally closed; but we can change that. It's easy. ◅ Sebastian 17:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

SebastianHelm I am not sure if you are aware of this incident, but there was this one time where there was a discussion on ANI regarding a disruptive user who ended up getting banned to quickly as the discussion was closed and archived to quickly. The user eventually ended up leaving Wikipedia just because of that. The point is, we do not want a bot to end up doing an incident like this, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=873095273#Tarage and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tarage , that a human error created. (Non-administrator comment)Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Aceing, if understand you correctly that you don't want a bot to archive too soon, then thank you for your support. That is a good point for the proposal, which requires a human to close each case before the bot can archive it. ◅ Sebastian 23:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

To be exact, I only meant ANI. I'm adjusting the headline accordingly. At this time, I have no opinion on doing the same for other AN pages. ◅ Sebastian 18:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

We've previously discussed having the bots react to e.g. {{resolved}}. Several editors preferred to have the discussion available on the main page for a few days and then have it archived; the problem is that the bots more or less immediately react rather than react in few days. As for having the bot react only to closed threads, that would require increasing the archive time significantly as I am fairly certain the bots do not work like that today (which means you would need to ask the operators to modify their bots). I agree with Iridescent that the system works reasonably well as it is that we shouldn't bother the bot ops, but if you are interested in doing that regardless, I'm sure you can find the relevant user talk pages. --Izno (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the background information, Izno. It sounds like you know what you're talking about when you say there are no bots that work today, so I can save myself the trouble of a wild goose chase. And if I'm, as it seems now, the only one in favor of that solution then it's certainly not worth bothering any bot operator to modify their bot. One question: You mention previous discussion/s – would you have a link or anything that makes it easier to find that or them, such as approximate date or some rare words one can search the archive for? ◅ Sebastian 11:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. I have some vague inkling it may have been on this page or WT:ANI, so check the archives here. --Izno (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I found one topic from 2007: Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 5#ANI is a high traffic noticeboard. Is that the one you remember? Some people saw some problems, but they all were overcome with good ideas, and eventually there was unanimous support of the suggestion. The reason why it didn't get implemented seems to be that people were not happy with the bot whose operator volunteered to implement the change. Also, that bot operator stopped contributing in the years since. Still, this seems overall encouraging. ◅ Sebastian 17:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

A bot that only archives resolved threads at a certain noticeboard seems technically doable. Seems like a good idea, too. If needed we could create a special {ANI-resolved} template for the purpose. Now that I think about it, it strikes me as kind of surprising that we have bots that archive based on last time stamp but not based on the thread being closed. The former seems a lot more difficult to code than the latter. It's also possible for us to do tea house-style "your thread has been archived" notifications, if we wanted to do that. Le v¡v ich 18:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Two more thoughts in the same direction:

The way it currently is implemented is counterproductive: When we add an “Archive ...” template to a thread, it prolongs the time it will take till it actually gets archived.
Even without the previous point, it is already a contradiction (or a hack) to assign archiving to a bot which is clueless about the “Archive ...” template.

◅ Sebastian 18:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Re #1: yup. Because closing them just delays archiving with no benefit, I think it's better to archive short/straightforward threads that are concluded without closing them first.

For this reason, I disagree with the "rescuing" of these two threads, and with the extension of the autoarchiving from 3 days to 4 (neither are a big deal, but while we're on the subject...). The two threads that were rescued [35] are pretty good examples of why I think autoarchiving unclosed threads, while manually closing and archiving threads that need to be closed, is a good system.

In the first thread, which was an interpersonal dispute between two editors, neither the filer nor the reported user edited since the thread had been filed. It's not "urgent" or "chronic" if neither of them care about it; giving them three days to engage, and then moving the thread to the archives, was the best thing to do. "Forget it ever happened," as it were. Instead, it was unarchived, and then what happened: one admin commented on it, and then a second admin closed it with a comment; in 24hrs it'll be sent back to the archives. The filer and reported editor still haven't edited. That totally was not worth the time of two admins to read and comment on, and it's questionable whether their comments will ever be read by the two editors involved. Should have left it in the archives.

The second thread that was archived received no further comments; I closed it with a summary that didn't really need to be written; and now it's back in the archives. Again, it's more edits and more editor time than was necessary.

I think we should close threads when a closing statement is useful; archive threads that are concluded or dead after 24hrs regardless of whether they have {{atop}} or not; and focus our energies much more on triaging incoming threads and trying to make it so disputes are resolved more quickly, and editors feel like their requests for help are being answered.

In my view, "archiving too soon" is not a problem; "not resolved and archived soon enough" is the problem. Le v¡v ich 20:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

