Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:13, 8 November 2009

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Template:Active editnotice

How to win friends and influence people

I should probably just let it go, but I find the following sequence of events of a recent ANI post problematic. I'm less interested in fixing the problem or pointing fingers at individuals (though it will be obvious which situation I'm referring to) than engendering some reflection on the handling of relatively minor complaints.

Initial situation

1. Admin makes a content edit to an article.
2. A couple of days later an IP makes an apparently good faith edit with several parts, which includes a source for one part and an edit summary, reversing that edit.
3. The admin uses WP:rollback to revert. People make mistakes (rollback can be hit by accident, or making judgements to snappily), but there's no subsequent sign of it in this instance being recognised as a violation of the rollback guideline.
4. IP undoes edit, including "vandalism" in the edit summary, and gives the admin a Level 3 vandal warning
5. Admin undoes the edit, reverting to his original edit from step 1, but keeping part of the other change made. The edit summary is left blank. No talk page or user talk page comment is made.
6. Moments later, without any further action from the IP, the admin semi-protects the page for two weeks. There is no apparent prior history of vandalism - it seems a response to this situation. There is no edit summary, so we are left to guess.

The problems with the above hardly need explaining, but people make mistakes, fine. Communication was poor on both sides of this, and the IP's vandal warning was unhelpful, but the reaction was certainly lacking in WP:AGF and on the wrong side of WP:BITE.

Followup

1. IP complains at WP:ANI, notably about the semi-protection. The initial thread produces a variety of responses, mostly in a "let's wait and see what the admin in question has to say" mode. One admin (me) goes in to some detail (well, a paragraph) describing the situation and noting that there are issues to be addressed.
2. admin2 marks the thread "resolved, no abuse found" without explanation.
3. The original admin comments rather dismissively, without addressing the substantive concerns raised. He accuses the IP of wikilawyering, declares the IP should have used the article talk page, and implies the IP won't be taken seriously if he doesn't get an account. He admits semi-protecting in response to one IP's behaviour, which is a violation of WP:SEMI (as had been noted earlier in the thread - blocking should be applied if a single IP is the problem).
4. The IP opens another ANI thread about the original semi-protection issue, and the premature closure of the previous thread. The first response is that he should talk to them individually, ANI not being the place; and later comments are hardly more sympathetic, pointing him to the article talk page; the thread is resolved soon after as "a non-issue" by admin3.
5. The IP posts to Jimbo Wales' talk page.
6. The original admin posts to the IP page, again dismissively, accusing him of spamming talkboards with bogus complaints.
7. The IP posts at WP:RFPP, requesting semi-protection be lifted. It is declined by admin4, and the declining admin posts in the second ANI thread opining that a block may soon be necessary.

It seems to me (a) that the original action which was the issue of primary complaint (semi-protection) was against semi-protection policy in two ways; (b) the IP made a number of actions which escalated drama, but the actions, whilst not the best course of action (posting at Jimbo's talk page is a sort of Godwin's law) weren't ridiculous newbie responses to a problematic situation which was handled badly in a number of ways. (c) the original admin failed to make any effort to encourage collaboration qua editor, or to show understanding of errors made qua admin (d) a number of other editors, including 3 other admins, failed to address the substantive issues and contributed to drama and biteyness. That's my personal view, and there may be missing information.

