Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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.

Contents

Should this be archived?

Should this be archived? It seems that some of the reports aren't garnering any further attention, and several of them seem to have been resolved.--Vercalos 19:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm refering to the /incedents subsection.--Vercalos 19:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? That page is archived several times a day by a bot that removes any section where there has been no discussion in two days. Essjay (Talk) 01:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Akron Wiki

I feel that the Akron Wiki article is being unfairly deleted, and that it, and the word "Akronness" should have article status. Please tell the people involved to make changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiwiki1950 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussions about this were at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akron Wiki and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akroness. You or anyone else is quite welcome to revisit either of these at Wikipedia:Deletion review. On the other hand, unless something significantly changes (like the website is still there in two years and has become a widely known and used regional resource) my guess is there's approximately a 0% chance that either of these articles will be restored. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

ANI archive size

Currently, ANI is archived by Essjaybot such that the archive is "filled" until the archive exceeds 300KB. The result of this is that the archive can get up to 350 or 400KB. The consequence of this is that there is a delay in loading even on newer computers with fast connections, and an even greater delay on older machines or slower connections or when opening several archives at once to find discussions from a particular time period. The typical archive size for article talk page is more around 130KB, and the typical size for administrative noticeboard archives—when the switching of their archives was not ignored—was more around 200KB and less. The reason given for having such large archives is to reduce the number of archives. This provides no great advantage—we have no shortage of numbers—but there is a practical disadvantage for having large single archives. —Centrx→talk • 11:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the size should be reduced. I don't know exactly how the bot works, but it should be an easy thing to change. Maybe reduce the 300k to 100k? --Tango 13:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Takes about 2 seconds to do; all it needs is consensus. Essjay (Talk) 13:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds great to me and my extraordinarily sketchy dial-up. Snoutwood 08:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Amen - do it -- Tawker 08:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, reduce the archive size; I know how hard it is to view the old large Help Desk archives. --ais523 08:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, go for it. the wub "?!" 13:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Definitely (guess who's on a 56k on weekends?) yandman 09:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Please do it. Alphachimp 09:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been reduced to 150 KB. Ah, the ease with which consensus is implemented. Essjay (Talk) 02:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Template for reporting offensive usernames?

Hi there!

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this but I think it is. Please gently point it out to me if it's not.

At times, I am running through the new user log and I find an offensive username. Rather than put them on WP:ANI or WP:AIV, I would prefer it if I could just put a template, like {{Offensive username}}, on the offending user's page. If this template added the usernames to a category, like 'Category:Offensive usernames', then admins could just run through the list and block these users indef. If this was approved I could change all the sections in policies and guidelines saying to put the template on instead of reporting the users on WP:ANI or WP:AIV.

Cheers and thanks for considering this,

Yuser31415 05:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that reporting them is better, especially reporting them to AIV because it is meant for that sort of thing and it is wiped clean rather than archived, because it is better to not create user pages or talk pages for offensive names. The user or talk page could be deleted afterwards, but it would be more work and admins might neglect to delete them. -- Kjkolb 13:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you are right. Never mind at the moment then :) Yuser31415 18:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Except .... admins already leave a message on the user's talk page, don't they? So the offensive username template could be put on the talk page ... all it would make worse would be the fact that admins would have one more place to patrol. Yuser31415 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see enough gain to justify giving admins yet another place to monitor. --Tango 13:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
There's no reason to not just use WP:AIV. It's just as easy. I'm with Tango. -Patstuarttalk|edits 19:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Format seems to require this template here

Sorry to bother this page but the mediation process advised; "Add the text {{RFMF|Case Page Name|05:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)}} to the top of the talk page of all involved articles")and the incident page is the only involved article. Canuckster 05:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a farcical RFM, and you should probably be blocked for WP:POINT. – Chacor 05:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
if someone with more wikipedia power than you was falsely and publicly accusing you of having an "anti-american agenda" perhaps you would feel differently; and I have no point to make; I am trying to mediate the ongoing hostility Sarah expresses towards me. Canuckster 06:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
All of this because I closed the convo because it was just becoming a flame war between you and Sarah? Seriously man, get something better to do.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
if someone with more wikipedia power than you was falsely and publicly accusing you of having an "anti-american agenda" perhaps you would feel differently. Canuckster 06:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the tag; the RFMF tag is intended for articles where there may be multiple parties who are interested in the subject but unaware of the mediation. It does not apply to disputes with a limited scale like this one. Essjay (Talk) 05:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How to avoid edit conflicts and clutter

I just experienced several edit conflicts here, and I really hate to clutter this page with discussions, when it should be reserved for notifications. While I still think in the concrete case there was an easy way to avoid the discussion, I am aware that it can't always be avoided. — Sebastian 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Transclusion

Would it be possible to transclude the individual notifications from sub pages? — Sebastian 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It could be done... much the same way that WP:AFD is. However, it starts to get complicated. ---J.S (T/C) 00:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that's way too much work for each discussion. Perhaps a better thing would be to create even more sub-noticeboards. —Mets501 (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Linked subpages for discussions

[Transclusion can be complicated.] OK, let's keep it simple, then: Instead of keeping each case in its own section, they are just bullets in a list. Whenever someone enters a request, an admin replies with two simple steps:

  • adding his ~~~~ after the request
  • adding a template to the user's talk page that says "I'm taking care of it, let's discuss it here".