So it seems we agree on autoarchiving manually closed threads; but we haven't reached unanimity about whether we should in addition also autoarchive threads that have not seen a contribution after a given time. Since Levivich has more experience here than I do, I buy his argument that "archiving too soon" is not a problem, but having two archiving mechanisms is a complication that affects transparency and a perception of fairness. How often do we have cases that would benefit from time-triggered autoarchiving? If those occur no more than about a dozen times a week, I'd say the benefit of a simple, straightforward process outweigh the possible savings in the time it takes for to put {{atop}} on top. In that case, I'll go ahead and find out if we can get a bot do that. Otherwise, we'd have to agree on a good time for the delay. The step down from currently 4 days to 24 hours seems a bit abrupt to me; I feel it would be better to start with 2 or 3 days. ◅ Sebastian 19:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I should add that this suggestion requires a bit of human effort, but (1) the human interaction resolves User:Aceing's concern and (2) it's not much work, and quite rewarding. I would still be doing it (and probably Levivich, too) if we hadn't realized (see 18:27 above) that it's counterproductive. ◅ Sebastian 13:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure a decision should be made based on a discussion on the AN talk page which most admins never look at. Any drastic change to the archiving settings for the page is likely to be reverted as an error. I think you should post a link to this discussion on the main WP:AN page. Four editors doesn't make for "consensus" on such a widely viewed project page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a valid concern. In my impression most admins just don't care about what happens with old cases, but I may be wrong, and better be safe than sorry. I have to leave now, but I can post that link later. ◅ Sebastian 23:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The human effort is justified: Any admin who wants to contribute to resolving any issue has to put in some time for reading the thread anyway. And even when one realizes that another admin is already handling an issue, it's still worthwhile to see how they do it. Only when an issue is marked as resolved is it not necessary anymore for an admin to read it. ◅ Sebastian 12:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Break (after the announcement on the project page)

I think this wouldn't be helpful. Having the ability to find old threads, whether resolved or not, provides important historical context. Having this proposal enacted would create pressure to close more ANI threads, both those which are currently resolved but aren't formally closed but also those that just kind of fizzle out. A discussion might fizzle out for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that it just didn't attract the attention of the ANI crowd at that given moment, and not because there wasn't underlying troubling behavior. A thread fizzling out isn't necessarily a bad thing either. However, if troubling behavior continues it's helpful to find those old ANI threads and say "the behavior first reported here has continued". If I were going to make a change to AN archives it would be to separate the archives of AN3 and ANI because there are often times when I want each of those individually and not always together. Not sure if that's true for others. Returning to the actual proposal at hand, we don't need to create more situations that require a close; WP:ANRFC is at a fairly manageable level these days which I think is helpful for the project as a whole and I wouldn't want to upset that balance with something whose utility already strikes me as less than the cost. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

If I were going to make a change to AN archives it would be to separate the archives of AN3 and ANI because there are often times when I want each of those individually and not always together. Barkeep49, perhaps I've misunderstood what you're looking for, but the archives of AN3 and AN/I are already separate, as are AN and AN/I; see {{Administrators' noticeboard archives}} for recentish archive navigation. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what yall are talking about, given that we already have separate archive for AN, ANI, AN3/3RR, and AE. Primefac (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me clarify. While the archives are separate the search encompasses them all. Given that there hundreds of archives the most efficient method in most circumstances is to use a search rather than manually going through them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

See my link; you can search each one individually. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

So we have. Thanks for that bit of knowledge. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The part I don't understand is “Having the ability to find old threads...”. I don't see how this proposal would affect the ability to find archived threads. If anything, they could be found easier, since they all would contain a closing notice summarizing the result, for which one could search. Apart from that, I see two points in Barkeep49's post:

(1) “Fizzling out isn't necessarily a bad thing”: This sounds like what Lev¡vich already said above (20:07, 22 November). What do you say to my reply (at 19:40, 26 December)? To that reply, I now would add that the concern should be already addressed simply by writing in the summary or the status that it fizzled out. Even simpler, we could implement some standard wording in {{atop}}, which would be triggered by “result=fizz” or by “status=fizz” (just like “status=none” now).

(2) “We don't need to create more situations that require a close; [we already got] WP:ANRFC ... I wouldn't want to upset that balance”: This proposal should not affect ANRFC, as these cases will get closed anyway. Ultimately, it's not creating any more situations that require a close: The situations are there on ANI and each of them already requires some form of close. The only difference is whether they get closed by a bot or by a human. I made the case for the human (13:39, 29 December and 12:22, 30 December). From what I write there, it should be clear that this is very unlikely to create any backlog. ◅ Sebastian 13:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Except a conversation doesn't just fizzle out in your proposal. It needs to be formally closed if it's to be properly archived. So someoene needs to take responsibility for making the determination that it has fizzled and labeling it as so. We introduce a subjective standard, and one requiring editor time, where we now have an objective automatic one. Editor time is a precious commodity and I would prefer that it be spent in other ways. If this proposal were to pass, not only would we have more editor time spent closing, we'd have editor time spent asking for closes on ANRFC and editor time dealing with those requests and responses to consider closing them or to make sure they're formatted properly so that board works correctly. I think we need to only create more bureaucracy, and thus need for the expenditure of scarce and valuable editor time, where truly necessary and this proposal does not, for me, come close to meeting that standard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

fizzle: You're putting the cart before the horse. If a conversation fizzles out doesn't depend on what happens with it after it's done fizzling out. (Unless one takes into account that people may try to game the system, which is probably easier when dealing with an “objective” bot, and hence another argument for a human.)

bureaucracy: The applicable definition from our own article bureaucracy is: “the administrative system governing any large institution [...]” It doesn't matter if the system consists of bots or humans. Currently, we have at least two bots. Having one fewer bot would simplify the system.

