Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

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

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

User with a severe competence in English problem and repeated false sock allegations.

ZH8000 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has a major problem editing in English. There was a problem at Vignette (road tax) where ZH8000 misunderstood a contribution as claiming that the annual cost of the Swiss vignette was the most expensive in Europe and not the cost of transiting the country in spite of clearly stating the latter. His response on the talk page betrayed this. Making no further discussion and that his edit summaries continued to reference the original edit with eight reverts, this interpretation either did not change, or he never read the talk page or what he was reverting ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7])

There was consensus on the talk page which he appears to have accepted after a warning. This aspect can be regarded as settled.

However, an underlying problem has been revealed in that ZH8000 clearly does not have the necessary competence in English to edit the English Wikipedia. He has self identified as a native German speaking Swiss. I have not been here that long and I don't know how this would normally be handled so please bear with me and forgive me if this is the wrong place.

The article on Gun laws in Switzerland has become a mixture of good English, pidgin English and the plain unintelligible. Consider this nugget:

[Of ammunition that cannot be sold]

Ammunition with one or more floors to the release of substances which damage the health of people in the long run

I doubt many English speakers have the knowledge on such a specialist subject to unravel that or the other unintelligible English.

There are several others, but I'm trying to be brief. Just recently, this was added to AC power plugs and sockets

[Of disadvantages with multi-standard sockets]

Using appliances which require earthing, but socket does either not provide it, or the socket's earthing connects not with the one by the plug.

He subsequently provided a rewrite but it wasn't any more intelligible. His reaction is that anyone is free to improve the contribution but it is rather difficult if you can't figure out what it was trying to say in the first place. He has reverted a request for clarification here

It is worth adding that ZH8000 has a history (and three blocks) for battleground edit warring with others, mostly over his lack of understanding of how to present ideas in English.

Having made a false edit warring and socking allegation at WP:ANEW (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368#User:86.153.135.111 reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: Semi) (More than one user pointed out that there are three groups of dynamic IP addresses - the IP addresses are separated by at least three continents and he was at 5RR when he made it - no one else had exceeded 2RR), he has continued to repeat the allegation here. He clearly still does not understand the concept of dynamic IP addresses. This shows that ZH8000 is quick to quote policies to everyone else, but refuses to abide by them himself ([8], [9], [10], [11] - all within 3 1/2 hours. (I assume removal of gibberish and restoring removed maintenance tags is reverting vandalism).

I know the last bit should probably be at WP:ANEW but I wouldn't want to be accused of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. 81.156.46.74 (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment Uhm. ZH8000 isn't a vandalizing editor. (Wikipedia:Vandalism). How do you know that his previous blocks are "mostly over his lack of understanding of how to present ideas in English"? --Miaow 16:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

By following his edit history. Also a look at the posts that ZH8000 has deleted from his talk page is highly revealing (he always deletes negative posts). 81.156.46.74 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

If the only problem is that the user writes in somewhat confusing sentences (I wouldn't call these examples illegible, I'm not an expert in these subjects and I can mostly parse their meaning) but they otherwise contribute productively, the civil thing to do would be to just copyedit their contribs. I know we're not about to appoint someone to follow them around and clean up after them, but perhaps we can advise them to suggest changes on talk pages instead? Of course edit warring is intolerable, but if you're editing in good faith and presume that there's nothing wrong with your contributions, having several editors gang up on you is unpleasant. And then again if it's just a matter of them not wanting to collaborate then they'll be on their way out, but I don't think that's the case here. Not yet, anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Ivanvector. --Miaow 16:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment Well, it's one thing to write badly and quite another to write badly and refuse to acknowledge it. My stance is: Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, there is no automatic right to participating in this online project, and if someone's editing efforts force others to do devote disproportional amount of time to correcting them while the editor refuses to acknowledge his weaknesses, then I see no point of continued participation of such an editor in the project. GF is not all. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, Google Translate should not be writing articles on en-Wiki. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It’s interesting that you say that, because I spoke a friend of mine who is a translator for the EU. He is not a great fan of machine translations. Given that ZH8000 generally has a passable proficiency in English, he states that the English being posted is fairly consistent with that generated by machine translations such as Google translate. TheVicarsCat (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Plus when he ran into resistance he reacted by generating this ungrounded socket allegation. EEng 18:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• ... and failed to identify master socket :P — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