In addition, sections could be used for different purposes, as in the vandalism page. — Sebastian 00:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Much of what goes on here requires discussion. "This is what I did, any comments?" type notes are very common. ---J.S (T/C) 00:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I think we can address that. Not everything that's said in a discussion needs to show up in everybody's watchlist. I think people should have the option:
  • Bulk of the discussion: on some dedicated page
  • Important alerts for everyone: add to existing bullet (e.g. as sub-bullet) — Sebastian 01:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I'm not understanding what your getting at here. ---J.S (T/C) 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's try it with an example. Instead of keeping this whole drama with its many pages of gory details all on WP:AN, and creating scores of changes that show up on everybody's watchlist, we would have the discussion on a dedicated page that only those watch who are involved or interested. On WP:AN, we would simply have something like this:

  • Death Threat Accusation Someone needs to have a chat with User:Morwen. The user has just accussed me of making a death threat against her [117] which is totally absurd. ... -- Husnock 10:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Discussion moved to this page. -- Brookie 10:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • A suggestion has been proposed - please comment, everybody. -- bainer (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • More drama: someone has now posted this personal attack at my talk page. Morwen - Talk 15:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Case closed: And all was well in the wiki. --bainer (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm interesting. That might be possible. How would we name the sub-pages? Would it be for everything or just for long discussions? Lets see what others think. ---J.S (T/C) 02:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, it would help, but I think it would be more hassle than needed. However, when a thread gets large, I think it is a good idea to move it to it's own subpage and provide a link under the original heading here. After all, it is 1 out of 7 threads that take up most of the space on this board. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea to do it only for long discussions, although that means we can't have the bulleted list. I created a table with statistic[1], which shows that there are indeed about 7 threads that are longer than a screenful (5000 chars on my computer, YMMV). That's about 12 paragraphs + headline. (Excluding headlines, there were 462 pars and 185679 chars w spaces. Thus, the average paragraph was 400 characters.) So a guideline like this would make sense:

If a topic reaches 12 paragraphs then its discussion will be moved to another page and it will be replaced by a short summary and a link to that page. When the discussion reaches a point that requires everybody's attention, someone will add that to the summary.

— Sebastian 18:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

More subpages

How about two new subpages, "Complaints about admins" and "Complaints about non-admins"? If you are specifically complaining about someone, you make a subpage (the name of the user being complained about, similar to ArbCom, probably) and transclude it on to the appropriate page. I'm suggesting 2 pages, as complaints about admins usually requires multiple admins to respond so we can develop a concensus, whereas a complaint about a non-admin can often be dealt with by a single admin. Once a complaint has been dealt with, it is removed from the page (perhaps archived somewhere, in any case, the subpage can hang around for eternity). This should work quite well, as complaints are generally resolved at a certain point and it's clear when it should be removed. With more general discussions there often isn't a clear end, it just gradually goes inactive. This is moving towards creating a Court of Administrators, which some people might not be happy with - personally, I have no problem with it.

The only major problem I can see with this idea is that it might end up with almost everything happening on these subpages, which defeats the object of trying to separate things. Someone with more time might want to go through the history of AN and see how much of it is complaints and how much general discussion and requests. AN/I would probably cease to exist, as almost all of that is complaints, by its very nature. The non-complaints things that are considered incidents can move to the main noticeboard. So it boils down to having one more subpage than we have now, but having them slightly more structured. --Tango 12:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like any idea that further widens the cultural gap between editors and editors who happen to have a mop.... but the idea of more sub pages might have merit. ---J.S (T/C) 04:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC).
WP:BEANS ... I don't like the idea of implying that the purpose of ANI is to complain about someone. The purpose of this page is that there is an incident that needs immediate resolution, usually though not necessarilly by an administrator. If there is a "complaint" that doesn't require immediate action to stop it, the dispute resolution process is available for that purpose. BigDT 19:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Canuckster socks

Can we get the page semi'd? Canuckster socks repeatedly remove Sarah Ewart's comments as "uncivil", making the whole thing look very one-sided. I've been getting edit conflicts trying to remove them. Can we do something? – Chacor 02:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the entire convo to archive 158. Feel free to rollback there.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI Archive time?

Can we archive WP:ANI more often or decrease the archive interval? Right now, ANI is around 500K. It is usually 300-350ish. 500K makes my 1.7 GHz machine scream for mercy. BigDT 19:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The time before archiving needs to be changed to 1 day, like it was before when Werdnabot archived and the page got long. —Centrx→talk • 21:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
24 hours? Seems a little quick. It's set at 14 days now, right? If it was brought down to 7 days that might be reasonable. ---J.S (T/C) 22:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:ANI sections are currently archived after 2 days of no comments in that section. When it was archived by Werdnabot, it varied between being archived every 1 day and being archived every 2 days, because it was a setting that could be changed in the text of the page, and was changed depending on the activity of the page. These low times are reasonable because there are hundreds of people watching and discussing things here. Any time someone leaves a dated comment in a section, the "timer" for that particular section is reset. —Centrx→talk • 22:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably, ANI is unusable for anyone on dialup or an older computer. Hopefully they won't put it on the One Laptop Per Child project. —Centrx→talk • 09:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The archiving was 1 day when EssjayBot handled it previously; when the toolserver went down, taking the bot with it, it was changed back to Werdnabot. When Essjaybot took over again, the request was to make it 2 days; if there is consensus to switch back to 1, that can be done in a matter of seconds. Essjay (Talk) 21:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of completeness, I should point out that there is always the middle ground ... send anything between 24 and 48 hours old to something like WP:ANI/Recent and then from there to the archive page. Another alternative would be to be more proactive in removing closed issues. If an issue is closed, rather than tagging it with whatever version of {{at}} is used here, just manually archive it and leave only a link to the archived version. That way, it wouldn't need to wait 24/48 hours. Also, issues that really belong on AIV or RFP could be removed outright and a notice left on the user's talk page. BigDT 05:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
As long as you have a bot that can do that, by all means, go for it. If EssjayBot II is going to continue to do it, you get whole-day increments. Essjay (Talk) 05:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky spamming at Funk