Your main point, though, seems to be editing time. If by editing time you mean just the time for editing – that is, the time it takes a closer between clicking the Close link and submitting the Discussion Closer, then I agree with you that manual closing takes more of that time. But that time is negligible compared to the time it takes to read and understand a single thread. When there are, as seems to be common, about a dozen threads that remain open just because editors are waiting for the bot to archive them, we're talking hours. Multiply that with the number of people reading the page, and you get thousands of person-hours each year. Now that's a waste of a precious commodity! ◅ Sebastian 21:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Loves Woolf1882 issue archived but not closed

Unarchived and closed. — Wug·a·po·des 06:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Just to point out (@Drmies:) that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#Loves Woolf1882 has been archived without being closed. I don't see any point in my responding to the details of the user's response: my summary remains valid. Since I made the effort to post this to AN/I, it would be nice to see the issue closed one way or the other. This would be good for that user too, whichever way the closing decision goes. Boud (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Not the first time that anything that gets a bit too complicated is just forgotten--I'm sorry, it must feel like a wasted effort. The very walls of text on talk pages are disruptive enough already... Drmies (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not blaming anyone. :) We're all just volunteers here. Just a reminder in case someone has the time to wade through the walls of text. Boud (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  FYI that thread is still being edited in the archives. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  I unarchived it. Taking a look at it now with the goal of closing. — Wug·a·po·des 04:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Archived discussion needs closure

This archived discussion needs a closure by an uninvolved admin: [36]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Closures are requested at WP:ANRFC. But why does it need closure? Even if the discussion wasn't archived, the matter is already before the Committee, so what would be the point? El_C 09:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:TPG

Hi Crossroads! I looked up WP:TPG and it says nothing about WP:ANI. Further, in an ANI report, the OP's behaviour can also be examined. Two editors have put that user5 tag up and I have undone your delete. Vikram Vincent 10:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we get an administrator to clarify this? You should stop re-adding that: [37] The fact is, even if a second user also re-added it, other editors' comments should not be altered, which includes ANI. TPG, or more specifically WP:TPO, states: The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. What you did does not fall under any of the exceptions. It changes the meaning by making it look like both users were reported for the same thing and changes the meaning of many of the replies who supported a topic ban for one user by making it look like they supported both. That the reporter's behavior is also under scrutiny at ANI is already well-known and does not require a user-5 template. In fact, everyone's behavior is under scrutiny at ANI. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads a ping would have been nice while responding :-) My understanding is that the main participants involved in the conflict would need to be examined and not just the editor against whom the complaint is about and I counted at least five editors who are active on the ML project. The other editors are normally uninvolved in the conflict and their behaviour are not in question for the ANI board. So yes, it would be good for some admins to share their interpretations and experience. Vikram Vincent 06:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Generally, adding user or article links to the top of sections is a standard practice at AN and ANI (example). As for this case, which seems to involve adding a new user's userlinks to the top of the section, I suppose much would depend on its own particular context. Not actually sure there is a one-size-fits-all answer here. El_C 07:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

El_C, I do very much appreciate you taking the time to comment. However, I think the later added "userlinks" need to be removed and others told not to restore them. As I said above, the links change the meaning of the section heading and later comments, making it look like Des Vallee is accused of that or being "voted" on, when Des Vallee is the one who brought the report and those early replies were speaking only of the reported editor. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, Crossroads, if the retroactive nature of the top-added user(-links) is acute, then it probably should be prohibited, or at least qualified with some precision. I just am not privy (still) to the extent to which this may be so. El_C 19:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I think I was able to round that particular corner (diff). El_C 19:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Crossroads, just because Vikram Vincent does not agree with the OP, he should not have modified the OP's text per our policies, since reporters have no immunity, by default admins check them also, so this is not an argument.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC))

Thank you El C. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding YouTube as a source for dubbed movie

Anbe Sivam, a Tamil movie , has been dubbed in Hindi and released on YouTube officially by a production house . Can this info be added under "Release" section of the movie? If yes, is it allowed to add YouTube link of the movie as citation? Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Ihaveabandonedmychild, this is not an appropriate place to ask questions like this. You may want to ask over at the Teahouse or help desk. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok Ihaveabandonedmychild (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Anon ips

Hi I was wondering if it is possible to ask for a discussion about if wikipedia should ban non-registered ips or add full oaflge protection from anon ips as many seem to constantly vandalise the pages and only some seem to actually add constructive information. RailwayJG (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't wish to be negative,, but have you looked here? This is a perennial proposal which isn't likely to gain traction, especially as the WMF decrees that making an account is not to be made mandatory; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 10:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless I am going blind, almost all pages on my watchlist have been given silly local hard man and troll edits. Surely it would be better to make it mandatory to have an account because it just involves constantly reverting the edits. It makes it like a free for all. Just saying as Wiki is meant to be an encyclopedia and not a promoting troll site. Just saying. RailwayJG (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Do I need to re-notify about a separate issue?

Concerns a user who already has an active discussion on this board.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Just do it. There's extremely rarely any reason why you shouldn't notify, and doing it takes no more time than asking a question about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - re-notify. Giant Snowman 21:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The reason I don't wish to notify is because other users have complained about my alleged talk page harassment, and I agreed not to message anyone directly for a period of time.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Help

You used the {{Help me}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{Help me}} tag when you are done, and someone will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access to the channel.