His edits are polarizing. He may have potential if he stays in contact with current events. EEng 19:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

...I propose to topic ban EENG from any more puns today, broadly construed. --Tarage (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

He may resist such a measure, regardless of capacitance. Jip Orlando (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Watt? Ohmy! EEng 21:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's stop this pun thread before it Hertz. Natureium (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That's relative, but we do need a quantum of gravity in this thread. Kleuske (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair point, we should to try to keep the thread readable for the Swiss gentleman. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Putting the joking aside. There is a more serious issue here. I have little to add to the language issue apart from to observe that it wholly unreasonable for an editor to expect others to clear up after them.

However: the last part of the complaint should be taken seriously. A criticism from an admin (EdJohnston) was made about ZH8000 posting 3RR notices on user’s talk pages when he himself is deliberately flouting the rules. ZH8000 should receive a short block for the 4RR violation in under 4 hours (let alone 24 hours) as a timely reminder that the rules apply to him as well. In addition the IP should also receive the same block as he also made 4 reverts in much the same time period WP:BOOMERANG. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. It seems ‘my boomerang won,t come back’. I just saw 4 edits from the IP and wrongly assumed they were reverts. On looking more thoroughly, only three were reverts. One just added a clarify tag to the poor English, though the reason could have be better phrased (though it does appear to be apposite). TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. After the IP was reversed, I don't see any problems there. --Miaow 18:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• We're not going to CIR block over the language issue. It's just not going to happen.
• The reported edit war at AC power plugs and sockets is stale. Please report future edit warring to WP:AN3.
• I will warn ZH8000 against making further unsubstantiated accusations.
• Is there anything else other than what I've mentioned above that requires an immediate response? If not, please re-report if and when that happens. Swarm ♠ 23:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Mass deletion of references

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Angelopedia is a corporate-run website that provides English-language news reports on pageants around the world. This is helpful for sourcing basic information where the in-country sources have been written in non-English languages, especially where the original sources are written in non-Roman script. A question about the site's reliability has been raised at the Reliable Sources noticeboard (here). A discussion there is on-going.

The original poster at the noticeboard was Jytdog. Although the discussion is on-going, Jytdog has apparently decided on its outcome and has already begun a mass deletion of references to the website. After doing a few dozen deletions, they went back to the noticeboard to call on other editors to do the same (diff}.

I registered my objection to these mass deletions at Jytdog's Talk page (here). The response suggests that Jytdog has no intention of undoing their mass deletion of sources.

The deletion of these references is controversial and, so far, has been done in the absence of any evidence-based rationale. If these deletions are truly to take place, they should be done pursuant to a formal Request for Comments that is closed by an uninvolved administrator. In the meantime, I am here asking for a restoration of the status quo (i.e., a restoration of all of the references deleted by Jytdog, as well as any other deletions that might have been done by editors who heeded Jytdog's call at the Reliable Sources noticeboard). NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

NOTIFICATION OF THIS REPORT given here NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be enough consensus on the RS/N board that the site is not reliable; the single argument for it (which NewYorkActuary gave) doesn't show how it meets RS's requirements, given that we know some content on the site is user-generated, just not which content or how much. I have spotchecked a few of the references removed by Jytdog and see an immediate problem in addition: if the site , as claimed, was translating foreign articles to English, the links I spotchecked show no sign of the original article that was sourced from that I can find, so this itself fails WP:V and potentially could be a copyright violation. (If the links were there, then my suggestion would have been to replace the Angelopedia links with these foreign-language ones, which are likely to have been better than Angelopedia). So Jytdog's work to replace the references with CNs based on the impression from RS/N discussion (opened long enough to gain input) is completely legit and not actionable.

Furthermore, it's not too hard to find suitable replacements, for example, for this removal, an early hit on Google was this article [12]. So there might be some effort needed to correct these, but we can do that without Angelopedia. --Masem (t) 00:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the prompt response. I'm reluctant to go into too much detail here, because I recognize that the substantive discussion should be taking place on the RS noticeboard (and not here). But I'll briefly address two items in your comments.

First, I'm not suggesting that Angelopedia's staff writers are translating existing news reports. Perhaps they are relaying information received in press releases; perhaps they are watching the shows on television or live stream and reporting from that. And so, we shouldn't be expecting the site to identify sourcing that they might not have been using.