IP users starting with 84.151... are continually adding linkspam to Funk, it's removed, then another similar IP comes and adds it again. I don't know what to do about this since it's different IPs each time. See the history --AW 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for page protection ← This way, please. --210physicq (c) 21:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

New notice at top of page - RFC/NAME vs. AIV

At the top of ANI, the new template reads in part, "Reports about improper usernames, or requests to block those belong at WP:RFC/NAME." That may be true for debatable usernames, but I thought obviously improper ones went to AIV for faster response. Should it be changed? Newyorkbrad 17:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd support mentioning both and explaining when to use each. --ais523 18:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The colors could be tweaked ... maybe the background could be lightened or else just WikiLink the page itself and not the whole description. It's kinda hard to read ... but I really like the idea. BigDT 18:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I was going to sofixit, but I'm not much good with headers and colors, so will leave it to an expert. Please note that whatever is done on ANI should be conformed on AN as well. Newyorkbrad 18:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I tried my hand at it ... I think this version may be more readable ... feel free to edit mercilessly. BigDT 19:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of archive templates

I hope the people who use the {{Archive top}} and {{Debate top}} templates will see this here...you have to put the template below the ==Section header==, otherwise the archival bot may split the top and bottom templates if it archives the lower section before the upper section. Thatcher131 19:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Question for Essjay about this - does archiving the section reset the timer? In other words, are you going off of edit dates or signature dates? BigDT 20:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I can answer this--the bot looks for the most recent standard signature timestamp. (You may see from time to time an old unsigned post that the bot has missed for this reason.) At this point, if the last sig is more than 24 hours old when the bot runs, it will archive the section. Thatcher131 22:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Where to report

I am lost, what's difference between notice board and incident board, where and what to report?

Um, Attention Please

There's a huge picture of a bleeding vagina or something on the home page. You might want to take it down, you know, whenever you get around to it.

Thank you for your report. The image in question has been removed and the person who placed it there has been blocked indefinitely. Naconkantari 00:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

ARYAN818's unacceptable comments on Talk:Dravidian_people.

Hi,

I was referred to you by user Jeandré and this is my first time reporting someone. I am reporting user User:ARYAN818 in regards to his unacceptablecomments on Talk:Dravidian_people [2]. Please let me know if this is the right department to make this complaint since his comment made me feel very, very unconfortable since I am of Dravidian ancestory myself. It almost sounded like he was saying that we do not exist. I found it very shocking and disturbing. Thank you.

Wiki Raja 08:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there really is anything to be done (other then your message). We can't "punish" people for ignorance. ---J.S (T/C) 16:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, it he could be asked to be a little more civil, not a blatant violation, but not to pleasant either. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

His comment was just like if he were to go on to a Chinese site and put on there that "Chinese people are a joke, and that Chinese people do no exist". Wiki Raja 21:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not endorsing the accuracy of his statement. I'm simply saying It's not really disruptive and a calm response (like has been offered already) is the only real response needed. Is there any other disruption that needs to be considered?---J.S (T/C) 22:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

As I mentioned above, I am on dial-up, and it took forever for this page to load. Could someone please archive the page? It is currently at 490 kb. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is archived daily. The Last archiving took place 5 hours ago and archived anything section that didn't have a new comment in the last 48 hours. If you have a better idea how to archive faster without archiving active conversations, feel free to suggest it on the talk page of WP:AN... there is some talk about this already. ---J.S (T/C) 23:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I am on a rather fast ADSL connection, and it is slow for me. I would recommend halving the archive age of sections. It is 2 days now I believe, if something has had no comments for a full day chances are it is done with. And if it is not done with it can be moved back no problem. This page is too long mostly due to many small discussions that are not continued. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
If I understand right the bot runs once a day (it already ran today) and archives anything 2 days old or older... switching to 1 day might help a bit. But part of the issue is that 50% of the page is taken up by 4-5 of the 80 threads. ---J.S (T/C) 23:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The reason for that is these threads just get dragged on and on by everyone who visits the page and adds his two cents; sometimes the original people who started the thread are long gone. Any important discussion can easily be renewed by opening a new section, with a link to the old discussion in the archive (This is also conducive to a brief summary, where the person who opens the new section explains the context; few people are going to read these long discussions and join them anew). —Centrx→talk • 23:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Taking into account the discussion above, the discussion here, and previous practice, I'm dropping the timeframe to 1 day, and setting the bot to run more frequently (which will liklely help just as much as reducing the archive time). Essjay (Talk) 03:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Endorse 1-day timeframe. Thatcher131 15:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's consider this an experiment - if the outcome is in some way unfavorable, go back to 2 days and consider alternatives. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that since /IncidentArchive155, the archive bot has neglected to include the {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} template at the top of the Incident archive pages, leaving an unnavigatable archive. I've added them manually, but can whoever runs the archive bot fix it to include the template? Edokter 19:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That's really not something the bot is intended to do; it just archives posts. This is really something for a human to do, and shouldn't be too time consuming for someone to pick up. Essjay (Talk) 04:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've picked it up myself, as well as updating the navbox templates when needed. I mistakenly asumed the bot included the navbox, but going over the history of the Admin and 3RR notice boards archives (which are archived by Werdnabot), I see it's included there manually as well. Edokter 13:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you for doing so! Essjay (Talk) 23:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

ARYAN818's unacceptable comments on Talk:Dravidian_people and on my talk page User talk:Wiki Raja