92.40.190.219 (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi it seems you forgot to ask an actual questions? Also note that its preferable to place the template on your user talk page Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 08:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Complicated discussions

Should long, winding, complicated discussions have a TL;DR so it can be understood a bit easier? Probably not, but it might help other Wikipedians understand long, winding discussions, if they have trouble with that. 4D4850 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Given this discussion I assume this is not something you plan on pursuing further.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC) -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

User talk:MicahRichards38990 and Watford

This editor seems to be nothing but a troll editor constantly changing Watford to London and Greater London by adding misleading information. I would suggest a temporary ban or a full block as they seem to only care about changing things that they want people to believe. RailwayJG (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

donations

Not sure if this is the right place to ask.

Lately I have noticed on a few talk pages I watch comments like "take this page down or I will stop donating", is this in fact disruptive?Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd say so: at least, if it isn't actually disruptive, it's clearly meant to be, in having a chilling effect on the usual processes of the project. Where've you seen them? ——Serial 08:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a worthless/throwaway comment that ultimately means anything. I don't think anyone should view it as a serious threat of any nature and just ignore it. The people who are making these threats are likely either not donating in the first place, or donating such a small amount it's not going to be a huge loss if they withdraw their support. Primefac (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

[[38]] is an example of a couple I have seen recently. Yes they are all by new SPA's, but even so they do waste time.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Collage help

Moved to WP:TEAHOUSE (diff)

RailwayJG, I've moved your question to a better location. Primefac (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC) Thank you :) RailwayJG (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Possible conflict

I wanted to just ask for some help with the user (Joe Roe). He has recently been misinterpreting my comments on the Heavy Woollen District and accusing me of being someone who denies it exists, as someone who is blind to its existence and making out I am pointy and stupid. I feel bullied and as someone who suffers with autism and anxiety. I would really appreciate someone outside the discussion to look at recent activity on the Heavy Wollen District deletion, discussion and categories pages. I feel this user has an issue with me and I am not one who looks for conflict I just ask for clarity and all I seem to have gotten was nasty sarcastic misinterpretation comments. I am sure wikipedia also help editors who are disabled like myself. I would appreciate some help. I feel I am seen as a nuisance yet I contribute quite a bit to railway, church, town hall and borough articles. I would appreciate someone looking into this and being able to advise me. Thank you RailwayJG (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Lim Kok Wing

Today an highly notable Malaysian person died Lim Kok Wing. However it's blocked from creating 13 years ago because of "Repeatedly created vanity/attack page" (June 2008). Can an administrator remove this block or move Draft:Lim Kok Wing to mainspace? Thanks, SportsOlympic (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

For a highly notable person, there's not much in that draft. I suggest you add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page and let an AFC reviewer take a look. Primefac (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I just created a quick stub as a starting point. OK, I will do that. Thanks, SportsOlympic (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

However, I see now, this may take up to 4 months! Why is it not possible to remove the block? I don't see a good reason for it. It is likely someone will want to work on the article these days he is in the news (that's why I also created the stub). That won't be the case anymore afer four months... SportsOlympic (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"Up to" does not mean "will take", just like "indefinite" does not mean "infinite". Over 70% of drafts are reviewed within the first two days of submission. That being said, there is no hard requirement to use AFC, it was just a suggestion because at first glance your sub-stub does not meet the notability requirements and getting the opinion of a reviewer may be helpful. Primefac (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. I can't name a University founder who is not notable. Besides of that all Professor Emerita meets WP:NACADEMIC and all University presidents meets WP:NACADEMIC. He won over a 100 of awards. So, yes he meets definately the notability requirements. All the references are of after the block. Can someone please explain the block, or just remove it. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It was a quick skim, and from another quick skim it looks better (both in content and refs). Primefac (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

And if a reviewer if not an admin, it can't still be moved. How to solve that? SportsOlympic (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

We have a process for that. Primefac (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Article now at Lim Kok-Wing. So, either it should be nominated for deletion, or the proper title unsalted. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Block this

User talk:Aglrochisat as creating vandalism on page and changing the whole page Ror84here (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you will need to supply diffs to show this. Also, the user in question is indefinitely blocked currently, and has been for at least a few days. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Constant Personal attacks

Please see the talk page of User:Bishonen a user named User:Solarson919 has been throwing false accusations for the last few hours, he has now started calling me false names and other derogatory remarks. All I did was reverted his unsourced misleading edits on the WP Jeypore. He has been harassing me since then. Odiahistory (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Odiahistory This page is for discussing the operation of the noticeboard, and is not the board itself. Please post on the main noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Guilopez, Lucy, etc.

~~Bl-72~~ Bl-indef for the guy who doesn't give a shit, courtesy of DrKay. (non-admin closure) ——Serial 11:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

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

This guy is a dickhead, full stop. If you read the Lucy article, as well as my exchange with him, you'll all figure it out. All the poets mentioned read English at UCC when Lucy was there. Several of their entries actually mention Lucy by name. I have made numerous attempts to mute the sentence to satisfy this guy's pretend-concern, but to no avail. He's loving every second of it, and the present request for citation makes no sense whatsoever in light of the change I have made to the sentence. But this man isn't going to give it up. I'll leave it to you guys to decide. I personally couldn't give a shit if I'm banned or not, but I detest a sneak. Do the work. Make a decision. Hanoi Road (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"If you read the Lucy article, as well as my exchange with him, you'll all figure it out". Indeed. I add/restore a simple/genuine request for a basic reference. I make AGF efforts to engage on own talk page. I, in return, am subjected to a tirade of abuse. Including above. Hanoi Road is correct in stating that it all speaks for itself. Otherwise this thread is a fork of existing an thread at ANI. Guliolopez (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Request to create page "Vardaan" (CarryMinati song)

