Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 4

message: I know this has been said over and over, but this noticeboard is not the place to debate content disputes. The boldface type requests that you keep your comments concise; please do not simply extend your disputes to this page. Thank you. Isopropyl 23:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputes

message: :I have to agree with Isopropyl here. Thank you for reminding users about this. There is no harm done by stating this piece of information here again. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputes

message: I would like to request that this article not be placed under "Protected" articles for vandalism. It was not my intention to vandalize Wikipedia as I am a frequent user. The reasons for requesting it are: 
1. I am not a member of the band. I am only a fan. In time the band's publicist will request to re-write the article and provide more supporting evidence. It is completely unfair to the band that they be punished for something they didn't do. I can provide you with all my personal information and you will see that I am indeed not a member of the band.
2. I had only added a title as I was unware of the appropriate procedure to contest the result of the discussion.
I use Wikipedia almost daily not as a contributor, but I rather use it as a tool for my job. I am not sure if you can track my usage of Wikipedia, but if you can you will see that I have no history whatsoever of "vandalizing", misusing, or even editing any articles on Wikipedia. Please get back to me and let me know the outcome of your decision. This article writing process was very taxing on me emotionally and to at the end be labeled as a vandal is a little bit more than I can handle.
Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meanax (talk • contribs) 18:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Superhorse

message: I just added a note to the header about warning people on their talk page, having seen yet another 3RR report where this wasn't done. Hope thats OK; I'm sure you'll revert me if not :-) William M. Connolley 23:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised the 3RR header 

message: Honestly, this comment has nothing to do with the well-being of the encyclopedia. It seems to be out of place here, and I have respectively contributed most to the section. May I inquire I move this to my talkpage..? -ZeroTalk 16:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be WP:BOLD and remove it. If anyone feels my judgement is in error, please contact me and transfer it back. -ZeroTalk 00:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Megaman Zero]] and his forged award 

message: What to do when a user uses the revert capababilities of "god mode" scripts to revert edits that are not vandalism and in articles in which the editor is actively involved?  Is there a guideline that can asisst with these type of abuse? ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 21:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to give an example. Secretlondon 21:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here  ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 21:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Even regular reverting, by the way. That's my own personal policy. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse of "god mode" scripts? 

message: We all know the problem now. I'm not sure if this has been proposed already, as its too much to dig through (I guess sometimes we need to compile a list of notable things, rather than just routine "sockpuppet suspected" etc. incidents) but anyway, this is all about the blockiness, messiness and general horror of reading WP:AN, especially WP:ANI. 
What is the problem? To me, AN and ANI is becoming too much like an RFC. We should remember, AN and ANI is really only for "what can administrators do to intervene or assist in a complex or delicate problem?", nor engage in debates. When a discussion gets bogged down, such as user conduct, it should be moved to an RFC, with an attention for administrators to notice this, perhaps with a short summary (if there are arbitration clerks, perhaps there should be clerks for this purpose). 
I'm not sure if I should create/merge this proposal myself, into some other page. When I put this on my watchlist, I might want to peer review administrator actions, just to make sure there aren't mistakes, ie. when blocking someone and it is meant to be reported. I might or might not want to get involved in a heated discussion about blocking a recent controversial user. If I do, perhaps it will be better off in an RFC. People complain too much that RFC's are non-enforcable. Well, with or without the proposed enforcement system, basically what is happening that most of the bite is occurring at AN and ANI.
Long discussions should at least be summarised and have most of the detail moved to a subpage. At the very least, the RFC format should be changed to allow for a long discussion which is clearly (self-evidently) eligible for RFC discussion, as it is now obvious that more community input is required, just with more administrator focus, and not merely an adverserial "I am bringing up a complaint against so and so user". Thus, this is not a problem with AN or ANI alone. That would not mean it would be brought up for frivolous or trivial issues (which would stay at AN or ANI). This way, we can bring the discussion to the RFC, and have the administrator enforcement at AN or ANI (ie. while discussion concludes at an RFC, we can update the summary for administrators to post their intentions, ie. "this looks confirmed, I will block sth and sth for disruption", citing the RFC (or perhaps another kind of RFC). 
This kills a lot of birds with one stone, IMO, and is a better alternative to the proposed enforcement I have heard of so far. Anyway, my thoughts. Our metapages under the Wikipedia namespace should be as convenient as reading articles, ie. using the principe of Wikipedia:Summary. It will also be more convenient to know what issues are going on, and will increase the efficiency of the project. That way, there will be a lot of postings still, perhaps just as much as before, but we can at least read all of them, choosing to read the more complex part of the issues later on. 
Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  administrator's noticeboard too much like RFC 

message: Is anyone working WP:RCU? As I type this, there's a backlog of 79 requests. RadioKirk talk to me 03:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You will need to ask someone with CheckUser access. -Splashtalk 03:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RCU]] 