My question is this - taking this as an example of a broader problem - if we are unable to admit even minor error and attack those affected by them when they complain (unless they behave in a flawless manner, perhaps), is it any wonder that we have difficulty retaining the trust of some parts of the community? We have to be able to do better than this. We are not perfect, and denying error, instead of admitting and fixing, makes everything much worse. Rd232 21:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was involved in that discussion, and, really, we were telling the IP over and over again that ANI was not the place to discuss a content dispute/potential misuse of admin tools; he should go to the article talk page/user talk page of the admin. Instead, he takes it to a new ANI thread, RFPP, and Jimbo's talk page...--Unionhawk 22:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the instructions here, AN:I is precisely the place to discuss the abuse of admin tools, so that is perhaps understandable on his part. It's clear to me that were the IP to have presented a cogent summary such as given by Rd232 above, the response by the participants would likely have been quite different. As to the second thread on ANI, he would have been better off reopening the first thread but there is no way for a new user to realize these closures are not official. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 I don't know the specific case but the patern of behavior you describe (admin refusing to admin error, lacking in WP:AGF, the unexplained closure of thread, the dismissive comments without addressing the substantive concerns etc etc) I am very familiar with. I have to note that unfortunately it has lately become somewhat of a standard behavior for a number of admins. How to correct such things I really don't know. Loosmark (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no "due process" on WP. Considering controls along that line is long overdue.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but the instructions on ANI say that before bringing an issue about a user to ANI, attempt discussion with the user on their talk page.--Unionhawk 22:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but the IP is the only one who had attempted communication (albeit the Level 3 vandal notice) and the response was semi-protection without any other communication. Let's have some realism here on what we can reasonably expect from the average fairly-new editor, and also not forget WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY: failure to tick boxes should absolutely not be an excuse to sweep problems under the carpet. That's one of my points: the extreme WP:BITEyness of this sequence of events. Rd232 23:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, admitting to your mistakes and apologising is always the best course of action. Doing this has two advantages: firstly it quickly defuses any dispute. Secondly, apologising for mistakes is in your long-term advantage, since in the future when you are convinced that what you did was right argue your case, people will be less inclined to dismiss your arguments as self-justification. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is all too familiar, admins. behaving like a pack when one of them is threatened. I counted 6 on the 2nd ANI I think, 5 adding no value whatsoever. I would like the number of admins. allowed to be involved in a particular incident strictly limited, to avoid this piling on by those otherwise uninvolved. The comments made on that discussion just smack of gang warfare against a largely innocent target. A little bit of friendly sensible advice and guidance would have resolved this up front.Leaky Caldron 23:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I don't think admins should gang up like you are suggesting but that is not a good solution. James086 08:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I feel that the first admin was incorrect to semi-protect the page in question (as I said at ANI, " seems disproportionate to what was happening on the page") - I feel that if another editor had taken the page in question to RFPP to request protection, it would have been declined very quickly with a message that there was insufficient vandalism or edit-warring on the page. I got the impression that admins were ganging up on the relatively new IP editor (they've had an account for about 3 weeks, with just over 70 edits to their name). No one seems to take it seriously - yes, the editor was wrong to plonk a level 3 vandalism warning on the admin's page, but they are a new editor. Whatever happened to WP:BITE? The editor in question was making what seem to me to be GF edits, and their complaint was not taken seriously. I held off commenting until I had seen what the admin in question had to say, but if I was the OP, I would be pissed off too. I think LeakyCauldron's idea of limiting the number of admins who can join in - obviously, all involved editors have a clear right to comment, but as LC said, in this case most of the admins who got involved had no connection, and it did look like none of them had any intention of paying attention to the OPs complaint. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

When you say you "held off commenting" - you commented 8 times in the initial thread (far more than anyone else), and twice in the follow up on AN/I. If you didn't comment on the substance of the complaint at all until the follow up thread, then what was the purpose of your first 8 posts? Part of the problem people have with AN/I is that every substantial problem is sidetracked by other issues of minor significance, especially bureaucratic niceties like "is this the right board" "should this part go to this board, this other part to this board" "I can't comment on what he did, but you did this wrong, this wrong, this wrong." After ten tangents, someone says "This thread isn't going anywhere, resolved." and closes the discussion.