When trying to create this page I get the following error:

Creation of this page (Vardaan) is currently restricted to administrators because the page title matches an entry .*im.*eiss.* # Ramesh012 (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ramesh012: We already have an article called Vardaan. The title Vardaan (CarryMinati song) is blacklisted on the title blacklist. I am declining (for now) to create the title for you because it is unlikely that a YouTuber song is independently notable. I suggest adding a paragraph about it to the CarryMinati article instead. If there is enough material to split out to a stand-alone article about the song, then we can consider it. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Akhtar Raza Khan's Image

I, want to discuss on image of Akhtar Raza Khan image, so I request to Administrators please come and discuss with me Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Also at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Need_Discussion_On_Akhtar_Raza_Khan_Image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

skip to top and bottom

BRD. I removed Template:Skip to top and bottom that was recently added, is causing parts of my display to be obscured at certain resolutions. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Someone settle this for me...

How do you pronounce WP:ANI/WP:AN/I:

"Annie" like the orphan, or
A-N-I spelled out.

Your response would be appreciated. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Ay Enne slash Eye ~TNT (she/they • talk) 04:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

"An Eye". Primefac (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

ANI are you OK, are you OK ANI? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Great. Next April 1, I see the creation of WP:ANIRUOK,RUOKANI. lol —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

A-N-I personally, but I like Deepfriedokra's Michael Jackson reference so much I might switch to 'annie' just because it's funny! firefly ( t · c ) 13:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

ALFA NOVEMBER INDIA. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It is obviously the letters a n i and anyone who thinks otherwise is objectively wrong and will instantly become my sworn enemy, to be defeated in the third act of Wikipedia, time tbd. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It's pronounced, "Drahmah Board". -- RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: If anyone seriously called it that, then the response would just be: "Which one?"

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You've got it all wrong.

Original and obviously correct pronunciation is Ay-nye after levator ani: this recognises the page as the pelvic floor of Wikipedia, keeping our insides inside while allowing unnecessary materials to pass outward.
More modern Wikipedians pronounce it annie after the oft-misspelled 1946 musical extravaganza Annie get your gun, or to give that its original but less successful Broadway title: "Annie get your gun (because boomerangs are too slow)."
The A-N-I pronunciation, popular with the younger set, is a creation of people who spend too long hanging around at BRFA and now speak only in acronyms.

Hope that helps. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that BRFA is pronounced "berfa" ("burfa" is also acceptable). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Berfa deez bots! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

All Nerds Incoming —valereee (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
wowwwwwwwwwwwwwww Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 14:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

A-N-I personally, although I also spell out all of the acronyms except for WP:FAR, WP:ELNO (because it sounds like "hell no" when you say it), and "ARBCOM". Hog Farm _Talk 05:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Anne Eye. Maybe Annie. I also sometimes pronounce it "popcorn". — Czello 07:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

/ˌɑːɛn'iː/. If I were to talk about it with actual speech sounds, I'd probably pronounce each letter in English, but when it's just my internal pronunciation in my head, I use my native pronunciation. --bonadea contributions talk 07:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I dont. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
With gritted teeth. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

A-N-I! Giant Snowman 11:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
"Eh-En-Aye". --Jayron 32 11:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I spell it out, so A-N-I. Generally I'll spell it out if it's not a word I know from outside Wikipedia. For example, FAR I would say far but for FA I would say F-A. Also GAN I would say gan as it sounds like a local dialect word locally to me, but GA I would say G-A. Sometimes I'll spell it out and also include a word, such as GANI being gan-I. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Annie, easy. AN is like "ann" Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 14:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Didn't the Sex Pistols settle the issue in 1977? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Drama Board. OhKayeSierra (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Is it pronouncing something, if you have never said it out loud? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm surprised nobody has commented that, historically, it has been pronounced ANI, as in "ANI Old Iron", since at least 1911! Nick Moyes (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
ANI Get Your Gun. E Eng 01:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't pronounce, but rather recognise them for what they are. Abbreviations. GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Re Carmaker1 again

Just a followup inquiry for Euryalus, who imposed the recent block on Carmaker1: I assume Carmaker1 was also autoblocked? (MrsSnoozyTurtle, you may wish to comment.) E Eng 23:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@EEng: Thanks for the ping: I was actually changing an existing block setting but I believe that does reinstate the autoblock. In the spirit of good janitoring, is there still a mess in aisle 5? -- Euryalus (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Euryalus: Evil me, I was squeezing the last few drops out of [39] for the amusement of [40] -- you know ... Carmaker gets an Autoblock? It's sad, really. In high school everyone said I was destined to do great things, but look at me now. E Eng 13:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I noticed that Carmaker's block log doesn't say "account creation blocked." Does that mean he can technically create another account?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Having run into something similar recently, I think the problem is that when someone who is partially blocked gets reblocked sitewide, it's not a new block, it's a change to an existing block. And p-blocks start out without ACB as the default. When it's a new site-wide block, ACB is the default. But when it's changing an existing block without ACB, you have to actively remember to do ACB. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Each block log entry will specify the flags that apply to that block. The latest entry doesn't include "account creation blocked", so account creation is not blocked. It also doesn't say "autoblock disabled", so their IP was autoblocked, however as you probably know autoblocks expire after 24 hours. I think Floq is right about parblocks being coverted to site blocks: when an admin "changes" a block, the block form is pre-filled with the settings of the existing block, and if you don't change them then those settings carry forward. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It was me who converted the partial block into the sitewide one; I am sure I did not really look at the settings, assuming they are standard. If this is a common problem, it might be worthwhile to make an announcement at AN and possibly to file a phabricator ticket.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think autoblocks prevent account creation, but I'm not sure. If you were able to create an account on an autoblocked IP, you wouldn't be able to edit until the autoblock expired. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@EEng: you can't make "punishment" without "pun", and as the esoteric technical discussion in this thread demonstrates, you also can't make a pun without punishment. Levivich 17:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I appear to have crated a Frankenstein. E Eng 17:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, EEng. I don't really understand what's happening hear, but it's good to see that more knowledge folks here are steering us through this process :) MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Remember when we had a chuckle over the fact you'd said that Carmaker1 was driving other volunteers away? Well, not content to leave well enough along, I thought I'd get a few more groans out of people by raising the question of whether that same editor should be Autoblocked. I do the best I can with the material available. E Eng 00:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Your sense of humor is certainly a change of gears from regular talkpage comments. But don't let that put the brakes on it. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, it's quite the gas. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Archdevils' Noticeboard/Incidents

Anyone else notice that both "archdevil" and "administrator" start with the letter a and shorten to AD? Minkai (talk to me)_{(see where I screwed up)} 15:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I too enjoy marijuana. --Golbez (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Can we try using Template:status at AN/I please?

Status: In progress

The {{status}} template could be pretty darn useful on AN/I - although we're fairly good at using {{atop}} etc. once a request is resolved, having an at a glance show of which requests still need assistance might speed up responses for the casually glancing administrator? A pre-load for a new section could automagically include the template (like Steward requests/Global does). If y'all like the idea, I thought of it, otherwise you can blame our soon-to-be-admin ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Could we make this preventing topics from automatic archivation?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm certainly not smart enough to answer that, so I'm going to say yes! and leave it to the clever people to implement

~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

There's a slight difference, though. Only experienced editors post at Steward requests/Global. Anyone posts at ANI, even a newbie with 5 edits. For reasons I don't understand, many people seem to be puzzled by preloads (just look at how often edit requests with the preloaded junk end up malformed). It's probably still workable but felt it worth pointing out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Not fecking up the pre-load is a good litmus test.. 😬 ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

What would be the difference between done and not done? Use not done for closes of bad (or bad faith) reports, anything else close with done? —C.Fred (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Not done means not closed (not acted upon, not resolved, whatever). This is the default state.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Looking at usage here, I'd think in progress was the default state. —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, you are right, I misunderstood the question. I guess for us done and not done are the same - on Meta, there is a binary response, and we have a bigger variety of options.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
And edit-request statuses have done and not done as clear outcomes, plus variants like partially done. That's where I've used templates like {{Done}} and {{ESp}} before. —C.Fred (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The second problem is that many (maybe even most) ANI reports don't get enough attention for a real resolution. Unlike at SRG where most are. So if we do this, we'll have a ton of "In progress" in the archives unless the archive bot is setup to change it to "Nothing done (inactive)". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Maybe fork {{status}} and create one especially for AN/ANI, with its own status messages, and optional {{DNAU}} functionality. The question is what are the status states? Because "In progress"/"on hold"/"done" are already accomplished by [nothing]/{{pin section}}/{{atop}}. Levivich 22:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@Levivich: I played around with the sandbox, and the results were ehhhh.. The problem is that a lot of closes require an explanation (with a signature), and {{status}} isn't really designed for that in mind. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
If someone gets blocked, then you use {{atop}} and put in a summary as normal. Primefac (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@MJL: Thanks for checking it out. I agree, {{status}} is ehhh as a template to handled closes. But I think the idea is a template that gives that status of threads that aren't yet closed, so that reviewing editors can see at a glance which threads need attention (and maybe what kind of attention they need), as opposed to the template reporting the result of the discussion. Levivich 17:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Eh I guess this just adds an unnecessary step to an already fairly well running noticeboard - another idea for another day! ~TNT (she/they • talk) 22:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't throw in the towel just yet. It's a promising idea with an actual purpose. Some discussion of possible quirks is expected. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I also think it's fundamentally a good idea; you're spot on that having an at a glance show of which requests still need assistance might speed up responses for the casually glancing administrator. Levivich 23:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I think this could be a good way to subtly shift the ANI dynamic toward something more results-oriented. Some {{progress}} like template with options of (off the top of my head) "awaiting attention", "under admin review" (for simple cases), "discussion ongoing" (for more complex cases), "sanctions proposed", and "resolved" could maybe put a bit of pressure on filers and participants to let the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents function as an administrators' noticeboard for incidents. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree! I think that's also a good collection of options. Perhaps also something like "an admin has requested further admin input" (better wording needed) for an 'I've looked at it and think x but I'd like another admin to weigh in before I do x'. Maybe also splitting "discussion ongoing" into options such as "admin input requested", "editor input requested", "on hold", "pending OP/subject response". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
It would be a good idea to have some sort of system that draws attention to reports that don't get attention, not even just here particularly, but at places like AN/EW. Having real problems leave these noticeboard lets them fester further, and doesn't bring much confidence towards the administrative structure. There shouldn't need to be a resolution in terms of blocking or so on, even if the system simply prompts third parties to write that the issue is there but is not at the point where more than warnings need to take place, or that the issue is out of scope of the noticeboard, or even that the filer should be warned combined with some advice, that's a vast improvement over a silent archival. CMD (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Guess who's back