I have asked user ARYAN818 to show more civility, but he continues to show intolerance for other people’s ethnicity and heritage. Furthermore, he has posted one of his messages in between of couple of older messages on my talk page, which I find disruptive. I have responded to all his messages diplomatically. Below, is my last response to his latest message summing up his previous messages:

To ARYAN818 :

"Well anything can be an ethnic group....But Indians are not Dravidian....Nobody calls themself Dravidian...And some probably
dont even know what it means....And again....Why do u keep telling me about the word India?....I never disputed who coined
the name India....BUt I dont understand why u keep telling me about India......And I have been very civil what are u
talking about?......Bottom line....THere is an Aryan heriatge....but not a Dravidian heritage...."
ARYAN818 07:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To whom exactly is this statement “anything” referring to? Are we considered as "things" now? Is this in regards to the name ‘’Dravidian’’, or the indigenous people of Southern India? OK, let us set aside the word ‘’Dravidian’’ and not think of that now. Logically speaking, who are we? Yes, as a nationality we can say ‘’Indians’’, but I am not talking about nationality. I understand what nationality is. However, on the other hand linguistically speaking, it is more than obvious that the languages and language scripts of North and South India are totally different like night and day so we do not need to get into that. Now, on the lines of ethnicity, who are we? Are the Tamils, Telugus, Malayalees, and the Kannadigas Aryan? If we are not Aryan, then to what ethnic family do we belong? What is our heritage? Do we not have our own heritage? Why do I keep mentioning about the word ‘’Indian’’ even though the term is not being disputed? Well, the reason is because that too is not an indigenous word, just like ‘’Dravidian’’ is not an indigenous word. Therefore, both terms ‘’Indian’’ and ‘’Dravidian’’ fall in the same category of being named from non indigenous or outside sources. For some odd reason, the fact that the word ‘’India’’ itself is not an indigenous name is blatantly avoided. On the other hand, the term ‘’Dravida’’ gets attacked at every given moment. Furthermore, the term ‘’Dravida’’ is mentioned in Sanskrit sources like the Vedas, while the term ‘’India’’ is not mentioned in any South Asian literature (be it Sanskrit, Hindi, Tamil, Bengali, Punjabi,etc.). The people who should be concerned or, if so, upset about the term ‘’Davidian’’ are the people who are categorized as ‘’Dravidians’’ themselves.

I cant believe there are still people who think there are people who call themselves Dravidian.....THe term Dravidian is a
racist term made up by Euorpeans....In India nooooobody calls themself Dravidian.....I live in America and ive never met
one person from south India who says there Dravidian.....I dont know anyone that takes pride in saying there
Dravidian......And a big chunk of people dont even know what a Dravidian means!......Dont u people get it by now!....Its
2006!.....The Aryan invasion theory is a joke.....ANd the label of Dravidian is a joke to!.....Brrrrrrrruah Punjab India!
ARYAN818 22:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe that someone would post something like this on Wikipedia. First your statement "the term Dravidian is a racist term made up by Europeans..." is an accusation against the Europeans and calling them racist. "Dont u people get it by now!..." is posted. Just what on earth is that supposed to mean? "u people"? Is this statement directed towards us, or the ethnic groups in Southern India? And then the message is ended with, "Brrrrrrrruah Punjab India!"? Correct me if I am wrong, but am I sensing some kind of superiority aura here?

"U asked me if I consider the Punjabis & Tamils the same group of people.....today no.....In the bigger picture....yes...they
are the same." ARYAN818 23:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly does "in the bigger picture" supposed to mean? I'm sorry, not everybody thinks the same, or can read other peoples minds, but please be more descriptive. The more we discuss into detail about the ethnic cultures of India, the weirder and eerie it gets. Now, I am not talking about the name ARYAN818. In the first place nothing crossed my mind about that particular user name since I understand that it stands for Indo-Arya. There is already a disclaimer message in bold face cap letters on your site. It is not the user name that is offending people, it is this discourteous attitude of intolerance towards other people’s cultures and heritage, and I am not talking about nationality. The above statement posted on my user talk page sends me the message that the indigenous people of Southern India in general do not exist, and should not exist.

[END ITEM]

Wiki Raja 10:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the archive for the first half of December?

— Sebastian 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to the archive box at the top. If someone forgets to update the box when they create an archive, you can use the all pages listing to find it. -- JLaTondre 21:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! — Sebastian 21:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Personal Attack Intervention Noticeboard

The recent deletion of the noticeboard for personal attacks raises several questions.