The problem here is that the IPs conduct wasn't absolutely perfect, the administrators action (semi-protecting in a content dispute, essentially) was clearly wrong, but the situation didn't receive a clear hearing. It's not obvious why that is; there were tangents, there were unhelpful comments, and perhaps there was also some hesitance to take a conclusion based on the facts without first hearing from Dbachmann. A common dynamic on Misplaced Pages holds criticism of administrator actions to be tantamount to an accusation of immorality or stupidity; there isn't much room for allowing, and acknowledging, human error. It's unfortunate - in just this case, it worsened what should have been a minor issue into an acrimonious discussion that probably resulted in the loss of an IP editor with some apparent expertise to contribute. Nathan 16:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said that the OP was wrong or right - and gave advice as I felt was necessary. I'm not going to go over them (they're in the ANI archive), but that's all I feel I need to say. I agree with you that human error wasn't acknowledged here - and that's what I think it was. I do not think either the OP or Dbachmann were at fault - it's just part of life's rich tapestry! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I tracked the original thread at ANI briefly but didn't participate. I think saying we were waiting for the admin to comment before most others would say anything was completely unnecessary. The admin's actions were blatantly wrong. Waiting for the admin to say something before doing anything might have been appropriate but lambasting the IP's poor wiki etiquette, for which he or she could easily be excused, while saying "but I refuse to comment on Dbachmann's behavior until he shows up, really presented the wrong image. Page protection for actions by a single editor is or should be clearly incorrect to anyone who is an admin and taking admin action on a page one has made content edits to where the admin action affects the edits is simply abuse of tools, no questions. Early closing of the thread was a bad idea. The IP came asking for help and got told off. This was just plain wrong and verges on a violation of core principles ("you can edit this page"). --Doug. 23:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Return from Retirement Help

Well, after a few months the loving embrace of Misplaced Pages has been nagging me (mostly can't get away from it because it's number one on Google Searches) and I've made the decision that I would like to come back, however I had enforced my retirement with Wikibreak Enforcer, setting it to the year 3000 on my way out and now I have no way of getting into my account. So, I'd like to request some one remove that bit so I can get in, this would be my Monobook.js, the code is on top and if you need any proof as to who this really is, well my contributions on this IP show activity that directs me to the IP, the IP is also static and to further the point my this accounts talk page and user page should have a history showing me editing it and stating it is indeed static. I also have further proof that this is me, but that will require some one to email me so I can reply back to them, thanks for your help! 72.224.127.117 (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Rgoodermote  08:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked IP violating WP:CIVIL on talk page

User talk:122.108.202.45 - Clearly upset about his block and edits being reverted, in severe violation of WP:CIVIL. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like pretty standard troll stuff. I myself would advocate for RBI here. :) --Moonriddengirl 14:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Urgent! Last call for votes: AUSC October 2009 elections

There's only one day to go! The Audit Subcommittee election, using SecurePoll, closes at 23:59 (UTC) 8 November. Three community members will be appointed to supervise use of the CheckUser and OverSight tools. If you wish to vote you must do so urgently. Here's how:

• Visit the election "home page" for an overview;
• Review the candidate's statements: Dominic • Frank • Jredmond • KillerChihuahua • MBisanz • Tznkai;
• Or go straight to your personal voting page: here.

For the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 16:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ban on 23prootie

23prootie (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely for block evasion. Over the past month, 23prootie has continued to block evade, even using open proxies such as these, to try and evade their block

• 202.108.50.6 (talk · contribs)
• 194.213.52.82 (talk · contribs)
• 121.28.34.69 (talk · contribs)

The IPs 23prootie has been using have blocked for a month for persistent block evasion. 23prootie has a long history of edit warring and disruptive editing. See their block log. They have been blocked numerous times. He/she seems to be continuing their agenda. 23prootie admitted that although he knew we was banned (although not formally) with their edit summaries on user 202.108.50.6 and in return used the reasoning WP:Ignore all rules and "being banned does not mean that edits with merit have to be reverted", he may still be able to edit.

If blocking their main IP range wasn't enough, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/23prootie/Archive 23prootie has decided to use open proxies and seems intent to keep using open proxies to try and circumvent their blocks. I am requesting a ban for their persistent block evasion and edit warring/going against consensus. Elockid ·_Contribs) 18:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't needed. Nobody in their right mind would unblock this user. — Jake Wartenberg 19:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

So technically they are de facto banned? Elockid ·_Contribs) 19:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Basically since any admin who unblocks 23prootie might as well go to WP:BN and ask for their admin tools to be taken away.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys for the quick responses. This should probably be closed then. Elockid ·_Contribs) 19:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

Is it acceptable to close (almost every) discussion topic that comes up on a page and place it in a collapsed box and label it with "NOT A FORUM"? This is currently what is going on at Talk:Barack Obama (scroll down to see the rest). To me, if the discussion does seem forum-related it should be removed completely. However, on this page, most of the discussion that is being hidden is about the article's content. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