Hello again all, I've swum around my bowl a few times and landed back here - really positive remarks above, thank you! I've thrown together Template:ANI status - you'll note it only has three statuses:

Brand new reports	→	{{ANI status}}	→	Status: Requires attention
Requiring admin action	→	{{ANI status\|admin}}	→	Status: Requires admin attention
No longer requiring action	→	{{ANI status\|done}}	→	Status: No further action currently required

I feel this is a good compromise between a status template which contains every possible ANI case status ({{ANI status|peanut gallery in progress}}) and one which isn't very useful. I've covered what I think {{ANI status|done}} means here, but essentially its a state in which a report has no further (current) action required, and patrolling admins can skip over it if they so wish.

I've added the template to this report as a bit of an example. Two questions really:

What are your thoughts?
What's the best way of getting it in use?

Cheers ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 14:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Sounds like it should be something automatically added to every new ANI section by default. I think it would also be useful to have another status as "secondopinion" so it could show that an admin has looked at it, but would like another admin to weigh-in. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 14:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This looks great, thank you for sticking with it and making the template. Is the thinking that {atop} would still be used in those threads that need a closing statement, whereas the ones that don't would get auto archived with just {ANI status|done}? (And if so should this be mentioned in the template doc?) As to Q2, be bold. Levivich 15:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: That's my thinking - I'll add a note about closing/archiving to the template docs. That side of ANI (archiving away completed threads) is fairly well handled in my opinion ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 16:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

TNT, do you think there should be any restriction or guidance on who can change to "Requiring admin action"? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Good question... I don't think guidance is needed, as the template is really only geared towards assisting patrolling admins in finding sections which need attention. I touched on this a little here with "This template should not be considered "the official status" of a report! It's a helpful nudge, that's all.". What's your opinion on it?

~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 20:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I am possibly being overly pessimistic, but I worry that everyone will turn their orange sections red, especially if it there develops a perception that red sections are more likely to get admin attention. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hate to be a Debbie Downer here, but I really really don't like the template being used on the admin noticeboards. I respect you all and can see there's a lot of enthusiasm over its use, but I find it distracting, overbearing, and condescending. Wah-wah...-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
+1 Nthep (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I think we might want to workshop the idea a little more, but I can definitely see potential for something like this to be useful. One thing that often happens at ANI is for participants in the issue to continue arguing amongst themselves with little input from others, and it could be helpful to have a way to call for outside attention. It'd also be useful to be able to call for an admin close, so that you don't get threads that need the resolution of a close sitting at CR while being archived here (currently the case). I was also considering setting the ARS thread to red just now as a way of asking an admin to assess whether there is consensus to reinstate my attempted close; being able to do that would've been useful. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Just chiming in to say that I think that the addition of status templates would be good, and that all we need is to iron out the details of who can change the statuses and when. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe have the template show the user name that changed the template to resolved? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron is getting problematic be moved to regular AN?

I think the section on ANI should be moved to regular AN. What being discussed in the section really does not fit in with the role of ANI, but does fit in a bit more with the role of regular AN. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Not now, no. Johnuniq (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I predicted that the discussion would quickly head to WP:TRAINWRECK territory if left open when EEng reverted my close. I'll leave it to others to judge my level of clairvoyance, but I continue to believe that the best course of action for the issue would be to close the thread, push discussion about the future of ARS to a CENT-listed pump discussion or similar, and open ANI threads on individual ARS participants as needed. Separating out the issue like that would make it far easier to assess consensus on actionable items. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think the opposite actually, I think there has been productive discussion since your close, during which we've heard from a number of new participants to the discussion, and a number of pro and con examples have been examined, and all that vindicates the unclosing. Here are some valuable comments on various sides made after your close: [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]. I point these out because I want you to see what I see: to see what we would have lost if the thread had been closed earlier. Just because a discussion is long and lively and complicated doesn't make it a train wreck. If you're expecting ARS is gonna get dealt with in some short and quick thread, I think you're being unrealistic. There is little to be gained by shutting it down; let it conclude naturally. Levivich 17:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  - I agree. Although I think ultimately ArbCom will need to deal with the issue the discussion post-close has presented a lot of diffs and evidence that the Arbs will need to sift through, as well as clarifying the issue in peoples' minds. This discussion has been lengthy but not, I think, a disruptive trainwreck. Reyk _YO! 17:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  @Levivich, I don't agree at all with your assumption that those comments would not have been made if the thread had been closed. As I articulated in the close itself and in several replies since, the purpose of it was not to terminate the discussion, but to push it to restart with a better structure, a more defined focus, and (in the case of the project-focused rather than participant-focused comments) a better venue. That would have been a positive. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  Right, but the question of venue is what is being discussed. You'll notice several (all?) of the examples I linked to were talking at least in part about venue, and there are a variety of nuanced views about that being shared. Up to and including today. Levivich 21:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that a change of venue at this late stage would benefit anyone. Nobody new is going to read that wall of text. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Nothing good could come of moving this now. Sometimes discussions are started at a less-than-ideal venue, but enough people see them that it really makes no difference where they are happening. My own view is that whether this project should continue is a matter for editors in general, so shouldn't be decided on any admin's noticeboard, but individual behaviour, such as, after warnings, calling for keeping or deleting an article without looking for sources, is an incident that should be discussed at WP:ANI. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Village Pump