1. Why was such a major decision taken after such a short time and so little discussion?
2. If it was indeed agreed to delete the noticeboard, wouldn't it have been more professional to have dealt with the open reports first?
3. What benefits will this bring. That it will lead to an increase in uncivil behaviour is pretty certain, but what are the major gains?JdeJ 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The closure has been reverted. The debate continues on MfD.--Docg 21:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I was confused for a moment, but I see now that it wasn't deleted, just(!) blanked and made into a redirect to WP:AN/I. Still, an odd think for anyone to do. I see that the editor in question has been asked if he'd explain his action here, but it's difficult to see what explanation could be give.
Incidentally: "That it will lead to an increase in uncivil behaviour is pretty certain". A glance at the debate indicates that it's by no means certain, any more than it's clear that uncivil behaviour decreased after PAIN was introduced... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard as the discussion that existed at the time was sufficient to ascertain a consensus to deactivate WP:PAIN. Since the critiques of WP:PAIN were based on claims that the continued operation of WP:PAIN was counterproductive, and did not assert a justification for deleting every comment made on WP:PAIN from the page history and from users' edit histories, I saw no consensus to administratively delete the page. Redirecting the page to WP:ANI (and protecting the redirect if necessary) is quite sufficient to ensure that the operation of WP:PAIN is discontinued. With regard to the question of "What benefits will this bring", the critiques of WP:PAIN were based on two principle claims:
(1) That severe personal attacks, of such a nature as to warrant prompt administrative action, would be handled in a more timely and effective manner if reported on WP:AIV or WP:ANI, both of which receive far more administrative attention than WP:PAIN
(2) That WP:PAIN encouraged editors to report borderline personal attacks and relatively mild incivility by users with whom they were involved in content disputes, where such situations did not merit prompt administrative responses, and might have been better dealt with through the dispute resolution process. John254 00:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
1) Closing an MfD after 26 hours seems highly unusual. (I've no objections to early closings, but there's no pressing need to do it that early). 2) Given the high-profile nature, probably best done by an experienced admin 3) Most people are saying DELETE. Whist there's no reason not to redirect somewhere after deletion, there is no pressing reason (or even argument being made) to retain a record of general nastiness. Best leave it to the closing admin to decide that. --Docg 00:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If the outcome of the MfD discussion is in favor of deletion, I suggest that implementation of the actual deletion should be held off until (1) pending issues on the page are resolved, and (2) text can be written advising users with personal-attack-related issues what steps they should take. Simply making the page a redirect to any one particular place is not a good solution. Newyorkbrad 00:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of that can happen after deletion. --Docg 00:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I !voted delete, but I'd still say the MfD should have stayed open at least five days. Let's give everyone a chance to weigh in - such as users who primarily edit on weekends, who never got a chance to say their pieces. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Messed up on the noticeboard

Oh, bother. I was reverting an accidental revert of someone else's and some of the unicode characters were changed by an uncompatible browser ("Links", in console mode). By the time I realized that, about 4 edits had been made and it was impossible to revert with a compatible browser. I apologize greatly and hope this doesn't offend anyone. Yuser31415 22:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Section from AN/I deleted instead of being archived.

Hi, I've had my attention drawn to this diff. [3]

Despite the edit summary, I can't find the deleted section anywhere in the archives. Looks like it was removed rather than archived. This isn't a good thing, since this discussion prompted various other actions. Shouldn't it be archive it in the suitable place? --Barberio 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I put it in ANI archive 174. It was created by Yrgh who was incoherently trolling and it was then repeatedly attacked by Cplot socks who were also trolling.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mkil problem, I need protection against this individual asap

[moved to WP:ANI]

Interesting stats

I did a statcheck using an off-wiki tool to determine the following facts –
Stats for the AN page –

  • The page has been edited over 37463 times, of which 4195 or 11.2% of the edits are minor edits.
  • This page was created by Ta bu shi da yu on 12/10/2004 at 05:35 hrs.
  • 27829 edits come within this year and 3021 number of edits within last month.
  • There were 3187 unique number of editors of which 561 were IP addresses.
  • The average number of edits per user is 11.8.
  • The number with the highest number of edits on this page, unsurprisingly is Tony Sidaway (578), follwed by Jnc (469), JzG (424), Zoe (372), Geni (323), Ta bu shi da yu (311) and Radiant (300).

Stats for ANI –

  • The page has been edited over 80478 times, of which 8677 or 10.8% of the edits are minor edits.
  • This page was created by Jayjg on 01/04/2003 at 00:11 hrs.
  • 64203 edits come within this year and 7360 number of edits within last month.
  • There were 5711 unique number of editors of which 1197 were IP addresses.
  • The average number of edits per user is 14.1.
  • The user with the highest number of edits on this page, unsurprisingly again is Tony Sidaway (989), follwed by SlimVirgin (827), Zoe (762), Netscott (743), El C (716) and Thatcher131 (688).

Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 16:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I ran that same check and discovered I was in the top 20, with over 300 edits. Incidentally, it's wrong about the page creation - I distinctly remember Ta bu shi da yu (talk) founding it. Mackensen (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 16:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Good grief. I'd like to apologize for inflicting myself on you these many months. In the immortal words of Homer Simpson, "Lord help me, I'm just not that bright." Thatcher131 21:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised that WP:AN/I was founded before WP:AN; wouldn't you expect sub-pages to come afterwards? Or am I just missing something? Picaroon 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, really. However, you can check this site – [4]. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I think there is database corruption regarding Jayjg's earliest edits [5] .His user page says "I joined Wikipedia on June 15, 2004" Thincat 12:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
His timestamp gives Jan 2003, but the page edits surrounding his are from March 10 2005 [6]. Looks like the issue happened at the time of posting, in March 2005. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right, the database is corrupted regarding those two edits. Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating

Nick, this is a fascinating study, what off-wiki tool did you use? Just H 02:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have provided the link above. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Cause I'm spammy: http://vs.aka-online.de/wppagehiststat/ ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How to deal with personal attacks now?

Now that WP:PAIN is no longer, I have a problem where should I report violations of WP:NPA. Of course, I could start WP:DR procedure and go for mediation but honestly I don't have time to deal with the amount of bureaucracy involved in that too often. I prefer to write articles, not essays on behaviour of another editor. As the current WP:PAIN notes that WP:AN is one of the places personal attacks can be reported, I wonder what's our procedure for dealing with them? Can and will we issue warnings or block? Or will we refer people to DR and if they have no time or will for it, tell them to grow a 'thicker skin'?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the de facto policy is to ignore them. Then if neccessary we block people who ignore the policy. Tom Harrison Talk 20:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Tom, I'm puzzled by those two sentences. They seem to say we should block the victims of personal attacks for reacting to them -- because they ignored the policy to ignore the attacks. That seems so unfair that I know I've misunderstood your meaning. But what did you mean? -- Ben 23:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, educated them, if they are already educated warn them, if they know the policy and have been warned and choose to ignore the policy/warning, I do not hesitate to block. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
If they've been warned and continue to violate WP:NPA, report them here (that was, I understand, what proponents of removing PAIN were arguing was an option). But for lesser things (like accusations of being a "vandal"), the best approach is probably to ignore them. John Broughton | ♫ 03:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe ANI would be better? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes to header

I've made some changes to the notice templates at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader, which are transcluded onto AN and AN/I, respectively. The main thing is that I noted that blatantly inappropriate usernames and persistent spammers can go to WP:AIV - I've definitely reported a blatantly inappropriate username there (Fukkie (talk • contribs), IIRC), and I've most likely reported spammers past {{spam4}} also. I assume there are no objections, seeing as all I did was put standard process into writing. Picaroon 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Salting

Question asked and answered. Don't carry the battle here. - brenneman 23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The result was What does "salting" mean in the sense that is commonly used here? Thanks, Chris 06:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It means to delete a page and add {{deletedpage}} and protect said page, hence preventing said article from recreation. It is a reference to salting the earth. --210physicq (c) 06:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, that's what I kind of thought it was, we've been having a problem with a sockpuppet doing that to our articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting. Now I have a proper name for it. Can it ever be undone? He's done this, unsanctioned, to a handful of our articles. Chris 06:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Only administrators can WP:SALT, so I'm not sure what you mean by a "sockpuppet" doing it. If a vandal is blanking and adding {{deletedpage}}, it can easily be undone by taking a look at the history. They would not be able to protect the page from editing; only administrators can. If you provide some specific examples we might be able to help you out even more. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? 06:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, only admins can salt articles. So unless said editor is an admin, he/she's probably faking it, and can be undone by any normal editor. Properly salted articles can only be undone by editors who have admin tools. --210physicq (c) 06:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much, folks-these articles have been in the process of voting and mediation at WikiProject Scouting/Translations, and the sockpuppet (or at least a user with no user page and no other history except the continued forced move of these pages) moved them though the vote was leaning in favor of keeping the names in their local languages, since that is what they are most commonly known by. They are

Thanks, we appreciate your help. Chris 06:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how experienced the user is. He's right. The naming conventions clearly state that titles should always be in English, with the real name in the foreign language on the first line . Superm401 - Talk 12:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not a matter of his experience, it's that we are still having voting and discussion as to what the proper translations even are, as with Brazil it is obviously incorrect. As the discussion is still ongoing, his method is heavyhanded and against Wikietiquette. Chris 22:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is moving towards something not appropiate for this venue.

Attack Page talk page input

Since attack pages are referenced on the noticeboard fairly commonly, people may have useful input for Wikipedia talk:Attack page#Request for Comment: Namespace And Definition? Шизомби 03:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

archiving frequency

Hey - why is Essjaybot archiving threads only 1 day old? Are those discussions "over?" Rama's arrow (3:16) 18:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The page was getting far too long with longer archive times. I doubt there are many active discussions that go more than 24 hours without added to. --Tango 11:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition to header?

Should the language at the top of this page (AN and ANI) also contain the suggestion/requirement that if the user is posting to address an action by a particular administrator, that person should be advised of the posting? Newyorkbrad 20:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd support that idea, although it appears that most guidelines at the top of AN[I] are ignored 90% of the time Template:Emot. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree - good idea, but will probably be ignored anyway. I think other readers inform people when they are mentioned, anyway. --Tango 11:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Good idea; I'll go ahead and be bold in doing this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference - Oversight

A question: is there a reason that requests for oversight aren't listed as a link in the "Are you sure that this is the page you are looking for?" section? I realize that they aren't all too common, and when brought up as a post usually get taken care of with a good amount of speed. However, something simple that would circumvent some public postings references to "there is personal information here" (particularly with minors or any other sensitive information) might be worth the line that they'd take up, no? Bitnine 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing WP:BEANS. Just pointing a page may be enough to have people checking the history for addresses, phone numbers or anything personal. -- ReyBrujo 20:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing it was simply forgotten. We can't hide the whole of oversight on BEANS grounds. --Tango 11:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think Bitnine may be misunderstanding the nature of requests for oversight; the page details that such requests are done via email because of their confidential nature and the possibility that people would check the history, etc., that you pointed out. I don't have a problem with pointing people to RfO, and I'll go ahead, be bold, and add that in in a moment. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Hm, apparently less than completely clear, as per usual. ;) I was actually referencing how such items currently get posted now and again to the noticeboard directly, usually with a note such as "I'm not sure where to bring this, but..." and that a link to the page might better steer people towards the email instead of public posting in this manner. Is all good, though. Bitnine 00:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

False Accusations of Vandalism

We need a location for reporting False Accusations of Vandalism --Frank Lofaro Jr. 22:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If they are made in good faith ignore them, if they are made in bad faith treat them as vandalism. No need for another place. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You need to discuss issues you are having with article edits on the talk page of the article, not constantly reverting. The addition you are trying to add is unsourced (see WP:V, WP:CITE) and conroversial - discuss it on the article talk page. Thanks/wangi 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the level headed comment; that does far more to advance our common aims than the accusations spread about. I am discussing it on the talk page and have made a strong concession on my last edit. Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss this particular case so we should probably take any discussion back over there. --Frank Lofaro Jr. 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Open informal complaint over the behaviour of an Administrator

As per this thread and This helpful comment at the top of WP:ANI it is clearly stated that "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here". However when I did that, the reponse of several, very established and respected, editors what that I had bought up the complaint in the wrong place. If this is the case I would propose removal of the line and an alternative appropriate place, if such a thing is needed. Please note that the text states informal complaints and therefore WP:RFC does not seem to be the place.Pedro1999a |  Talk  11:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