Second, my one comment at the RS noticeboard was intended only to refute the one argument put forward against the site. A fuller discussion will permit further debate, hopefully along lines that call for the actual production of evidence. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I have never seen evidence Angelpedia is anything resembling a RS and I fully support blacklisting it. I strongly suspect the site hires people to add their links to Wikipedia given how many SPA accounts operate on the topic. Jtydog deserves a barnstar for cutting out 100 crappy "sources" in one pass. Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. And I'll be happy to provide the evidence you're asking for. Angelopedia has often been used as a source by the Times News Network, the news agency of the Times of India (the country's oldest and largest-circulating English-language paper). And "use by others" is an indicia of reliability. A list of the many times it has been used as a source by TNN is here. This is precisely the type of evidence that would have been produced had the mass deletions been held off until the discussion had ended. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliability is not transitive. If the Times of India is a reliable source, and it reprints an Anglopedia piece, then the citation is reliable because it comes from the Times of India. If that source constantly reprints erroneous information from Anglopedia, the Times of India will soon lose its status as a reliable source -- but, in any case, Anglepedia does not become a reliable source because it is used as a source by a single reliable source. So WP:RS for what defines a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Too bad Miss Universe 2018 wasn't being held on board.

-EEng

• I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF THIS BOARD BEING CLOGGED WITH ARGUMENTS ABOUT BEAUTY PAGEANTS. NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOUR STUPID BEAUTY PAGEANTS AND WHETHER MISS KYRGYZSTAN WON HER CROWN IN A PAGEANT OR WAS APPOINTED TO HER ROLE. OR JAPANESE ANIMATION. OR PRO WRESTLING. JESUS. EEng 04:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Jesus dude... calm down lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I WILL NOT CALM DOWN! OUT! OUT WITH THE LOT OF YOU! EEng 04:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, EEng, somebody unclogged this noticeboard, to make room for some threads about cricket, snooker and porn stars. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Crush! Kill! Destroy! EEng 05:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC) And we are all corrosive-resistant and self-oiling. So there.

• Lol...uh, so anyway, yeah it looks like there’s a developing consensus that it isn’t an RS, so if that remains the case, it renders your complaint moot. Maybe you should just let this one drop. Swarm ♠ 04:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assuming that EEng won't pick up a drive-by indef from a passing "petulant frenzy" Admin, I'm guessing someone can save all that WMF legal fee money by revdelling those amusing Lost In Space clips which are obvious copyvios? Or perhaps I'm just being a nitpicking killjoy?? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Archiving of this page

Can we please not archive sections which have been closed, immediately afterwards? I have no problem with the closure of sections which have run their course, but please then give people some time (24h or so) to actually see (and if necessary challenge) the close without having to go to the archive page. Fram (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the archiving seemed a bit too quick. I'm all for thinning out the page, but... Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah what happened here? This page looks like the few survivors of some sort of massive cull. Please at least give us time to read the results of threads we may have been following, after all we come from time zones all around the globe. Surely at least 24 hours after a thread is closed is not unreasonable. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Just 72 hours... ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 07:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Upon reflection, 72 hours would be better. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It auto-archives after 72 h, but for a lot of things ("Can someone block this person?" "Done.") 24 h seems adequate. Natureium (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Or maybe everyone in WikiWorld has been extra-super good in the last 24hrs, with no issues to report. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Everyone pardoned themselves :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 07:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I really wish people would stop manually archiving every single thread as soon as it's closed. I don't have this page watchlisted, and it's getting pretty annoying to see that entire threads are disappearing before I even have the chance to see them. Can we please stop obsessively archiving everything? Give people a day or two to see the threads. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that even closed discussions need some time to simmer down and become "cold" first. If anything, it allows users to review and read through them and become aware of anything that they should know about :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I think @Swarm and Davey2010: might like to explain their actions, as this precipitous archiving seems to be their work, as I read the page history.

