Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:10, 21 April 2008

• WT:AN

This is not the page to report problems to administrators, or discuss administrative issues.

This page is for discussion of the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard page itself. Report incidents such as block evasion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Report violations of the three-revert rule at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Discuss general issues at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard. Report posting of personal information by following instructions at WP:RFO.

Archives

Index of archives December 2004 December 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – February 2006 March 2006 – December 2006 December 2006 - November 2007 November 2007 -

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Perhaps this was missed

Hiya. I submitted a complaint on the 26th about an administrator, JHunterj a little bit ago. Unfortunately, no one commented on the complaint to resolve the problem, and it was archived by Miszabot II. I've re-posted the complaint (with comments from the accused) Could I trouble someone to take a gander? I think the admin is confused in the matter, and its a problem that should probably be addressed before it slips through the cracks yet again. - Arcayne () 19:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I have numerous questions about your reply. Does an admin have less responsibility to refactor comments and edit war than ordinary editors? I ask because the dude was refactoring in his POV into archives.

Secondly, I know what forum shopping is, and had someone commented, I would have discussed the matter there. Forum shopping requires an "ask the other parent" component that wasn't present. As for "not getting the answer I wanted", I guess that's accurate, since I didn't get any response. My assumption was that you folks had just been too busy to address it. Note that I didn't even consider possibility that JHunterj was given a pass simply because he was an admin (and if it was true, shame on you).

The complaint was offered in good faith about activity that would have warranted a warning for a normal editor (if not a block). It bears noting that not a lot of the complaints in AN/I go unanswered, and one involving an admin's actions escaping judgment is fraught with sinister implications, especially when the ones judging the action are admins themselves.

Tell you what, do me the small kindness of looking at the complaint again as if the offender was not an admin.

And if you consider my implication was made in bad faith, I apologize. Maybe also consider that accusing me of forum shopping is also an assumption of badf aith as well. - Arcayne () 20:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not missed; correctly archived without action as no action was needed. Have you tried dispute resolution for what is, in effect, a content dispute? Also, not meaning to be funny, but posting in multiple places because you haven't got the response you wanted tends to be thought of as forum shopping and goes down badly. ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I have numerous questions about your reply. Does an admin have less responsibility to refactor comments and edit war than ordinary editors? I ask because the dude was refactoring in his POV into archives.

Secondly, I know what forum shopping is, and had someone commented, I would have discussed the matter there. Forum shopping requires an "ask the other parent" component that wasn't present. As for "not getting the answer I wanted", I guess that's accurate, since I didn't get any response. My assumption was that you folks had just been too busy to address it. Note that I didn't even consider possibility that JHunterj was given a pass simply because he was an admin (and if it was true, shame on you).

The complaint was offered in good faith about activity that would have warranted a warning for a normal editor (if not a block). It bears noting that not a lot of the complaints in AN/I go unanswered, and one involving an admin's actions escaping judgment is fraught with sinister implications, especially when the ones judging the action are admins themselves.

Tell you what, do me the small kindness of looking at the complaint again as if the offender was not an admin.

And if you consider my implication was made in bad faith, I apologize. Maybe also consider that accusing me of forum shopping is also an assumption of bad faith as well. Of course, I tried DR, but the offender merely blew off my inquiries until well after this report was initially filed. - Arcayne () 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, marking it as resolved while we are still discussing the matter does lend a lot of weight to the 'giving the fellow admin a pass' argument. Maybe if you could be troubled to explain why no action was necessary? I mean, if it isn't too much trouble. - Arcayne () 20:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages for discussion. Dispute resolution for dispute resolution. Administrators' noticeboards for things administrators can act upon. And no, policing discussion or solving disputes do not come under that banner. As for your edit summary ...watching you buddy's back?, well, I would generally decline to stoop to answering; however, in this case you got a completely neutral admin (and spat in his face, I note) as can be found if you try to look for a single interaction between the other party and me over the past 4 years. As far as I can remember, there never has been one. But why let the facts get in the way of a good story? ➨ REDVEЯS paints a vulgar picture 20:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(←dent)Talk pages for discussion and DR for dispute resolution; I actually knew that. Redvers. I posted here because it wasn't a content issue or a personal dispute. At all. Rather, my posting here was to point out an oversight at the Incidents noticeboard. Note again, the complaint was for 3RR (a total of six reverts in the same article) and for refactoring his own personal view in the archived sections (a view that had not appeared in the pre-archived sections at all). As that is against the rules, I posted to AN/I. It was - as you noted - ignored. Saying that attention isn't warranted isn't actually good enough when someone takes the time to ask you why, and tossing a bit of bad faith onto their request is unwarranted. By pointedly ignoring the matter, you opened the door to the implication that the offender got a pass bc they are an admin. Discussion is warranted, and no one (not even now) has pointed out how :JHunterj's actions weren't a violation.