message: I have some complaints about this user and I don't know where to post them.
# He attacks people constantly on his talk page and reverts any comment I make - he has made so many reverts on my edits that he is in violation of 3RR. Not going to bother to post it on 3RR noticeboard because you're aware of it here. 
#* original comment, revert. restoring blanked comments, revert. restoring blanked comments, revert. restoring blanked comments + warning, revert, restoring blanked comments, revert. restoring blanked comments, 3RR warning. there is more after that but I've stopped giving this user the attention he so desperately craves.
# He vandalized my talk page after I warned him on his talk page, as you can see here and I suspect he's using a sockpuppet on this one
# He's repeatedly abusive to people in Talk:IP address, specifically in this section. He's been warned there too several times.
# He's been warned over and over for his actions (harassing people's talk pages, harassing people via email) and nobody's blocked him yet. In my opinion, he needs a block and a quite long one (a week at least).
# Other actions include rudeness to User:Hbackman on her talk page at  
# He evaded his block to vandalize my talk page under another IP address here and here. I know it's him because:
#* he admitted it in the edit summary
#* he's called me "Nate" in his User_talk:0waldo talk page (check history) as a weak insult. I do not respond to such names, and that's a poor way of getting my attention.
# He is also harassing me outside Wikipedia (this is in addition to sending me a dozen harassing e-mails on Saturday):
[22:46:45] -m00.on.ca.xytra.net- *** Notice -- Client connecting at crazy.qc.ca.xytra.net: guest (~Xytra@user-24-214-176-87.knology.net)
[22:46:45] [join] * guest [~Xytra@xytra-D02B1329.knology.net] has joined #Chat
[22:46:59] <guest> hi nate, it's waldo!
[22:47:50] <guest> i'm here I can get your weight loss formula!!
[22:47:56] [part] * guest [~Xytra@xytra-D02B1329.knology.net] has left #Chat
NSLE blocked him for a day, I think he deserves longer. I'm not complaining as he's blocked but I personally don't think he'll learn unless the block is a bit longer. Thanks. —    nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 01:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Checkuser confirms he is indeed evading his block. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted some of his IP's edits (sorry for the confusion earlier btw Nathan.) ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 04:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IP has been blocked for 24 hours, and I've extended 0waldo's block to 96 hours.--Shanel 04:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:0waldo - harassment and violation of 3RR 

message: The incidents page is usually rather big (over 300KiB at the moment). I would propose to create a new noticeboard for message of the types "X have blocked Y". →AzaToth 20:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support a split posting something is becoming increasingly difficult due to edit conflicts and page is just to darn large. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone with some time might like to do an analysis of the proportion of different types of threads on this page. Would splitting off certain types have the desired effect? --Doc ask? 20:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to voice out my support for this proposal. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to split the incidents page 

message: There is a  template invocation in the "Road moves clarification" section, but since the administratorsPersonal attack removed Werdna648T/C\@ 00:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Road moves clarification 

message: This page is a mess. It is full of content disputes, bitter arguments, and other things best discussed elsewhere. In short, it is not a noticeboard for administrators. I intend to start taking an active hand in redirecting discussions to more appropriate locations. I also encourage fellow editors to express their thoughts concisely, and without excessive ornamentation. I welcome other editor's thoughts on this matter. Mackensen (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a template or two would be in order: "Moved to Requests for Checkuser", "Moved to Administrator Intervention, "Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement", etc., with a nice piped link to the new discussion? (As opposed to a "I've moved this to" comment, which invites others to continue the discussion where it was despite the move.) I'd be happy to draft some up if others think it would be helpful. (Also, perhaps we need some AN clerks to refactor things as needed...) Essjay Talk • Contact 17:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devolution 

message: Hi, was wondering if someone is monitoring :Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion today. --<FONT style="color:#5A3696">ΜιĿ</FONT>ː<FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 08:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are usually several admins that check CAT:CSD throughout the day. There isn't much there right now, but if there becomes a backlog, other admins can easily be recruited to clean it up. --ZsinjTalk 23:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go and help out with the backlog. --M@thwiz2020 00:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to help out in this but unfortunately (or is it fortunately?), I am not an admin yet..... --Siva1979Talk to me 16:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  monitoring of Category:CSD 

message: To avoid clogging the 3RR page with discussion, I shall defend myself here. Whether to block Piotrus because he is a valuable contributor, etc, is one thing. But disputing 4R is quite another. The reverts are: , ,  (those 3 labelled revert) and . I can't see why those aren't 4 reverts, within 24h. William M. Connolley 15:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly don't agree with blocking Piotrus. Who needs a soviet propaganda? --StabiloBoss 16:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid we are discussing here the letter of the law, not the spirit of it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The block is well past, but there is an interesting issue I'd like to clarify (so if I was in the wrong I know not to repeat my mistake). As I (and even Number 6) pointed out in the 3RR discussion, the '4th revert' is not as clear cut, as there are significant differences between the version I reveret to on 15th April and the three newer reverts on the 16th April (compare differences). As you can see there are rather significant changes (especially in the lower sections).  But undeniably all reverts had other similarities. I considered the Irpen's version from the 16th a reasonable compromise and a new version, and so I thought I was later reverting to this new version, not to my old one, therefore I did not break the 3RR even through I did more then 3 reverts on that article in 24h. Was this a migguided assumption on my part?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a simple count of the number of reverts that matter. What you reverted to is of no importance.Geni 21:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piotrus 