Swarm:[13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

Davey2010:[20][21][22][23] - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I posted something on here and it was archived before I had a chance to respond to someone who answered me. I can't be bothered to un-archive to answer, so top marks there. I'd support a community-based ban for the editor who archived it, preventing them from archiving threads here. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You want to community ban Swarm and Davey2010 for archiving threads quicker than you like? That seems like a pretty extreme reaction. Natureium (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I think they mean a topic ban. Fram (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Still, that seems uncalled for. I was amused by the fact that there were only 2 threads here last night. If you are looking for where something went, you know where to check. I'm not saying this is what should be done, but it's not some kind of epic disaster. Natureium (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's first give them the message that what they did is considered unhelpful or unwanted by many, and ask them to stop doing this in the same way in the future. No need to start topic banning people without at least giving them the chance to respond and reform. Fram (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, if everyone thinks that closing and archiving a thread less than 4hrs after it was responded to by someone is fine, then I stand corrected. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't think that's okay, that's why I started this thread. But there is quite a wide gap between "this is not okay, please don't do it again" and "this is not okay, you are now topic banned". Fram (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• I will agree my archiving today was way OTT, As explained on Jbhs talkpage the short and less problematic ones get archived after a good 4-5-6 hours, The longer and more problematic ones tend to get archived the next day or 2 or as is the case sometimes I don't touch them at all, I don't really know why I archived so soon but yeah sorry!, Shant happen again. –Davey2010^Talk 13:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Also thanks Natureium for the courtesy ping, Had no idea this was even going on. –Davey2010^Talk 13:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Umm... If this is an example the attention to detail you use when deciding to archive threads, especially given the Hussein Nishah quote on your user page, I think you should carefully reconsider doing that task at all. It was me that pinged you. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Thorne: since you explicitly asked two editors to "explan themselves" at ANI—thus re-focussing the thread on editors rather than the abstract—the big red box (see top of page) applies. You should have left notices on the two editors' talk pages: The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I never recieved your ping - The ping I received was from this comment "You want to community ban Swarm and Davey2010 for archiving threads quicker than you like? That seems like a pretty extreme reaction. Natureium (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)" - Any pings before that had not been received,

That respect message has absolutely nothing to do with the archiving of this board! - Perhaps you should put your pitchfork down and reread on my reply. –Davey2010^Talk 14:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Davey2010:...what respect message? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The Hussein Nishah quote on my talkpage the "Treat others how you want to be treated" quote :) –Davey2010^Talk 15:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think that may have been unnecessarilly personal. And, true, you wouldn't have got their ping, because—here's irony—they added it to their previous message rather than in a new one, so of course it wouldn't go through..."attention to detail" indeed  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I've just read Alex's reply - The absolutely irony of it all!, Couldn't make it u could ya! :) –Davey2010^Talk 15:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• This is only tangentially related but I'm still trying to figure out why the advice here [24] clashes so badly with the comments here [25]... and because @Davey2010: had already NACed it I never had a chance to reply, forcing me to take it to his talk page where Hhkohh got his ears clipped for "clerking the meta areas" and I pretty much got trouted because my comments "belonged anywhere but there". Well the obvious place to ask the question would have been in the ANI discussion, had he not closed it already. ... CJ [a Kiwi] in Oz  14:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Various editors and admins agreed and disagreed with those threads and not being an admin I wasn't going to say Yay or Nay to it although my closure of it could be interpreted as Nay, I did say to you to post elsewhere (ie here), I wasnt going to explicitly say on my tp "don't post there" when it could be the wrong advice and I said that all on my talkpage, Your comment is wholly unrelated to this thread. –Davey2010^Talk 14:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