And while we are on the topic, it is perhaps you are not used to "stooping" to commenting that you missed the entire summary: "swift action or watching you buddy's back? Actions speak louder here, or are supposed to". Granted, perhaps the 'couldn't be bothered' attitude from you was a bit grating, and I poked back. The comment meant to imply that you gave the offender a pass bc they were an admin, not bc you knew them. When

• your (Redvers') wondrous response to a succinct complaint about an admin is ignored,
• and a request to have an admin actually look at the complaint is pooh-poohed by the same admin,
• and the resubmission of the complaint is marked resolved without any explanation as to why the complaint was invalid

I think its fair to wonder why no one wants to address the content of the complaint; indeed, it begs the question as to why the complaint is studiously ignored. As I said, actions speak louder, and your initial non-action and subsequent curtness speaks relative volumes. My comments are not intended as a spit in your eye, Redvers. Of course, why should we let the actual facts get in the way of a juicy persecution complex? > - Arcayne () 21:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I think you're a little mistaken here in your suggestions that people are working together to quash your complaints. We seriously don't need escalating arguments at WT:AN, if so, you'll get no-one to your thread and then where will you be? We want to help, but there are limits if the ones we are meant to help come up with ridiculuous 'stories' to repel those are actually assisting with your situation. Sit tight and wait for responses, don't badger the first one. Rudget. 14:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really think its really collusion at all; it just seemed passing odd that after I post here, Redvers' first response to mark the complaint as resolved, when it seemed rather clear (I thought posting here was an indication of that) that I felt it deserved a bit of consideration. That the complaint was against an admin made it even more odd. I don't mind waiting at all, but with Redvers marking the complaint as resolved, it would seem my wait was moot. If I am wrong, and you cats are talking about it behind the scenes, then forgive me for thinking it was a 'here's your hate, what's your hurry' situation. Please feel free to let me know what's going on when everyone's done sussing things out. I would like some help in understanding how my complaint wasn't of substance, so if I see others getting blocked for doing the same thing, I will know how to contest for them to be unblocked - Arcayne () 00:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism problem

68.191.179.217 is making vandalism in articles. A few users warned him but he simply doesn't care, he continues to vandalize. Just check his talk page. I'll warn him, and if he vandalizes wikipedia again, he should get blocked.

--Mr Alex (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

NOT the Misplaced Pages complaints department

I would suggest putting this note higher on the page. Today, I had to tell three different people that "he called me a name" is not a reason to immediately go to WP:AN asking for a block. It is annoying how many messages here are like that (and really annoying is how much my talk page has become that). Should we start closing the threads to make it clear that this is not the way to get results? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We should be directing editors to WP:WQA instead, then closing the threads. I gather that's what you had in mind --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that WQA is usually either moribund when it comes to answers or an exercise in tarring and feathering users. So I'd go with saying "get a thicker skin" and closing the threads. There may be a nicer way of saying this; alternatively, cruder ways of wording it are not unacceptable. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrative backlogs

The page currently suggests that the noticeboard should not be used to report administrative backlogs: "To report administrative backlogs, add {{adminbacklog}} to the backlogged page."

But I have to wonder ... how many people really check Category:Administrative backlog? I've seen pages tagged with {{adminbacklog}} remain in the category for weeks and some pages are virtually always tagged as being backlogged. Black Falcon 18:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've always found it useful to report onto the noticeboard itself if it's a very large backlog. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 18:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Looking through some of the archives, I notice that the suggestion not to use WP:AN for backlog notices is ignored on numerous occasions. Ultimately, I suppose that this applies. Black Falcon 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI fuels drama

ANI fuels drama by providing a large crowd to leer and jeer at the daily drama. I think Misplaced Pages would be better off if we got rid of this page entirely, and instead encouraged people to go to a specific venue for solving their problems. WP:EAR and WP:WQA are two good places for a lot of ANI stuff to go. The advantage of other noticeboards is that the crowd is smaller so there is less incentive for grandstanding, and the people who frequent the boards have consider experience handling specific types of issues. Jehochman 01:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How would you make sure that anyone reads those boards? I tend to report Soccermeko's resurrections there, instead of through sockpuppet channels, simply because if I report it there it gets dealt with in an hour or so, and if I report it other places, I wind up battling the socks for days. I'm sure other users post their issues here for similar reasons.Kww (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I block large numbers of sock puppets at WP:SSP. The ratio of effective work to time-wasting drama is much better at places like WP:SSP and WP:COIN (where I spent a lot of time before becoming an admin). If people are lost, they can go to WP:EAR and get advice how to solve their problem. This board, WP:ANI, tends to make matters worse not better. Jehochman 01:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeat after me: AN/I doesn't fuel drama, people fuel drama... — CharlotteWebb 02:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Drama requires a stage, and a big audience. If we break things up into smaller stages and smaller audiences, there will be less drama and more work. Jehochman

