Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:52, 27 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.

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)

The drama isn't the problem. The problem is what causes the drama, and that won't go away if we take away the outlet. The drama will just spill into other places, where it can actually do more damage. WP:ANI actually does a good job limiting drama because it's so high-traffic, so while some issues do create a big fuss, a lot of others get a little attention and then die, as they should. Mangojuice 14:24, 22 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)

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)

I've had thoughts similar to Jehochmann, that we and sometimes also the users might be better of without ANI. It is ill-defined (what exactly is an incident?), it doesn't scale, doesn't have the features of a good trouble ticket system, and once archived you don't find threads easily. Most importantly, it is centralized and attracts crowds. Once you post there, you can get either a swift response or literally anything else might happen. The problem of alternatives remains. Possible answer: Promote and refine the more specific boards and add something decentralized such as {{adminhelp}} in the line of the {{help}} one. Probably we still need one catch-all board, not elats a place where people can refer to for administrative actions and 'abuse'. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI is an excellent tool for getting quick admin attention in blatant cases, but it's a lousy tool for requesting administrators to dig into complex disputes. Instead of getting rid of ANI, I think a better option is to work harder at educating editors on how and when ANI is to be used, and how to best write an effective ANI report. Towards this end, I recently rewrote Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors (discussion about the change is ongoing at the talkpage). One of the things I focused on in the rewrite, was explaining when ANI was to be used, how to write a focused report, and further, what to do if the report was not successful in getting administrator attention. If we can help educate editors on this, I think ANI will end up with less drama, and administrators will be able to respond to complaints more quickly and more effectively. --Elonka 14:38, 22 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)

I'm not a regular participant in AN/I; I've just occasionally been involved in discussions of incidents affecting articles I regularly edit. I find the present system is useless on my watchlist, for it shows every change to the 30 other discussions on AN/I that I'm not at all interested in.

I'd much rather see it set up with each reported incident getting it's own page. I can see how that would be difficult to those who regularly monitor AN/I, but for those of us who use it as a tool in resolving issues in articles we use, the separate page for each incident would be a godsend. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with User:Gwynand. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if each incident gets its own page, then people who have the main AN/I page on watchlist will see the new sections being created and based on the gist of the title can decide whether to check it out or not. Then, people can scan through AN/I and watchlist whichever of the subthreadings that are transcluded they so choose. That way when a post happens in a section, it only updates the watchlist for the people watching that section, but when a new section is added, everyone watching the main AN/I page sees it. ⇒SWATJester 06:37, 26 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)

I've moved your request to WP:ANI where it is supposed to be - this page is for discussing WP:AN rather than an issue itself. It is at WP:ANI#Problems with a group of new editors - making substantial changes, deleting verified passages and inserting instead quotes from anonymous websites. x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI is protected so only admins can edit it. useful. not. Mccready (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, it's only move-protected at the moment. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

82.58.65.162

82.58.65.162 account just opened. inserting linkspam Mccready (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In future, this would be better reported here Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

119.63.129.28

has already been warned on linkspam. is continuing eg at Breast Cancer. block suggested. I tried using the spam page as suggested but it's busy and I can't use itMccready (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You're reported it to WT:WPSPAM so that should be alright. But could you use WP:ANI instead of this page (which is a talk page) next time? Thanks. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

POV Acupuncturist

A self confessed acupuncturist User:Jim Butler is edit warring on numerous acupuncture articles, most recently here removing scientific research showing that acupuncture has no proven effect. He has ignored a request on his talkpage . Any help in persuading him to the course of reason would be useful for the project. Mccready (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This absurd situation is explained below. -- Fyslee / talk 06:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee has summarized the situation well below. I will add more there. I welcome scrutiny of my edits, because I think I do a good job here, and most editors (across the idealogical spectrum, from hardcore skeptics to devoted alt-med proponents) seem to agree. Have a look at my talk page and block log, Jim Butler (talk · contribs · logs · block log). For contrast, see Mccready (talk · contribs · logs · block log).

With regard to the edit warring, I left a message at Talk:Acupuncture on April 10th explaining the various reasons why a long list in the lead section was inappropriate. Mccready did not respond. Instead, he just kept reverting, despite the fact that five different editors disagreed with his edits , and no one else agreed with him. That's his general approach: long on edit warring, short on discussion.

I also think it's a little disingenuous for Mccready to post a comment on my talk page at 05:33, 27 April 2008, then post here just a half hour later at 06:06, 27 April 2008 complaining that I "ignored" it. As it happens, I indeed replied two hours later, at 07:26, 27 April 2008. Talk about insulting the intelligence of one's readers...

Oh, and with regard to the implied conflict of interest: according to WP:COI, Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. Most editors say that my edits are well-informed and NPOV. Mccready, however, edits tendentiously, and has not disclosed an affiliation that may impact his edits: "I'm Kevin McCready, a member of the Australian Skeptics ... The skeptics are famous for our standing offer of $50,000 for anyone who can demonstrate for example that acupuncture is anything more than a placebo..."