If you hadn't NACed it I might have had a chance to post the question. Thus I think it is indicative of similar unhelpful behaviour. And I still disagree with your assertion that anyone anywhere disagreed with the advice given in the initial thread, the disagreement was with other ways of dealing with backlogs ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  15:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It would've been more appropriate to start an RC (and you still can) but IMHO a few (not everyone, but a few) disagreed with the thread and I figured it was more helpful to close but as I said you're more than welcome to start an RFC either here or on any board of your fancy. –Davey2010^Talk 15:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Nick Thorne, other editors cannot receive your ping if you fix the markup afterwards without signing your post again ([26]), see Wikipedia:Notifications#Alerts. In regards to the recurring trend of manually archiving almost immediately after the thread is closed, I agree that it is beyond unnecessary; I don't really think it necessary reduces clutter; these day I often check noticeboards through mobile, and I can simply minimize sections that have been closed. Finally, CJinoz, hijacking a thread for unrelated question is not very nice. I will answer at your talk page. Alex Shih (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Alex Shih I have put up & shut up for a few days now on the previous thing and wouldn't have brought it up at all had Davey's behaviour not been called into question. I referred to the experience simply as an example of similar-but-different unhelpful editing here at ANI. Premature closing is as unhelpful in my eyes as premature archiving - and to point out the apparent stupidity of Davey complaining that I took the question to his talk page when he left me few options by closing the discussion so quickly. As I said on his tp, I knew it wasn't the best place to ask the question but he didn't leave me much in the way of options. I do not appreciate your suggestion that I was "hijacking" anything. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  15:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is everyone's, not only two people's, so let the discussion leave at least 24 hours after closure to let more people know the discussion result. Hhkohh (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Probably time to close & archive this... Exemplo347 (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose @Exemplo347: Swarm 's comment isn't come. Hhkohh (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I was joking... Exemplo347 (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Well don't. –Davey2010^Talk 15:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Whatever you say, clearly prematurely closing & archiving a thread is no laughing matter. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe to get around this we say that nobody can manually archive discussions here, and reduce the auto archiving to 48 hours? GiantSnowman 15:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Reducing to 48 hours seems fine, but banning manually archiving seems unnecessary. Just think before you do it. Davey2010 already admitted it was OTT, and no one is arguing that things should be archived immediately. Natureium (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

But what is the need to manually archive? We're trying to fix a problem that isn't there. GiantSnowman 15:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Shortening the auto-archive interval is likely to result in more premature archiving and, worse, in the archiving of un-closed threads. Establishing some sort of guidance is probably the best way to deal with the issue. Perhaps a minimum of 36 hrs for non-trivial threads and 12 hrs for the simpler 'please do this threads' or whatever rules-of-thumb are generally found to be appropriate. Jbh ^Talk 15:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

As a point of interest after being told to "let the bot handle archiving" I looked at a few past archives. As far back as I looked, January 2016, 95%+ of the archived threads were marked 'Oneclick Archiver'. I would suggest that before jumping down the throats of the editors who keep this board from continuously 200K+ you all may want to establish what the new expectations are. I am absolutely sure those who still clean up here will be perfectly happy to follow whatever guidelines are established.

Everyone screws up from time to time, misses something and on the flip side most regulars here can find some instance where another has done something they disagree with. To whomever it was who called for a community ban on an editor for following established practice I must simple say … if you do not like how something is being done mention your disagreement before calling for sanctions. Doing it the other way is bullshit. Jbh ^Talk 15:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a "move to close" followed by a "second" after 24 of no activity, and then archive 24 hours after that if no objetcion?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary bureaucracy - if a discussion has been reviewed and closed by an Admin, it should remain closed (pending exceptional circumstances). Allowing 48 hours for people to see the close and challenge it (if required) is more than enough, before allowing the bot to auto-archive. I still fail to see why we need manual archiving. GiantSnowman 15:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

So closed discussions can be removed to declutter the page and open discussions aren't archived too quickly (48 hour auto-archive would lead to more discussions being prematurely archived) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Isn't the status quo to archive closed discussions after 24 hours? That seems fine and sensible to me. Maybe make it 12 hours or something for small issues Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't think 12 hours is good... Hhkohh (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is that I generally only archive threads that have been closed (with a box or a Done checkmark) for at least 24 hours, and only do so when the page has >20 threads/250KB on it. *I'll occasionally archive threads sooner if the page is very long and the action taken very non-controversial, or if the thread touches on a WP:BEANS situation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this be on the talk page anyway? Plus, this thread will get archived when it should remain on the talk page in case it needs to be referenced. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I would have posted this on the talk page if I were posting it, but I wouldn't have posted it at all, as it's making mountain out of a molehill. Natureium (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Response and proposal