message: Are the russian editors above the rules? Why shouldn't that apply to all users? They reverted my edits and Bogdan's. 
I posted his breaking rules on: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Irpen
Let all the people see what kind of people are in Wikipedia. --Andrei George 19:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your in the wrong place is why! Report this to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR Mike (T C)  19:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He already has, but didn't like the answer :-) William M. Connolley 19:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Bonaparte just returned as . Please block. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are the russian contributors above the rules? 3RRR breaking violation of [[User:Irpen]]

message: I've been watching WP:AE lately since there is an ArbCom ruling in which I was involved that needs enforcement, and I've noticed that in the requests listed there (both mine and most of the others) there is little discussion from actual admins.  Most of the time, WP:AE discussions seem to just be more bickering between parties in the arbcom cases, rather than enforcement of the decisions.  Could more admins please watch that page and help out with enforcing the rulings?  WP:AE cases probably need to result in blocks more than the average case in AN/I or AN/3RR; but if people post violations to WP:AE, it looks like the ArbCom rulings aren't getting enforced well.  Some of the WP:AE cases that have been enforced were not enforced until several days after the fact (for example, RJIII was blocked 4 days after his violation was posted there), which tells me that we're not giving that page high enough priority.  (All of that said, I'll now add this page to my watchlist too!) --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we have some more admins watching [[WP:AE]]? 

message: There has been some changes in Kurdish cities from Teccen. I have added more and better information about cities in Turkey but this guy do not want that and says that there is no Kurdish majority cities in Turkey. I have let him know that I am ready to talk about the issue.
Reported by: OtrO DiA OtrO DiA 14:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an ongoing discussion regarding this issue at Category talk:Kurdistan -- Francs2000  17:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  changes at Category:kurdish cities

message: I apologize to the admins here for this repeat. There will not be another. I'm putting in an all-nighter on this. I've decided to fight. I've posted on the header article. I've also written to Tony Sidaway that he should recuse himself on this case, because, quite frankly, I'm afraid of him. It is unseemly for admins to have edit-revert-block wars with other admins.
As for my case, I have to snoop through everyone's edit list and mail to find evidence of political bias. The issue is about those edits done by Republican Capitol Hill staffers to wikipedia articles, and my deplorable response to what I thought was a Republican-cabal edit-war, Republicans avoiding the 3r rule.
And tonight, perhaps inappropriately, I address all admins to nominate User:Larry_V for admin. He has done so much work in the trenches on the NYC subway project. He needs the power. He's far better than me.
I'm genuinely afraid that Tony Sidaway will block me before I can fully respond.--FourthAve 09:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you don't create a nuisance you will not blocked. The least attention you draw on the matter, the better for you. Agathoclea 14:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve/Evidence]] 

message: *Please see Tennessee Talk:Tennessee for the conversations concerning this issue.  --Bookofsecrets 15:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV/Bias Issue 

message: Is constantly erasing any comments a user makes on an article talkspace reportable?  in Talk:Daniel Brandt User:Malber erases anything I say no matter what and games the system as his reasons.
I think these edits by Malber explain things personal attack and two.  Also User page vandalism and he was blocked for other personal attacks and again for talk page vandalism (which he still does)  
So can I report him here?  I ask first because I feel the wikipedia bureaucracy is corrupt.  Malber is probably a sock puppet of some admin who hates Daniel Brandt's website about wikipedia and complaining about admins is a bannable offense so I don't want to complain about him unless I hear back from people here.  DyslexicEditor 21:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, a more appropriate place to report him would be WP:ANI not WP:AN. Second a small bit of diplomatic advice: Claiming that "wikipedia bureaucracy is corrupt" and "complaining about admins is a bannable offense " is both uneccessary and less likely to get us admins to pay attention to you. Now, if you would point out specific difs where Malber erased your comments, I will look into the matter. Such behavior is reportable, but you need to give us actual examples of it. JoshuaZ 21:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is constantly erasing any comments a user makes on an article talkspace reportable? 

message: Ghirla's personal grievances cannot influence how Russian-related articles are dealt with. He has a tendency to avoid and suppress any negative facts concerning his homeland Russia. His knee jerk reactions are extremely detrimental to the project and should cease immediately, as well as the personal attacks and labels he constantly throws at contributors, even those with sources. 83.5.219.182 01:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but isn't very meaningful to post a complaint of that nature here. Mediation is the way to go if you have a one-on-one conflict with the user, or Requests for comment if you feel you have a complaint that impacts many users. Not WP:AN, and even less this talkpage. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[user:Ghirlandajo]]'s nationalism 

message: : Moved this from WP:ANI as it seems somewhat meta in nature . --Tony Sidaway 16:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved this section started by User_talk:PHDrillSergeant to his talk page, and am urging him to take this to the next step in dispute resolution.  This page is not for resolving longstanding disputes between editors, but for dealing with relatively urgent incidents that may need the attention of an administrator. --Tony Sidaway 00:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a place to put a complaint against an administrator isn't it? --mboverload@ 00:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Tony does have a point... This isn't the place to complain really. What action are we suppose to take? Sasquatch  t|c 00:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A discrete complaint about a discrete administrative action, yes. A neverending diatribe more suited to RFC, no. · Katefan0 (scribble) 00:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a place to report an administrator, but only if the user has discussed it with the administrator first.  It's also recommended at the top of this page, to use WP:RFC rather than this page. --lightdarkness (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a argument on whether or not it's been discussed with Cyde. I'd also note that Please is not You must. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 00:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here, but <blahblahrfc>" --Avillia (Avillia me!) 01:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The complaints against Cyde seem to be in accord with the instructions for the use of this page.  Tony's decision to move the ongoing conversations (both this section and mboverload's above) elsewhere smack of censorship, or at least trying to quelch arguments he doesn't agree with.  Tony shouldn't close arguments that he has taken part in. -lethe talk [ +] 01:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You actions smack of wikilawyering, Tony. --mboverload@ 01:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well it's not going on my talk page. It says clearly this is the place to report an administrator, and action may be required against Cyde --mboverload@ 01:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you have a case, then "action against Cyde" would be something that the arbitration committee would be able to take.  They're thataway. --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And do you do that regularly?  Can you show me other examples?  It seems to me that you did this in particular to silence a whole lot of people who disagreed with you, but I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong if you show me some other examples. -lethe talk [ +] 01:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: How do you reconcile your sense that the Cyde discussion was inappropriate for AN/I with the open informal complaint prescription?  To be sure, one doesn't want general discussion to clog a board to which many users otherwise unfamiliar with WP come to report disruptions with which administrators ought to deal; where one wants to solicit opinions apropos of the conduct of an admin, though, it would seem that a noticeboard frequented by other admins, who are likely well able to adjudge whether one would be wholly off-base to question a given action, would be a fine place for the discussion.  The point is to solicit the views of the community writ large (especially of admins, who are likely to have experienced situations similar to that about which a complaint is made); an RfC, of course, effects the same result, but we are to look with disfavor upon formalistic and quasi-adversarial proceedings here wherever we can.  Joe 03:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a neat trick how you can tell people to assume good faith and accuse them of being trolls in the same breath. -lethe talk [ +] 01:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: When you say things like "It seems to me that you did this in particular to silence a whole lot of people who disagreed with you", you leave me with little choice. Stop trolling. --Tony Sidaway 01:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be mindful of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, please. -lethe talk [ +] 01:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  How does it work where I get accused of personal attacks for saying someone doesn't like women as a joke, and you go and call him a troll without repercussion? We can't state out opinions about people's behavior anymore? --mboverload@ 01:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure we need an RfC before that can happen. --mboverload@ 01:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Repeating for the record: There have already been two filed, one by Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, the other still up at RFC/Cyde2 --Avillia (Avillia me!) 01:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I belive we have seperate issues.  That one seems to be pretty narrow. --mboverload@ 02:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. As I said in my earlier post (which was removed when Tony moved the original post), I do think some of the complaints against cyde have been unjustified or plain trolling, but the fact that so many have been made, some of which seem possibly legitimate, suggest that this issue should be investigated. And since this a recurring complaint, not just a one-time disagreement, I think this should be discussed openly and not on some obscure user's talkpage. The Ungovernable Force 05:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was Avillia's note above too terse? People seem to be carrying on without taking in that an RFAr has now been filed against Cyde. Could this thread be moved somewhere more appropriate, please? Bishonen | talk 05:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and re the "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here" clause at the introduction of ANI, the complaint was not informal. It was calling for Cyde to be desysoped, something which (rightly) is not and cannot be done informally. An RfC or RfAr should have been filed; if all that was wanted was community comment, RfCs will do the job. Having two RfCs open at the same time on the same user would be a bit unprecedented, but not wrong in any sense. Johnleemk | Talk 11:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say that that clause if working just fine.  The completely trivial are mostly ignored, the complaints about proper actions usually get appropiate feedback that the admins is doing a fine job.  A single instance (or three) where one or two people disagreed with an ongoing discussion does not an allowance to sweep clean make. - brenneman{L}  13:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Tony makes a good point about patently baseless and petty complaints. I also support his move of this discussion to the Talk page. FeloniousMonk 16:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move of a section from [[WP:ANI]] 

message: This article has been subject to a spate of vandalism over the past few days.  In every case the vandal inserts the words "far right" into the opening sentence Christopher Stalford (b. 17 January 1983) is a far rightNorthern Ireland politician.  This is a POV.  Additional the editor states that Christopher Stalford graduated with a 2:2 degree.  This is factually inaccurate since he did in fact recieve a 2:1. (rather petty minded vandalism)  The IP used for the most recent attack 143.117.143.42  seems to have been involved in other vandalism and has recieved several warnings on there usertalk page.  The page has been changed and reverted 5 times in recent days.  Does this qualify for IP blocking?
I've done a bit of research, this IP belongs to Queens University Belfast.  i.e. anyone of the computers from the computer rooms, 100's potentially. Blocking the IP would, therefore, seem like a bad idea. Quarkstorm 09:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Christopher Stalford 

message: These massive drama threads are making AN:I hard to casually browse; Can we start making a habit out of it to move threads larger than xKB to a subpage and noting that under the previous header? --Avillia (Avillia me!) 19:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not use the same subpage system as eg the RfA pages. Agathoclea 20:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  People using watchlists have a tougher time seeing changes on the page.  Ral315 (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we make a new policy? 

message: AE, I'm not saying anything about the substance of your edits, just that I share Pecher's view of what is a revert. My understanding is that a revert for 3rr does not have to be a complete restoration of an earlier version. Any undoing of another's work is a revert, and the page is pretty clear about that. If that's not our consensus understanding, we need to change what the 3rr page says. When I report 3rr that't the standard I use. When I block for it, I don't apply the standards legalistically; I block if I see disruptive edit warring, regardless of how many technical 'reverts' there are. Tom Harrison Talk 19:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reply to Anonymous editor  

message: Repeated deletion of the name of a gay from Cranbrook School Sydney. Problem is, it's a blanket IP from an ISP proxy. Don't know policy for this, but just to let you know. – Lunarbunny 07:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 202.7.166.171

message: This guy Harro5 is abusing his admin power, he deletes many good articles in wikipedia, just take a look at his talk page you will see how many contributors are complaining about this admin deleting their legit good articles for stupid reasons, he deleted my article about my clan that I lead for the last 6 years, clan CHAOS, I planned to revisit that article and add more with time but I cannot do that if this admin keeps deleting my article! He also blocked my account! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeteRoy (talk • contribs) .
*The article in question is Clan chaos, a non-notable group under CSD A7. I blocked the user for 15 minutes after he re-posted the article for the third time; it has been through AfD. Thanks. Harro5 00:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, you did the right thing. Sasquatch  t|c 06:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Harro is a Newpage patroller.  You should be thanking him.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How dare you act in a manner consistent with policies established by community consensus, Harro5! ;-) Kjkolb 10:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Harro5

message: : Moved from WP:ANI, for obvious reasons. --Tony Sidaway 19:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Seconded. Johnleemk | Talk 18:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: God, yes. I looked at WP:AN#NSLE Desysopped and thought "Is this what the board was intended for? A notice to administrators". Perhaps we should discuss this at great length... excuse the sarcasm. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 19:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bold and put a new notice in the header. If your notice does not need the attention of people with administrator access, do not post it here. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 19:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should consider another On-Wiki (not mailing list) forum for (meta?)discussions, related to administrators, like unblocks and blocks of controversial users, et al? --Avillia (Avillia me!) 19:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Avillia. Good idea. If they are trying to kill this forum. we need another. Wallie 21:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I was under the impression that that is what ANI is for. Unfortunately, AN's scope seems to have expanded to include dispute resolution and policy discussion, when that has always been under the pump's purview. Johnleemk | Talk 20:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bad move. Why are you doing this?  Wallie 20:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a "move". It's reminding people what ANI is for. I should be asking people who treat ANI as a forum the same question. ANI is a noticeboard for admins to react to certain issues, or for notification of important admin actions. It's not for discussion on policies or dispute resolution. If you want to quarrel with that definition, then I suggest you get consensus to redefine the scope of ANI, because that is all ANI is for: notifying people of a specific incident that is important, and perhaps having some discussion confined to that issue. Anything more and the village pump, people's talk pages, or dispute resolution is thataway. Johnleemk | Talk 21:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what you are really saying is that Users should keep their noses out. As for "definition" and "quarrel", this sort of language is not helpful. I have asked this question in the past on two occasions. Both times I was advised that this is the correct forum.  Wallie 21:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that AN/I is not the appropriate place for a 5,000 word discussion of signature policy.  The appropriate place for that is the Villiage Pump or the talk page of WP:SIG.  The appropriate place for an extended discussion about a user's conduct is their talk page, RFC or Mediation.  The first 500 words were sufficient to establish that Tony has once again made people mad. However nothing will get solved here, so take the discussion to the appropriate place. Thatcher131 21:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I am concerned about is that if this forum is barred for Users, then we do not have any place to formally discuss policy with the Management (Admins). Likened to the Workplace, the Managers have their discussions at Steering Committees and Conferences. The Admins have similar forums. The Workers (Users) and Managers have discussions at Town Hall Meetings and Team Meetings. There is now no equivalent for this. The Village Pump is like the Staff Canteen, for the Workers only. For anything official, it is probably ignored anyway. Wallie 22:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Admins don't make policy, per se.  To discuss policy go to the Village Pump or to the talk page of the relevant policy. --Tony Sidaway 22:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Wallie, I think you are misunderstanding the ways that different roles work here. Admins are not analogous to Managers. The "workers-management-corporate officers" hierarchy does not map well onto Wikipedia. Moreover, nobody is saying "non-admins can't post here." (That would be silly, because one of the big reasons to post here is to ask for the kind of help that admins can provide.) We're asking everyone, admins and non-admins, to be more focused in their use of this forum. In fact, this very conversation should probably go to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. FreplySpang 00:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur - delete if spurious, if not, move to correct location. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think outright deleting a discussion (especially a heated one) is likely to be very counterproductive.  I suggest either moving to the appropriate topical talk page, or, if there isn't one, moving it to the talk page of this page (Wikipedia Talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents).  No need to piss people off any more than neccessary, even if the discussion is inappropriate. Thatcher131 02:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. According to the header on the talk page of this page ("The talk page should only be used for discussion about the way the noticeboard operates..."), this thread would be appropriate there, but very few of the other long, drawn out flame wars conversations that AN/I tends to host would be. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that too, however, I sense that just deleting a discussion because it has no obvious home could result in even more disruption. Thatcher131 03:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point that I made upon reverting Cyde, is that it's important to make sure no actual administrative-related incidents are being removed from the noticeboard with these off topic portions. This is where it got complicated just now. But keeping the noticeboard more focused on its purpose is of course a wortwhile effort, just less so after the fact. El_C 04:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrator's Noticeboard is not a discussion forum 

message: >> This page is 381 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.
:"May be longer than is preferable"? It takes 10 freaking seconds, on DSL, just to upload one preview (as section editing isn't always possible). This page is bigger than anybody should be expected to handle, just FYI. Femto 21:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there isn't a bot to handle this, there arguably ought to be. This sort of menial archival work is something users are too lazy to do, so pages grow and grow until it gets really bad. 3RR is so big that you can't keep more than a few days' worth before it balloons, but it's not like we really need more to begin with. JRM · Talk 21:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not Crypticbot or Werdnabot? Freddie Message? 20:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I just did an archive this morning.  I noticed that Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox all hadn't been updated in a while, so I updated that, too.  Mangojuicetalk 16:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choking on /3RR 

message: Dear Tbeatty:
You raise a very good point; we are being constrained by language. However, we are fated to write in English here, as it happens - and there is also a good reason why there is a single word for what sometimes seems to be separate concepts.
The issue is that, according to some religions, one can be a member of a religion by virtue of one's birth or bloodlines. (In others, one's status may be determined shortly after birth, and changes may be very difficult; thus, for example, somebody baptized as a Roman Catholic would be seen as such by the Roman Catholic church even if he declared himself an atheist, or were to be excommunicated.) Many religions also state that membership in a religion is not simply a matter of belief, but also a matter of belonging to a clearly defined social body.
There are secular Jewish nationalists nowadays - especially in Israel - who adhere strongly to the belief in a Jewish nation, with criteria of membership identical to those for the "holy people" defined by religion. An Israeli acquaintance of mine states matters in the following way: "Judaism is my religion, but I do not believe in it".
Ethnicity is a different and much vaguer matter. Some inmigrants to the United States in the early twentieth century shared certain ill-defined cultural traits that persisted for a time even after some abandoned the religion. (Nowadays, many of the cultural traits have disappeared even among practitioners of the religion; thus, for example, very few people outside some very specific groupings speak Yiddish.) It sometimes makes sense to speak of a culture; however, if one is truly thinking of a culture, and not of something else, then it becomes very difficult to speak of membership; one can be a carrier of a culture to a greater or less extent, but it is not a binary issue.
Part of the problem here is that people are projecting onto a living individual categories that may be descriptive elsewhere or at some other time, but not necessarily there and now. One hundred and fifty years ago, practitioners of Judaism in Eastern Europe did indeed speak Yiddish and live separately from their neighbours. This is no longer the case.
When categories lose their descriptive value, they become a way to classify human beings in absolute ways that may be severely misleading as to their actual (and private!) backgrounds. The point is not that Perelman is a non-Jew, whatever that means; the issue is whether or not it is proper for an encyclopaedia - in particular, this one - to classify living individuals by blood, in ways that, furthermore, impose on them some particular religion. 
I would agree that, say, Marc Chagall had a Yiddish background (as much as that involves some radical simplifications; one could just as well say that he came from a small-town Belorussian background). As one moves to the present, reality becomes vaguer, and firm categories sometimes become acts of violence against the individual and against reality. Mind you, I, for one, have no objection to private persons' belief in such categories; rather, the question is whether such categories should form part of the general discourse. 
Perhaps we should all talk about the matter in the village pump? There seems very little here that is specific to Grigori Perelman. As far as I can see, he is simply a person who does mathematics, lives in Russia, and happens to have a typically Russian first name and a last name often found among descendants of Russian Jews. Some people in the press jump to conclusions from this last fact. So what? Bellbird 16:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ashkenazim 

message: This page is 255 kilobytes long. This may be longer than preferable; see article size. Why can't we just archive all of it and cleam up the whole mess? Freddie Message? 00:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: JA: I am only getting the TOC for Archive 19, but Archives 18 and 20 work okay.  Jon Awbrey 20:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with Archive 19

message: Someone accidently added this page to the category "fictonal charcters that can fly" It was not vandalsim it was just a mistake.  It was also kind of funny.--Scott3 19:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed a mistake in this article 

message: Something's gone wrong with the heading for the first section on the page- I don't know if that's a reason for the imperfect archiving or a consequence of it, and I won't try fixing it myself.  But someone in the know might take a look. HenryFlower 15:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wonky heading 

message: Forgive me if this has already been suggested and I missed it, but is there a reason to keep archives of the 3RR page? WP:AIV and WP:PAIN, both similar pages, are not archived, as there seems to be little need to. If the question of 3RR is controversial rather than a clear-cut violation, it should be taken to somewhere else on the noticeboard (as is the case with AIV and PAIN)... so I'm not seeing any significant benefit to keep these archives. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 22:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...or is it that 3RR is considered consistently controversial enough to archive regularly? Forgot to add that in. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 22:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There does appear to be a good amount of discussion and information in there and, when compared with WP:AIV at least, 3RR violations are frequently established users as opposed to drive-by anon's. —Centrx→talk • 01:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR Archives 

message: Per the discussion at BRFA, EssjayBot II is taking over the archiving of ANI; the short version is that Werdnabot is both currently unsupervised and having difficulty with sections that have === subsections. EssjayBot II will archive the page each day at 0:05 UTC (a lot of other bots run on the hour, so this will be nice and offset), and will archive any thread where the latest timestamp is more than 24 hours old. It looks at sections as a whole, so sections with === subsections won't be separated, and == sections will stay on the page until the === sections grow old enough for archival. For those who are concerned, the feeling was that 24 hours was long enough, as the one-archiving-per-day would prevent most from being archived at exactly 24 hours since the last comment. Additionally, the archive number will be automatically increased each Sunday and Wednesday, to keep archive sizes at bay; if this needs to be adjusted, it can be. Comments, concerns, and stabbings should be directed to User talk:Essjay, please. A first-run will be conducted momentarily. Essjay (Talk) 10:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, good to have an archivebot —Minun Spiderman • Review Me 15:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EssjayBot II 

message: It looks like almost half of this noticeboard is filled with the case of this Jim Shapiro article. Is it possible to move it to a separate subpage to prevent clogging? abakharev 23:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jim Shapiro]] 

message: Does anyone mind if I remove the advice on the template to add "reported by" and "result"? Reporting 3RR is already cumbersome and this just means more for people to type. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've had no response, I'm going to remove it, as it seems unnecessary. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you mean about it being in the template automatically. We now have to type who has made the report and the result. We didn't used to. So now there's more to type, and there was already a lot. Hence my desire to trim it back. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: WP:AN and WP:AN/I are often difficult to read through due to the massive amounts of comments, many of which pertain to issues that aren't appropriate for either. Has anyone considered allowing for admins to refactor both, in a limited capacity, to improve readability? I don't have in mind any huge revisions, just moving misplaced comments to the appropriate areas when necessary. For example, if someone adds a note that a user is engaging in simple vandalism — which would be better listed at WP:AIV or elsewhere — then an admin can move the comment to the appropriate location and remove the section from the noticeboard.
It probably wouldn't result in a huge change, but it'd help — the noticeboards are such a free-for-all that any measure  cleaning things up would make a difference. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 01:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring eeping the AN readable 

message: At the top of WP:ANI (and I believe other similar pages as well), there is a "see also" list of pages to refer to as potential alternatives to reporting matters at ANI.  The first of these is Wikipedia:Policy_enforcement, which is described as "record user suspensions here."  However, the Policy Enforcement page itself redirects to Wikipedia:Account suspensions, and that page says that it "is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical purposes," and the content is months out of date.  Should the cross-reference be deleted (or at least made significantly less prominent) here and on the other AN pages? Newyorkbrad 01:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just posting again because no one's noticed this comment yet.  I will flip a coin to decide whether to be WP:BOLD and fix it myself, or figure if no Admin cares it's not worth worry about. Newyorkbrad 15:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change in template to WP:ANI page?

message: Was this appropriate? WAS 4.250 14:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original comment would have been better on WP:ANI. The Land 15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Was

message: I have posted here a few times, and I'm always annoyed when I come back and find that a post has been archived after 24 hours even when there has been no response. At the very least, it would be courteous to make clear at the top of the page that threads are likely to be removed after 24 hours even if there has been no response. I know that this is a very busy area, and that admins are overloaded, but there is a vicious circle operating here where failure to do things properly and courteously can increase overall workload later on when problems resurface. The particular case can be seen here. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. Let me guess. The Noticeboard has so much traffic that the talk page gets ignored? (No, I don't mean this seriously, just commenting while I patiently wait). Carcharoth 00:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is, it doesn't just have to be seen: it has to be seen by someone who knows the answer. I suggest contacting the individuals you were discussing this with and seeing if one of them knows. - Jmabel | Talk 05:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thanks. I've done that. Do you have any opinion on/solution to the general frustration encountered by those who don't realise straight away that their posts to the administrator's noticeboard will be removed to an archive after 24 hours? Carcharoth 09:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. This is probably the single most likely way to get an admin's attention, but in general once you've done that, it's best to move the matter elsewhere. If you propose where else to move it, yourself, you won't be at a loss as to where it was moved. - Jmabel | Talk 01:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make clearer that posts removed after 24 hours 

message: the archives are piling up, is there any point in this? I mean, do we need to copy-paste stuff to archive pages nobody is going to read? We could just maintain a list of links to permanent versions of this page ("archive X" would be a link to the version of the page just before it was blanked and began filling up with what is to become "archive X+1"). Since archives are static anyway I don't quite see the reason to keep them around as live pages. dab (ᛏ) 19:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Archives are used much more often than you seem to think. Archiving by permanent links is quite uncommon and there are problems with that method. —Centrx→talk • 20:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also easier to link to the specific discussion in an archive than to the page history. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: alright, but what problems? I took to archiving my talkpage with permalinks recently, was that a stupid idea? I can link to individual topics with no problem, in any case. dab (ᛏ) 13:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: archiving

message: I was wondering if any wikipedian with a good understanding of GFDL and dispute resolution could please have a look at b:User_talk:Panic2k4#call_for_comment. This is some sort of content dispute on wikibooks, where we don't really have much in the way of official structures for dealing with this sort of thing (in fact, we don't have any dispute resolution procedures at all, because we haven't needed them). 
Honestly I'm having a hard time sifting through all the wikilawyering, but I think it comes down to one author unilaterally banning any changes by another author. If someone could advise me on how to advise them (or just advise them yourself), it would be greatly appreciated. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 11:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for advisors 

message: I wanted to see if we can get advisors assistance over at the Vanessa Minillo page.  There seems to be a discrepency over refreneces taken from a recent article of Maxim magazine, and references taken from two journals that aren't as circulated as Maxim.  The main concern is describing Vanessa Minillo's mother as Polynesian or filipino, as she stated her mother was Polynesian, but there is an argument that her last name is of filipino descent.  Thanks. 75.20.203.68 20:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Advisor/Editor

message: The page is too long and unwieldy. I would appreciate archival of old issues. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page, or the noticeboard? Carcharoth 14:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This talk page is rather short, and the nb is archived automatically by User:Werdnabot.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Werdnabot seems to be down. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check again.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival 

message: How can this edit be the first one on AN/I's history, have an "older edit" link on it, and come after an edit on March 2005, if it says it was done in 2003? Titoxd(?!?) 23:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange. Maybe this happened in one of the numerous deletions and restorations seen here? Carcharoth 00:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another possibility is described here. Carcharoth 15:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borked page history 

message: I just blocked an IP on wikibooks (vandal), and the option "block all IPs used by this user" appeared. Is that something new, or was there something special about that IP? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 12:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's new. But it also appears when blocking an IP, which is meaningless. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thanks for the reply. Though I was hoping it used some cookies to determine users coming in on multiple IPs :). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 17:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See bugzilla:1294. Snoutwood (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is block different suddenly? 

message: The deletion page says to go to the administrator's notice board and the administrator's noticeboard says to go to the deletion page. I'm running around in circles. --Gbleem 03:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lather rinse repeat. 

message: You might want to know when the next meetup was being organized in New York City. Plan for Saturday, 9 December 2006. While you're at it. Come help us decide on a restaurant. See: Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Spread the word. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 22:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Upcoming NYC Meetup

message: Why are active discussions being archived?  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Diff? Werdnabot's recent archive seemed to work properly... —Centrx→talk • 03:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My last edit to the project page was this one.  When I came back the next day, it was gone, having been archived.  Archiving a discussion that had been edited less than 24 hours ago isn't very friendly.  User:Zoe|(talk) 03:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Go for it. I don't have a problem with 24 hours either, it keeps the crap from accumulating. pschemp | talk 04:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: Werdnabot archives AN but it seems to glitch on AN/I.  Essjaybot II was archiving AN/I with a minimum 24 hour delay, but it has been down since the toolserver move.  All archiving the last month or more has been manual, mostly me, I think,  although I think Freakofnuture is responsible for the last batch, and I'm sure it was an accident if he deleted an active conversation.
Anyway, Essjay is back (yay!) and has got Essjaybot II working again, but he wants to make sure there's consensus to put it back to work on AN/I.  I suggested a 2 day lag this time, since (with the exception of the Homey and SPUI business) the noticeboard has been slower than over the summer and I think that a 2 day lag will still keep the page under 250 KB.  However even with a one day lag some threads won't get archived for up to 48 hours after the last post since the bot only runs once a day.  Anyway, asking consensus to bring Essjaybot II back and whether to set a one day (makes the page significantly larger) or two day lag. Thatcher131 04:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. I don't have a problem with 24 hours either, it keeps the crap from accumulating. pschemp | talk 04:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Essjaybot II 

message: See Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader if you want to discuss. I liked it as it was before. GUIDELINES not process mandates. ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to 3RR header 

message: I noticed this a while ago, but why are the WP:AN/I archives not subpages of WP:AN/I (eg. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Archive1)?20:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:ANI archives 

message: Discussion removed.
This doesn't belong on the talk page here, and in any event the issue has been dealt with already on your user talk page. No user is permitted to have non-free images on their user page: Wikipedia:User page#Images_on_user_pages. --bainer (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Protocols of the Elders of Zion]]