So who's the problem editor, and who has a potential COI? --Jim Butler (t) 08:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Mccready - endless, disruptive, repetitive edit warring

Mccready (talk · contribs) is exhibiting (he's done this before in other cases) very disruptive behavior that is a violation of the principle involved in 3rr violations, among other things. He keeps reinserting a large edit in the lead that has been reverted by several other editors, yet he insists on repeating the same behavior. It's definitely uncollaborative editing. The problem with the edit itself is that it is not in a format suitable for the lead, not that it's untrue. Many editors have explained this to him, yet he persists. Is there a penalty for stubborn hardheadedness? Here are the diffs (so far). Other editors' reactions can be found in the edit history of that article and the talk page:

• 18:20, April 3, 2008
• 23:23, April 7, 2008
• 18:00, April 8, 2008
• 08:02, April 11, 2008
• 03:13, April 18, 2008
• 04:27, April 19, 2008
• 01:12, April 20, 2008
• 07:16, April 21, 2008
• 09:17, April 21, 2008
• 04:33, April 23, 2008
• 06:31, April 23, 2008
• 01:38, April 25, 2008
• 02:40, April 25, 2008
• 07:21, April 26, 2008
• 08:48, April 26, 2008

Right above he is abusing this board to complain about his inability to succeed in an identical edit war on another article! Someone please stop this nonsense. A topic ban and 3rr block would be appropriate. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What would be appropriate is that you reformat the information if you don't like it the way it is. Not waste everyone's time defending the deletion of good sources. Mccready (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I also do not appreciate that Mccready uncivilly calls me a POV warrior. . . He accuses me of edit warring. . . yet they are his poor edits. . . with no consensus. . . he keeps forcing on us which I have reverted. If it were up to me. . . he should be topic banned at least. . . blocked temporarily at most.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot that I could say about Mccready's pattern of disruptive editing. Probably the main point is that the pattern is long-standing. See the one-month community ban proposed by FloNight in September 2006, here and here. Note in particular the number of pro-science, skeptical editors in that thread who say that he's exhausted the community's patience. After that ban, he disappeared for about a year, but when he returned, he quickly settled into the same disruptive pattern. That resulted in my asking an admin (User:Mastcell) to intervene. Mastcell replied:

"There is clearly a problem here. I'm thinking about the best way to address it. My instinct would be to place Mccready on 1RR on these articles to address the constant edit-warring. I've left a note for User:Davidruben to get his thoughts. I agree with you that ArbCom would probably deal with him pretty harshly given the history, and it may come to that since he appears to reject any outside attempts to address his behavior by impugning the integrity, experience, etc of the admin in question."

The upshot of that intervention is that Mccready, in order to avoid a sanction, agreed to limit himself to 1RR. Since then, he's edit warred and gone beyond 1RR several times (will add diffs later). He also chronically ignores WP:LEAD, adding contentious, poorly-formatted and poorly-weighted material to lead sections even if the material he adds isn't covered in the article at all.

A a minimum, a re-do of the topic ban done by FloNight, for all alternative medicine and construably "pseudoscience" articles, seems in order. And I think the ban should be indefinite, since he been at this for years, seems immune to constructive criticism, and voluntary self-restraint doesn't work. Sure, Mccready has made some good edits along the way, but lots of editors are able to do that without chronic, tendentious disruption. He's dragging the project down, and the good stuff he adds doesn't warrant keeping him around, IMO. thanks, Jim Butler (t) 09:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) This is a very very simple dispute engineered by the usual POV warriors who want to defend acupuncture at all costs. The dispute is the weight given to various scientific sources. Butler et al want to highlight a tiny minority of studies saying acupuncture MIGHT be effective. They insist on placing this information first in acupuncture articles and edit war in concert to achieve their aims. I want to highlight the huge number of studies showing acupuncture is NOT effective. Simple and sweet. The true believers acknowledge my position but try to wiggle out by claiming my edits are not formatted properly or do not belong in the LEAD. If they spent as much time on addressing this perceived flaw as they do attacking me we might all be able to be proud of a better encyclopedia. Mccready (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

All of that stuff shouldn't be in the lead. Would you stop if the lead was pruned to just the first para:

• • Acupuncture practiced and taught throughout the world.

and the effectiveness stuff went into the article? Dan Beale-Cocks 09:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

@Mccready: :"Usual POV warriors"? Not at all; Mccready's edits have been criticized by editors across the board. The following editors are all scientific, skeptical editors, just like Mccready says he is, and they have all been highly critical of his tendentious editing: FloNight, Fyslee, and MastCell (evidence above), as well as Davidruben , Eldereft , Jim62sch and FeloniousMonk (archived talk), Orangemarlin , Friday , Jefffire , and Arthur Rubin . And I'd count myself, since I was a chemist (M.A. Harvard '89) before training as an acupuncturist, and I understand the scientific method pretty well too. I think this evidence demolishes the "Mccready the scientist vs the POV warriors" straw man. What it does show is broad community support for a sanction that is long overdue.

Did I mention the flagrant WP:NPA violations? This guy is damaging the project and needs to be reined in. --Jim Butler (t) 10:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

OOooohhh dear, poor little Jim. now it's digging up all the dirt he can, not all from "scientific" editors either. Ad hominem attacks do nothing to address the simple fact that poor little jim hates to address. He knows acupuncture has not been proven effective for anything. He knows he edits to remove this fact whenever possible. He knows the straw man attempt won't wash. Get real. And since when did a hard hitting expression of disgust at POV count as NPA. And by the way it's silly to argue we should believe you since you studied a bit of chem. Linus Pauling did too but no one of substance takes his vitamin c claims seriously. Jim, your position is flawed at every level. Why don't you simply address the issue, not the man? Mccready (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)