Quite the contrary; I've seen lots of drama that provides its own stage, and doesn't give a damn about the size of the audience. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll freely admit that I, at least, read WP:ANI for daily entertainment, but I do also attempt to make useful contributions to things there that catch my interest. Jtrainor (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI unfortunately is one of the aspects of Misplaced Pages that has not scaled well. It is likely to only get more chaotic as the community grows, if the current structure is retained. 129.174.91.115 (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Any process that uses people will result in drama. If we get rid of the board the drama will just move to somewhere else. _(1 == 2) 22:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, probably stirred by you 1 == 2 on IRC. Giano (talk)

Having ANI makes it easier for some new users to get attention quickly if they need it. If we make them hunt for the content specific noticeboard that they want, it will probably cause frustration. Frankly, I don't mind the drama here - I tend to ignore it, if it's not a topic I'm particularly interested in. - Philippe 22:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The massive AN/I page

As I've been perusing ANI a lot recently, I've almost immediately started to wonder why it is not setup more like AfD, with every reported incident getting it's own space. I imagine though this may have been discussed a lot in the past. Could anyone point me in the right direction for an old discussion on this topic so I can see editor's thoughts/consensus? Thanks Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This was tried not too long ago, as I recall, and it was a failure. Problem is that nobody sees the discussions on their watchlists. I don't want to speak for everyone, but I know that for myself, it's much easier to have it centralized on one page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why couldn't people see the discussion's on their watch lists (like we can for AfDs)? I personally have a huge problem with loading up to the bottom of the RfA page. Do you have links to discussion over this? This is mostly a curiousity thing, I'm not really bringing it up for consideration again. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was tried, it was proposed and Coren set up a bot that could operate it. The problem was, indeed, that folks wanted each post on each subject to show up on a watchlist without having to watch subpages individually. Avruch 19:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what happened. Ultimately, no consensus to make the change; almost all the opposition was based on this issue. I'll try to dig up a link in the archives to the discussion. --barneca (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

. --barneca (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh, thank you much. If I believed in the barnstar nonsense I would probably give you one. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I accept, with thanks, my invisible pink barnstar. --barneca (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm exceedingly curious why it would be pink....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it kind of spoils the joke, but see: Invisible pink unicorn. --barneca (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Spoiled the joke. I hate myself when someone has to explain a joke to me. Lo siento. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

NO no a millions times no. Having them on subpages would blow out my watchlist so fast its not funny. It would also reduce notification of new topics you might be interested in (because they are only seen in the watchlist of the main page once, after which you have to have the subpage on the watchlist). Viridae 03:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

We could arrange parallel processing. Editors with usernames A-L would post at WP:ANI1 and M - Z could start threads at WP:ANI2. The advantage of this approach is that it is scalable. We can have as many noticeboards as we need to keep the page length within reason. Jehochman 04:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Or, sections larger than 30KB (or similar) could be branched into a /subpage. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just an idea I have had; any ANI section still active after 36-48 hours after first post is automatically collapsed. Most, if not all, of the parties active in the discussion will be aware of the details - anyone else will have to go by the general heading (and digest in the collapse field?) All recent stuff will be in full view of the passing audience. I suggest a 36-48 hours, as to allow all the different time zones and editing times of day for editors to get maximum exposure. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Collapsing doesn't help the "loadability" of the page, just the readability. Here's a variation on the theme. 36 hours after they've been initiated, all open threads are collapsed AND moved onto Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/older by a bot. This page is then transcluded onto ANI - keeping everything together. That will reduced the byte size when people are posting onto ANI. And that way, watchlists will still light up for new posts in threads for the first 36 hours, if you want longer than than, simply place Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/older on your watchlist too.--Doc 12:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• • That sounds reasonable, although I wouldn't see the need for collapsing if it makes no difference to loading - there will be the menu at the top of the page top for navigation. If you want to work up a wording for a proposal at the appropriate venue I will certainly second the suggestion. I think the time limit needs to be agreed, but certainly no longer than 48 and no less than 24 should be the area. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (You can tell that I am not the most technically adept...) Will the transcluded older topics still be logged in the page menu, or will the menu simply list the transcluded page, or would it be similar to the way the RfA mainpage lists the transcluded RfA pages? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems with a group of new editors - making substantial changes, deleting verified passages and inserting instead quotes from anonymous websites

A group of new editors who seem to have found an agreement outside of WP (see talk page of that atricle) made big efforts to change the article of Dorje Shugden substentially without any discussion. Any request for discussion on the changes were neglected. Moreover verified passages were deleted and balanced views deleted and insertion from a anonymous website made. I like to ask you for your help by checking the subject, revert or a temporarily block of the article. I have sent all new editors welcomes and ask for collaboration but as you can see from the talk page they just ignore. Thank you very much, --Kt66 (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)