Oh well. Guess it's going to stay. Feel free to archive this someone. Pedro |  Talk  20:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels

Will someone please tell me why his SSP's are blocked instantly. I have seen a few of his Contribs, but they aren't bad, unless I looked at the wrong user. Zbl 22:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrators tend to block WoW-style usernames immediately because of his nature. PTO 01:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
WOW was a major bot-style pagemove vandal back in the days... back before it was easy to fix. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
When you say "his" you sort of lose me, he was one of the early pagemove vandals, banned from the site a long time since. These days Willy On Wheels is a synonym for pagemove vandal (Much the same way that some trademarks become generic and lose their trademark status) --pgk 23:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Odd problem editing ANI

In the past few days, I have encounted the odd situation that I want to edit ANI, I click on "edit" for the relevant section, and the edit window opens with the text of a different section. Has anyone else experienced this problem? Thanks for any info. Newyorkbrad 21:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That happens when someone breaks up a section. The edit link contains the section ID of the section you are trying to edit ... #1, #2, #3, etc. Well, if you add a section break to section #2, then what was section #3 becomes section #4. So if you have been sitting there reading ANI (or any other page) since before the section break was made, your links are all going to be off. In short, that's normal behavior, not a problem. ;) --BigDT 21:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Section archived with no response or action - what next?

I posted Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive200#Possible sock puppetry at Jung Myung Seok this incident on the noticeboard two days ago; it was archived without any response being posted to the section, or (as far as I can tell) any action by any admin.

The instructions to the page say If no comment, or no further comment, has been made after a 48-hour period, your post and any responses will be automatically archived. So I understand what happened, in, in some sense, why. Obviously I'm a bit frustrated as well. Should I just repost the incident and hope that someone says that they will either look into it, or why looking into it would be pointless? Or should I just assume that this is considered such a minor problem that I'd just be bothering everyone (and wasting my time) if I were to repost? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The noticeboard is archived automatically, so all it means is that either no one noticed the report or no one wanted to get involved. You can re-post it. You could also post it at Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets; there is a long backlog there, but it won't be archived automatically if no one responds immediately. —Centrx→talk • 17:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents effective or not? Many of the sections created are archived without any admin response. Are frivolous reports not worth responding? Should admins at lease acknowledge that they have read the report and give a brief summary why no action is required? Any other suggestions to make it better?


Lots of sections are archived without any admin response. If admins are busy, make more people admins. Lukas19 02:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You shall see that often, it is not that we have too little admins responding. It's that there are too many frivolous reports that aren't worth responding. Not every incident report ANI receives needs a detailed explanation or requires admin intervention. If your report has been continuously ignored, perhaps you should ask yourself why it was ignored, not rain upon us recycled complaints. --210physicq (c) 02:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Too many frivolous reports? Are all reports being red? If they are, it's not hard to write "no :::::action required". It'd take 5 seconds. If no response has been given, I'm just assuming that noone bothered to read. And if I "rain upon" you "recycled complaints", perhaps you should really consider the possibility that AN/I is ineffective. Lukas19 02:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
ANI is not ineffective, but perhaps your method of persuading others to look at your complaint. Try again, and use the power of language to persuade people to see your method. --210physicq (c) 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, if there is a complaint, people shouldnt be persuaded into looking at it. Adminship is a responsibility, not something in which people only look at complaints they are interested in. If you do not have time, ask for more admins. I'm sure there are many candidates. If there are enough admins but some of them only look into problems they are interested in, sack them and make other people who can do this job admins. Lukas19 02:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want more admins, you can always nominate suitable and willing candidates. However, adminship is not slavery. We do not have the obligation to listen to every complaint, to read every report, and to act on every plea for help. We are here out of the goodness of our own hearts, not to be pushed around by editors seeking assistance. --210physicq (c) 02:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If an admin sees 10 issues a day on four different noticeboards and all of them are week/nn complaints and they take 30 seconds to respond per complaint to say "no action required" that takes 20 minutes a day to ignore bullshit we see enough of that in other places. If admins only looked at things we are interested in CAT:CSD would NEVER get worked on. Admins dont have to put up with crap complaints that have no backing or evidence. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 02:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you seriously thinking only the crap goes non-responsed? And to write "no action required" wouldnt take more than 5 seconds. If you get that many "crap" you can copy&paste it as well. Lukas19 05:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Everyone here is a volunteer. As such, they are free to choose for themselves any part of the infinite pile of tasks that is the collective wikipedia backlog. If you have something you'd like someone to do, try to make it attractive for someone to do it. And you're always free to run for admin yourself, if you think you're the right type. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Having said, that, LSLM (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is clearly heading into NPA territory. Eg [7]. I'm not sure why your complaint was ignored, maybe because it was too long. However, you tend to edit in contentious areas, so maybe no-one wanted to buy into what could turn into a nasty fight. I've had a quick look at your edit history and I don't see anything I definetly object to, though I do see some comments about white and sort of whites and so on that make me think that properly exploring your claims would be a lot of trying to understand what seem to be complicated issues, and looking at possible counter claims against you, and I suspect it would all turn into a big and possibly unrewarding exercise real fast. I suspect that plenty of admins have done much the same thing I did, had a look and said - hard. So that's my guess at why you didn't get any satisfaction but also why people didn't say action isn't required. It might be time for an RFC. I'm tempted to suggest that this section belongs on the project page. While it started as a discussion of the noticeboard, I think you're more interested in your particular post being ignored than in the issue of posts in general not being actioned. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • AN and ANI are somewhat overloaded and rather overly broad. It would help to (1) merge the boards since their difference is far from clear for most editors, (2) create specific-purpose boards, such as WP:DRV and WP:RFC/U, (3) summarily move all complaints to the proper board, and (4) be less lenient against false complaints. >Radiant< 12:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You had PAIN and RFI noticeboards which was deleted for some reason...Lukas19 02:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
They were being abused. As for repsonding with 'no action required', it would be presumptuous for one admin to label an item that way when another admin might come along later and think it is worth action. Just because I don't want to respond to an item does not mean that others will feel the same way. -- Donald Albury 02:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Often, yes. Of course, sometimes it only becomes clear that no action is required after a bit of work. Then it is worth saying "no action required", and why, so that other people don't duplicate what you've already done. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The only reason abuse was any sort of problem there was because few or no admins were monitoring them. The same problem would happen if we split out specific-purpose boards—or there would never have been reason to delete WP:PAIN and WP:RFC: more admins would have monitored them. —Centrx→talk • 03:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
My rationale for admins writing no action required with a bried summary was to make sure all of the reports get read. Currently, I think this isnt the case. Many reports get archived without being noticed. I find the excuse "no need to respond to crap" crap itself. People desperately need a reality check if they think this board responds to all "non-crap" reports. Ideally, all reports should be read and responded to without taking too much admin time. If this isnt the case, it may be due to a) not enough admins b)lazy admins c)ineffective system d)a combination of these and/or some other reason.
If there arent enough admins here, giving "nominate yourself" or "nominate others" are simplistic answers, or rather non-answers. Wikipedia must have something to influence rate of new admins. You have lots of RfA's in which people can steer the direction according to the need for new admins. A concrete example is the recent RfC about Trodel. If Wikipedia need more admins, "new users shouldnt nominate admins" is not a mindset that should be preserved. I will not comment on b , but on c Radiant! makes good points. In all cases the stupidity and ineffectiveness of your current system is exampled by the fact that people can get away by making personal attacks right at AN/I. [8]
And addressing this by giving answers such as "dont give us recycled complaints" or "make your writing more interesting" is ridiculous at best. I dont think of any way to make personal attack reports in the form of a horror book Lukas19 20:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You make some excellent points. What are you going to do about them? Regards, Ben Aveling 20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For starters I have opened a RfC and posted this on Village Pump. Any suggestions? Lukas19 00:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. I wish had more time to spend on it. But one offer I will make. If you have suggestions on how to make Adminship more appealing or less difficult, I'd be curious to hear them. If they can be done with a script, I might be able to find some time to implement something. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