I personally agree with leaving closed discussions on the board for ~24 hours before manually archiving. I'm actually a huge proponent of leaving purple-boxed discussions on the board to encourage an organized and efficient culture at ANI. However, it is not something that is established in practice or precedent, so I don't bother to wait the 24 hours as other people just manually archive before then anyways. I manually archived several threads last night.[27] I assessed each thread in that group independently and can provide a reasoning for each individual thread that was archived. I can also provide a reasoning for each individual thread that wasn't archived. I was a little surprised to see Davey immediately archive the discussions I left on the board, bringing it down to 3 threads.[28] But, knowing that Davey was just trying to be helpful, I just laughed and figured if that's what we're doing, I'll just archive the other closed threads and we can have 2 threads on the board. I have to say, there's no doubt it got carried away, and I don't know if we've ever seen AN/I down to 2 threads like that. But it was amusing, and I am confident that no harm was done. I do apologize for my role in the over-archiving episode, and anticipated the complaints. Historically, ANI has around 10-25 threads at any given time, and if discussions are appropriately closed, auto-archiving will keep it on the lower end of this. Manual archiving is a nice option if AN/I is too bloated, but there is not actually any reason for archiving discussions too quickly. Davey is a good editor who was only trying to help and should not be thrown under the bus over this. But, since we're all here, I'll propose a remedy:

The rule "Please do not manually archive closed discussions before 24 hours has elapsed." is added to the AN/I header. I have BOLDly added it myself as I assume it will be without objection, but I welcome anyone to modify the precise wording as they see fit. (The header is located here.) Feel free to opine below. Swarm ♠ 16:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

There are times when I think we don't need to wait 24 hours before archiving. I don't think a hard rule is appropriate. In general, you should wait 24 hours before archiving but use your judgement and determine if some items can be archived sooner. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, if other people agree, we can soften the wording and make it gentle guidance instead of a hard rule. But based on the feedback above, it's would seem that this is the general guidance from the community. Swarm ♠ 16:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps to start, the header should offer the guidance of generally waiting 24 hours. I haven't seen it an issue until today really where the archiving was far too early. I used to archive this page and I would usually wait 24 hours except for simple cases and extreme vandalism cases that didn't need 24 hours scrutiny. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree with a bright line of 24 hours. 24 hours is probably appropriate for most threads. Some contain extensive discussion and should probably stay longer for more eyes. But, on a not-infrequent basis there are things like "Can someone block this person?" "Done.", which don't need to stick around for widespread awareness. I'm not an admin so I'm not going to modify the wording, as this is after all, the administrators' noticeboard. Natureium (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Well suggest an alternative wording! Swarm ♠ 16:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know that any wording is necessary. Is this a problem often enough that there needs to be a rule for it, or can we allow people to use uncommon sense? Natureium (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Obviously wording is necessary, because no actual policies or protocols were breached, and yet an unwritten rule not to manually archive closed discussions before ample time has elapsed has been strongly articulated above. If feedback to myself and Davey was all that was needed, that could have been discussed without an entire ANI thread, but since we have one going already, we might as well actually do something to ensure that the community's wishes here are articulated in the ANI header, so that unwitting users do not cause an uproar again. Swarm ♠ 16:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Most of the one-and-done threads e.g. (X is vandalizing Y --> indeffed) are short and do not really clog things up so, if there is going to be a bright line rule there is no need to clutter it up with exceptions.

That said, I would suggest since I do not think the issue so critical as to require a bright-line rule, that the wording be "Closed threads should generally be left on the page for 24hrs for the information of interested parties, and to allow time to challenge the close." The 'generally' allows for discretion and prevents the odd 23hr archiving from becoming a source of drama. It also articulates why threads should be left up. This gives something to gauge 'generally' against e.g. if it is a 'one-and-done' there may be little reason to not to archive it at 22-23 hrs when part of cleaning up the page. Also, for longer, more controversial, or threads with a wider interest it says why they should be left longer than 24 hrs. Jbh ^Talk 17:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC) last updated: 17:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

*Support proposal - It's 50/50 - On one hand the "Can someone block this vandal" = "Done" threads don't need to stick around for 24 hours but on the other hand I feel if we don't have some sort of "rule" if you like someone else could potentially be here for the same reasons, It's 50/50 but I'd rather have something than nothing at all really. –Davey2010^Talk 17:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Editors should normally wait at least 24 hours after a discussion is resolved to manually archive it. The phrase "should normally" is deliberately vague. Or we could make "ANI archiver" a site permission, and come up with a Byzantine process for a community discussion to ensure that people with that privilege appreciate the unwritten rules ... power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