If ARS is the problem? Then open up an RFC at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals), with the question - "Should ARS be shut down?". See WP:MEDCOM & WP:RFC/U as examples. Furthermore, such an RFC would expose any behavioural problems, if there's any. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Been over a week now & the dispute has yet to be resolved. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The dispute has moved toward resolution. There are now concrete proposals on the table. I think now would be a bad time to close. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Time will tell. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what direction that overwhelmingly long ANI report is headed in. But after 15 attempts to leave a comment there (accompanied by 15 Edit Conflicts)? Not gonna bother trying anymore. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

An orderly Close Review forum

WP:AN includes the function as a Close Review forum, for discussion closes other than xfd and RM. This is ok, but better would be a dedicated review page, with rules separate archive. DRV and MRV provide obvious models. AN is a poor forum because it’s title implies it is for administrators. And because it is heavy with other drama, while review should be ponderous. Also, because AN thread closes themselves need to be reviewable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not 100% opposed, but I believe this has been proposed unsuccessfully a few times over the years—the most recent iteration I can remember is Wikipedia talk:Discussion review. The general sense I get is that there is a fair amount of skepticism over whether a new noticeboard would actually improve the quality of the discussions. DRV and MRV don't have that much more structure compared to AN, and AN also benefits from having a wider community audience. Theoretically, under the current practice, an AN thread closure could also be reviewed at AN itself, although I can see why that would seem a little strange. You might also be right that having a separate venue might encourage a more "ponderous" atmosphere simply by separating these kinds of discussions from the context of the other user conduct issues that appear on AN. Mz7 (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I have proposed it a few times over many years, but someone else has recently called for the same thing.

I think it is a good idea. It would be an improvement. Will it actually fix something that is broken? I'm not sure. It might improve RfC closings. It might raise the prominence of RfC closers, and contribute to the training and development of more closers of RfCs.

It has been ten years since WP:MR was created, and it was spectacularly successful at resolving the prior problem or RM close wars, and immediate repeat RMs initiated on the basis of someone not liking the previous close. It has also contributed to the development of good practice in the WP:RM process. Although RfCs, and other closes like WP:AN thread closes, are very different to xfd and WP:RM, the academic principle of formal review processes is sound.

I don't think the notion has ever been much argued against. I think it is more a question of benefit versus inertia.

The editors who did the work for creating WP:MR are now mostly inactive. One of them was Jc37 (talk · contribs), who might be called upon for expert advice, or even help. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism and personal attacks

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Vandalism and personal attacks

– – Rummskartoffel 16:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Egaftrawefewg

Hi. I would like to highlight the editions of User:Egaftrawefewg. In this edition [46], [47] and again [48] he posted a fake photo [49]. And He did the same in the article List of tallest buildings in Poland Tokyotown8 (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tokyotown8, please read the notice at the top of this page. "This is not the page to report problems to administrators, or discuss administrative issues." — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 18:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

ARS related disputes

Yup, it's heading gradually towards Arbcom. Heck help, the arbitrators. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the business they've chosen. Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion for updating the ANI "This page is for urgent incidents..." section

I'm specifically talking about this section that goes over the posting parameters;

Before posting:
 Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
 Try dispute resolution
 Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
 Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

There's multiple complaints about my recent post in ANI and so I just figured to take it here because the header could use some updating per the conclusion of this discussion (and obviously everyone can, and should, participate, I'm just pinging those with the complaints).

GorillaWarfare, you had issues with the timeline. Why do you want a timeline for bad behavior cases? And, what do you want the timeframe to be? You were saying 6+ months is too long. That's not even that long ago so I definitely would be against that length of time. Eight years seems reasonable to me. What do others think?

Cullen328 and Doug Weller both had serious issues (threatened me with a ban) with my post being too long. The "Be brief" point is not clear enough, especially when someone can be banned over post length. So this needs to be discussed. I don't know if they want a character limit or a certain format or something else. I'll let them speak for themselves. I know I am skeptical of implementing any report limit. A report page is there so people can present the strongest possible form of their case. Per that, I was 'being brief' because I didn't make the strongest case I could, "That's only Archive 1-3 (of 6) of one Wikipedia article so I could continue". My post was going to be at least twice as long. Cmsmith93 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it's rarely helpful to have the "how can we fix the process" discussion so soon after the "this case didn't go my way" result. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Cmsmith, why are you at Wikipedia? Are you here to battle, to find fault with others, to get them in trouble, and basically create more heat than light? Are you here to escalate or de-escalate problems? I get the feeling your focus is detrimental to the project, and I implore you to change your way of thinking. Stay as far away from drama boards as possible. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)