archive the page

I have added WerdnaBot code to the page to archive comments older than 1 day. Regards, Navou banter / contribs 14:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

note: For the incidents page anyway. If my coding is not reverted, I or someone else will do the same to the pther noticeboards. Werdnabot has been doing fine with the community notice board. Navou banter / contribs 14:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Good, archiving ANI manually is not much fun... However, it seems that a new bot is also being worked on to replace EssjayBot II. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#MiszaBot_II. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What's going on with subheadings

I fixed several headings that had "== =...= ==" - i changed them to ";..." because that seemed like a better fit for the intent (have it appear under the top-level heading) than breaking it out into a top-level of its own - is there some archiving issue I'm not aware of here? --Random832 19:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Misza13, do you perhaps have any insight to offer here? Based on looking at the history it looks like your bot's doing it (but you're doing a good job fixing it - i don't mean any offense or anything) so i'm really asking more as to what technical problems are causing it specifically --Random832 21:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, please see User_talk:Misza13#MiszaBot_and_third-level_section_headings. Misza13's new bots MiszaBot II and MiszaBot III are replacements for EssjayBot II and EssjayBot III. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Username promoting company -- self-edited article

Per WP:Username: Usernames that promote a company: Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies and groups are discouraged and may be blocked as a violation of Wikipedia policy against spamming and advertisement.

Sounddogs has only edited the article Sounddogs, and based on the precedent of AudioSparx, should have the name banned. Autocracy 18:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The user has already been blocked; for future reference, note that these notices should probably go on the the Administrators' noticeboard itself, not on its talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive boxes

I just "fixed" several sections that had the archive box header above the section header. Can someone clarify whether this was necessary or if the bot can deal with these? (particularly as one of them was unsubsted and discussion had continued after it) --Random832 20:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Can a user be banned from editing a single page?

Can a user be banned from editing a single page? Does our software allow this? - Peregrine Fisher 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, no. Blocks have to be used to enforce violations of page bans. Trebor 00:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
As a policy matter it can be done by the Arbitration Committee, by the community after a discussion on the noticeboard (note that this is relatively new and sometimes controversial), or by agreement as a condition of an unblock. However, the software can't be programmed to enforce it at this time. I believe there was once a suggestion to implement that but I don't know if it's been pursued. Newyorkbrad 00:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
AFAIK, the database backend is there, only that no one has bothered to code the interface. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Users can be banned (different from blocked) from editing a specific page, or pages on a specific topic, or anything else the community or the arbcomm decides. Enforcement of such bans is done by humans, not by software. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think Newyorkbrad beat me to an explaination, in clearer words than I might have chosen. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a javascript solution I'm working on that users can possibly voluntarily install to prevent editing on specific pages. --Random832 20:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Using Template:Usercheck

May I suggest as possibly helpful: add userchecks below the headers of sections on problematic users, because this gives a one-line linklist to available subpages -- and where there are no such subpages, to the reporting and/or summary pages. Format: <p align=center>{{usercheck|1=username}}</p>   -- Ben TALK/HIST 01:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/m/Wikipedia_talk%7EAdministrators%27_noticeboard_Archive_5_6740.html"