How about all of you thinking about people in other time zones? It's disturbing to come here and see threads that were discussed for a few hours and closed while I was asleep. I'm UTC plus 12 (or 13 DST), so a discussion in the US 7am-noon hours takes place while we're all asleep here and in Australia. Akld guy (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What about Sections older than 72 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Editors may want to wait at least 24 hours after a discussion is closed to manually archive it so that interested parties may read it.? Natureium (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You missed my point entirely. How about not even closing for 24 hours? Akld guy (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Another possible alternative wording would be Barring completed requests for routine, uncontroversial action, editors should generally wait at least 24 hours after a discussion is closed before manually archiving. That'd allow the the "such-and-such has serious backlog" - "dealt with", the "would someone please block this blatant WP:DUCK" - "done" and the "now-offline admin closed an RPP-request as "semi-protected for 72h" but forgot to actually *apply* the protection they said they would. Would someone please?" - " Done" and such to be archived quickly while still requiring a minimum of 24h for actual discussions. The "generally" should still allow for case-by-case situations as long as the archiver is capable of explaining why they feel this specific archived thread *shouldn't* wait 24h. Of course, the wording presumes that exceptions even need to be coded into the rule, which there currently seems to be no consensus on. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@EEng:-- did you say unsinkable?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• 72hr auto-archive by a bot. For all threads with no activity in that timespan. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Alright, reworded with the above feedback in mind. And, uh, Lugnuts, that's already a thing. Swarm ♠ 18:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine. Natureium (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me . Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

+1 -Looks good to me aswell. –Davey2010^Talk 18:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Might I kindly point y'all away from the bikeshedding and in the direction of Wikipedia:Backlog. ;) TheDragonFire (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• In the last few years I believe I've done most of the archiving. (I had nothing to do with the recent scorched-earth attack.) I generally wait 24 hours after a close, then archive. Exception: Very simple stuff ("Need help with this move .. Done! .. Thanks") with no "educational value" might be archived faster. Another exception: Threads with a good chance to come back to life (e.g. block of a possibly dynamic IP) I'll leave longer. Another exception: Long threads with many participants stay longer to be sure all have had a chance to review. Leaving everything 72 hours after close seems unthinkable. EEng 19:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Technical query

Related to archiving this page, why do some edit summaries say "OneClickArchiver archived topic X'', while some say "OneClickArchiver archived 1 discussion to archive page X"? Listing the topic in the edit summary is clearly more useful, and if it's the same tool, why the discrepancy? Natureium (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to do nothing

• Comment Geez, are you folks trying to make up for the premature archiving by adding as much text to ANI as possible? Can I suggest that everyone take a few deep breaths and calm down. So a couple of editors were precipitous in their archiving of the page -- they both agree that was the case, and it seems to be a lesson learned, so let's leave it and move on. There's little need for more rules or bureaucracy, this was pretty much a one-time event -- at least I haven't noticed anything like in the 10 years or so I've been reading this noticeboard. Why don't we all go back to improving the encyclopedia and let this now non-issue drop? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Pages being archived too early once in a blue moon does not require that we make a new rule. Natureium (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support The process we have has been in use for literally years with minor mistakes until this blew up. The most commonly stated practice is leave most stuff around for 24 hours after close and use good judgment on whether to archive something minor and uncontroversial early or to leave an important, long, or controversial thread for longer. Jbh ^Talk 21:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support and just for the record, there was an AN thread brought against me where I archived some threads and someone didn't like it, so it's not like this hasn't happened before. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support Go do something productive. Everyone who has even remotely caused this issue is now aware of said issue and has said they understand the concern and will act accordingly. We've got way more important things to do, like argue about info boxes. (Info boxes are the new Godwin's law. Wikipedia's law?) --Tarage (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Uncle, please help

Resolved

 – TheDragonFire (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure whether to report here or at the technical notice board. Adding {{Unkle|state=collapsed}} has sent this page to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as dependent on a non-existent page to join all the other pages that use that template. But they are not listed in the main CAT:CSD. Someone please find out why. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it was because of this edit which I have just reverted. I could be wrong. --bonadea contributions talk 09:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Cool, you found another sock account... thank you :-). This has been going on all day now... we'll need to keep careful eyes on edits to the template namespace. I've caught and blocked two other socks for edits like these to unprotected templates, and these changes do make a significant impact. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was it. Many thanks. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Ashford Carbonell

A few different IPs have been adding POV info about speed limits since September 2016 all but the first (to Ludlow) Geolocates to Swadlincote in Derbyshire (nowhere near Ashford Carbonell in Shropshire, making it obvious they are the same person). They have been warned about this numerous times, would protecting or blocking be helpful? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP that was just recently making repeated edits to the article. Other than these edits, the article looks mostly quiet with a low number of edits, so I'm going to hold off on protection for now. If more edits like these continue, let me know or file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and someone will review it. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I just thought the possibility of protection due to it having no unregistered contribs in over 2 years (apart from 1 vandalism revert). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale - Let's hold off for now and keep eyes on the article and after the IP user's block expires. If disruptive edits pick up and the rate of disruption gets high enough to where it's needed, we can easily apply it ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've added the article and user talk page to my watchlist, I'll report if anything more happens, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Massive sockpuppetry at Neerali

This is the latest of a long prevailing sockpuppetry for promoting actress Parvatii Nair. This user's main activity is placing her name on a superior position on films star cast as well as promoting in whatever ways possible & edit warring for the same. Presently it is at Neerali, her latest appearance. Yourmistake was the first to make these edits on the page and after the block of Yourmistake, a second user User:Lathaj8 performed the edits on his behalf after which Neerali was ECP'ed for sockpuppety (on May 27). Apart from altering the cast order, both attempted to replace the existing poster with another featuring the actress too. After protection, there was continued attempts to reinstate these edits through edit requests & other efforts by new socks:

• May 28: Szzs.vsn (talk · contribs) - [29]
• May 29: Zyravi (talk · contribs) - [30] (contacts page protected admin to loose protection)
• May 29: Zyravi - [31] (asks to rewrite the lead as "Mohanlal and Parvatii Nair in lead roles")
• May 29: Weedo vivek (talk · contribs) - [32] (same thing Zyravi asked the admin)
• May 29: Weedo vivek - [33] (an attempt at WP:RFP/C over the wrong perception that it would grant permission to edit ECP pages)
• May 30: 27.5.111.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - [34] (says this article is not in encyclopedia format and needs a lot of modifications and people can contribute and add lots of facts regarding the movie to make it more complete - another way of asking to unprotect the page, not to mention the claim was false - version at the time)

When responded to 27.5.111.108, reply was given by "Szzs.vsn" (see the timing and shared concerns); Szzs.vsn besides making a false claim about referencing, asks to replace the poster with the same one Yourmistake & Lathaj8 were trying to add. Note: Zyravi and Weedo vivek were sleeper accounts waked after page protection, as was Lathaj8, waked after Yourmistake's block. Although the possibility of meatpuppetry cannot be omitted, I personally don't believe it, as their demeanor is same as if from a single person.

Protection expired on June 3, 2018; a new a/c DunsonDavis (talk · contribs) created on June 4 began making mass disruptive changes, a smokescreen for altering the cast and began edit warring for the same ignoring the warning not to re-add the content before reaching consensus [35], additional warnings were given by Ravensfire [36] and Escape Orbit [37]; the last time I saw this behaviour was on Yourmistake. Also, DunsonDavis ask for third opinion too early in a discussion before discussing it himself. This trait too was last seen on Yourmistake[38] during this discussion. Even if it not considered, how come a rookie user with few hours experience & 9 edits knows about WP:3O ?

Some consecutive edits made on behalf of each other – Zyravi [39], [40]; DunsonDavis [41], [42]; Szzs.vsn [43]. Look at the timing, all suspected socks logged on at the same time for the same cause, a common case of swapping accounts during edit warring.

DunsonDavis also asks to replace the poster with the same one the other socks were struggling to add, but with a poor reasoning that the existing poster is unofficial. In between, a new user Seetharaghavan (talk · contribs) also came with the same poster claim [44], see the editing time, just few minutes after Zyravi logged in to edit. The ridiculous poster claim was nullified yesterday after a long discussion, after which DunsonDavis didn't showed up, but returned as a new sock Josephpaulkochi (talk · contribs) uttering nonsense [45] and made a logged out edit [46] (not the first time). Also didn't forgot to alter the star cast [47]. --Let There Be Sunshine 20:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Article ECP'd. Let There Be Sunshine, any reason why this wasn't posted to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhinand1234? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)