When I encounter forumish talk page comments, or similar noise, I tend to delete such things outright if they're a problem. In my opinion leaving them visible results in more noise because the talk page looks like you can post things there, and using collapsed sections just invites tendentious editors to complain about how some asshole won't let people contribute. Removing such comments is usually better. Having said that, Talk:Barack Obama gets a lot of noise posts, and so it does need to be managed a bit more than most pages, and the /Arguments pages that are used for noise reduction on some math and science pages won't work for political topics. Actually discouraging followups to certain posts is a practical necessity there; it's just a question of what method to use. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently closed discussions at Talk:Barack Obama include

1. Discussion about Obama declaring H1N1 emergency (true and valid information for a different article, but not related to that article)
2. Discussion about the deadliest month in the Iraq war (again, true and valid, but irrelevent to Obama article)
3. An answered question about a redirect; which was resolved.
4. Discussion about something called "preventative detention", again probably worthwhile to be at Misplaced Pages somewhere, little relevence to Obama article
5. A discussion over Obama's ethnicity, specifically his Irish background. The issue over the minutae of his ethnic background has been argued ad infinitum and this thread doesn't bring up anything which has not already been exactly discussed before, and which is also answered in the extensive FAQ.
6. Discussion about whether or not Obama is a socialist. CLearly inappropriate.
7. A discussion about unemployment figures. Again, true and belongs somewhere at Misplaced Pages, not relevent to a biography of Obama.

Many of these discussions are closed because they are irrelevent to improving the article in question, IMHO. There is a misconception that every single thing that happens in the United States of America during Obama's presidency must be part of his biographical article. Most of these discussions could happen at relevent articles, but the main biography of Obama isn't really it. Usually, most of the closed discussions are wacky conspiracy theories, like the standard Birther nonsense, or demands that we include info about Obama being a socialist-nazi-secretmuslimist or something like that. --Jayron32 02:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

CfD to be closed soon

When time expires, would an experienced administrator who does not regularly frequent categories for discussion consider closing this discussion? It isn't time to close quite yet, but the debate is detailed and contentious. I think that someone without involvement in CfD politicking will be most likely to be viewed as an unbiased closer. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Should no other uninvolved administrator step forward, I'd be happy to close once 19:07 UTC comes round.  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA is backlogged

Exactly what is says on the section header. Cheers, BlazerKnight (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not now. Majorly talk 10:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Block 173.166.211.9 for vandalism

Requesting a block of 173.166.211.9 (talk · contribs) for excessive vadalism of WordGirl and List of characters in WordGirl by continuing adding fancruft from Rocko's Modern Life. Thanks. NoseNuggets (talk) 9:46 AM US EST Nov 8 2009.

I don't see any contributions (deleted or otherwise) from this IP address. If there is an IP vandalizing an article, the best place to report them is at AIV. TNXMan 16:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Should have been 173.168.211.9 (talk · contribs), and this is clearly not suitable for AIV -- since the articles are hardly more than fancruft in the first place, it would be difficult for an admin to decide whether additional fancruft is improper. In short, this needs to be settled by talk page consensus before any admin action can be taken. (In my opinion; I am not an admin.) Looie496 (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting help in closing merger

I'm looking at help in closing (or continuing) the proposed merger of Daniel Greenberg to Sudbury school discussion at Talk:Sudbury school#Merger proposal. I'm concerned that the prime proponent of the merger has insisted several times in closing the debate and completing the merge, without much opinion being expressed. I'm also concerned about numerous WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and possibly even WP:AGF violations by the proponent. Nfitz (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Reduction AE block length of Jacurek

Apologies for not having done this sooner. This is simply a notice to allow scrutiny of a reduction in block length of User:Jacurek. The block was originally done by User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise at one month in length.

There was a second AE discussion here to review the block but it was closed by Jehochman and the block remained in force and unchanged. There was a second unblock request by Jacurek which I subsequently reviewed.

After reading the second AE discussion and the history behind this block it was my belief that the block should not be removed but should be lowered in length. The reasoning behind this can be found in my review here. I just want to ensure that my reasoning was sound for this alteration of a block. Seddon | 23:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards