Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

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

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

POV Acupuncturist

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV Acupuncturist

User:Mccready - endless, disruptive, repetitive edit warring

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mccready - endless, disruptive, repetitive edit warring

I don't know, am I in the right place?

This might be subtle, but I think it'd be a good idea to state what the board is actually used for. Maybe the problem is we don't know anymore, but as of right now the page instructions only say what it is not for. Clarity? Keegan^talk 05:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Traditionally, we've tried not to limit any page by listing criteria for inclusion, perhaps because this would WP:CREEP into either a long, long list or into a short list that was then rigorously enforced. So we stick to criteria for exclusion, so we don't get instruction creep and we don't get a situation were we have no page for discussing something. But if you think you could come up with a list, feel free to give it a try. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 08:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As commented, since the instructions don't specifically say that it shouldn't have a list of what can be discussed then it could have one. Just make sure that the list includes having a list of what can be discussed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

:o) ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Reopening discussion (hopefully) The line between AN and AN/I has gotten pretty blurry lately also. I think having some form of instruction would be a good idea. --Selket ^Talk 21:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think of WP:ANI as drama and WP:AN as a place for block confirmations ("I'm a newbie Administrator, did I block X properly?"), misplaced protected edit requests, Arbitration notices, and so on. I think more subpaging of both WP:AN and WP:ANI could help; was discussed a few months ago? x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd concur that AN is the place that is for things an Admin should know about, where AN/I is something that needs to be dealt with now. Tfd25 (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that AN is for notification and ANI is for intervention on issues that do not fit into one of the blanket categories (AIV, 3RR, RFPP) or that are emergencies (bot vandalism, pop-culture icon encouraged vandalism to a particular page, etc.). If there are no objections I'll take a stab at updating the instructions. --Selket ^Talk 23:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus needed - ANI subpages

I've been having a discussion with Carcharoth (talk · contribs) about ANI subpages. Over the past few days, I've moved one or two discussions to subpages per the header at the top of the ANI page, which states: "When moving long threads to a subpage, add a link to the subpage and sign without a timestamp: "~~~"; this prevents premature archiving. Move to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/{{Name of ANI Topic}}. Also consider adding/updating a status tag (e.g. {{unresolved}})." After archiving a few, Carcharoth left this comment on my talkpage:

"About moving those long threads to ANI subpages - I know the header instruction at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents does talk about moving long threads to subpages, but not everyone agrees with that practice. I think 50K is a rather arbitrary limit anyway, and it does mess things up when people try and search the archives. My view is that only the very longest threads need moving like that. It is particularly annoying when a thread gets moved when it feels like it is near the end and about to be resolved anyway (I was about to add an addendum to the Kelly block thread to make clear a big part has been resolved). Have a look here for a list of ANI subpages. Finding the "thread subpages" of AN is rather more difficult. See here for what I mean. Both those links should also give you an idea of what sort of threads normally get moved over. Someone could look into archiving those subpages in the proper places (see here and Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox all), but maybe see how the bot (whichever one is doing the archiving at the moment) handles things. I think it is Miszabot. It is also interesting to see how sometimes creating these subpages has no effect at all on the volume of posting, and at other times it kills it dead! :-) Anyway, this should probably have been posted at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, but I thought I'd come here first to point out how I personally feel about ANI and AN subpages. Maybe it is time for another discussion about this? What do you think? Carcharoth (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)"

My response on his talkpage was:

I think it's a good thing the ANI subpages, as it keeps discussion surrounding that particular user centralized in one place. Of course, if any thing did happen in the future, it'd be best just informing ANI of it. Some discussions (that Kelly one) was bridging over 100kb, and some discussions, notable the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Andyvphil discussion, has now gone to 120kb and beyond. Having that on the ANI page was seriously clogging it up - in fact, in that discussion I believe serious advances have been made, so in that case, it was probably justified for it to have a subpage. I'm only doing it to unclog the ANI page, and some times it bridges towards 300-400kb, due to the weight of one or two discussions, which could still be discussed in some weight on a subpage and also because it states it in the header. Anyway, I'll stop creating/moving subpages for now. Feel free to bring it up at WP:AN, as I think we need a consensus about this. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So, as per above, it seems like this a little bit of a blue/black area, with no firm consensus. I personally think it is a good thing for the reasons I've quoted above. My hope is we can have a firm consensus about whether to move ANI pages or not, and if so, what size should be the minimum for moving. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussion is in the talk page archives. See here and here for some examples. I'm sure there are other discussions as well. Carcharoth (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this procedure intended to be functionally different from that of noticeboards for issues relating to a specific user? Just asking because the distinction seems quite subtle at the moment. — CharlotteWebb 11:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My rationale with the Betacommand subpage was more that there were multiple threads on both AN and AN/I. The threads were duplicating themselves to some extent because people wanted to make the same point in each discussion, plus each instance was ballooning in size on its own. I'm not sure that moving threads over 50k to a subpage is really the right step - but if it is, it can be automated (perhaps by Coren and his bot, he's developed this functionality already and demonstrated it on this talkpage in the past). Avruch^T * ^ER 11:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Longer threads tend to be over controversial issues, and need more eyes, not fewer. Expunging them to subpages is a bad idea. If we have to move them, at least raise the limit from 50kb, which is really not that much. Maybe 100kb. And make sure the subpage link is very, very visible (ie, not dumped at the top of ANI or AN and left there). Neıl 龱 12:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah agree with these seniments - dumping things to a sub page really drops the outside input. Viridae^Talk 12:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Neil. I followed a certain thread on WP:AN/I lately and didn't even notice until a few minutes ago that it was moved to a subpage about a day ago. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who misses these moves. Some threads basically die the moment they get moved [1] because of that, and that's certainly not a good thing. Additionally, moving threads to subpages makes searching through the history to find certain diffs quite cumbersome. So, please, don't do that. --Conti|✉ 13:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So, I take it you think no threads should be moved, and therefore the ANI page will turn up into 400-500, maybe even 600kb. D.M.N. (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Some threads should be moved, but not every single thread that's longer than 50kb. Especially not when they're about to be archived anyhow (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:SlimVirgin has been moved to a subpage after it hasn't been touched for about 17 hours. It would've been archived a few hours later anyhow.) So I don't see how ANI would end up being 400kb or bigger even if those threads wouldn't have been moved. There are always exceptions, like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand, but threads shouldn't automatically be moved, especially not at 50kb. --Conti|✉ 15:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me to put large discussions on sub-pages, not everyone has a 10Mbit connection and a gigabyte of ram. It should not be done automatically, but when the thread becomes a disproportionate presence on the page and starts to get in the way of other topics.

As long as the original section heading remains it will be easily found by people interested in the topic, it also allows for watchlisting of that topic without it getting lost in the wash of this page's changes. _{1 != 2} 15:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There is the issue of the many edits to the sub-page not getting mentioned on the WP/AN watchlist. A bot could be made to do a null edit to the section with the link on WP:AN every time an edit to the subpage is made, it can echo the username and edit summary. Seems a bit much to me, but it would fill the one thing lost by subpages. _{1 != 2} 15:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I initially agreed with Neil and others. I have said before that I think creating sub-pages has the unintended effect of causing fewer eyes to be on the issue, and of affecting the impetus of the discussion. That said, I would support moving the threshold to 100kb, and think that it should not be a bright line - some threads, despite being more than 100kb, should not be moved, because they may be resolved, or very close to being resolved - then they can just be archived.

However, in the event a thread is moved, 1!=2 provides a unique solution. I'll have to think about that some; it might be very good, depending upon the implementation. --Iamunknown 15:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it also depends on how much the discussion has progressed, as Conti said, the SlimVirgin discussion was near closure, and probably shouldn't of been moved. Yet the Andyvphil discussion has since doubled in length, showing that people have still gone to the page and commented, and it hasn't affected the discussion, in fact, it's probably enhanced the discussion. D.M.N. (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The solution is to archive stale threads after 12 hours, not 24. If it has to stay up longer (e.g. announcements), don't timestamp it, or jigger the timestamp so it's a few days in the future. Neıl 龱 16:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Or "subpage" the first 100kb or something and leave the rest active. Section break more liberally and subpage the previous section breaks. Subpage inactive subsections. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since WP is an international community, with contributors all over the globe, a 12hour archive limit would disenfranchise some nations - something that has a last contribution by a UK editor in their "morning" will be gone before an Australian logs in after coming home from work. I think a 20 hour minimum archive period may be practical, but will make little difference in real terms. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO 24 hours is the bare minimum we can leave stuff up. use of hat boxes seems a good way to keep the length down. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In all seriousness, instead of using subpages, can we simply abolish AN/I altogether? Please? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconded.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

For the really long threads, one way of handling it would be with partial archives. Usually they have interim section headers anyway, so as one section goes "inactive", it can be archived, and then put {{sidebox}} on both the live and archived threads that point to the other. That way an active discussion can keep going, but it's easy to read the earlier material. --Elonka 04:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I support moving this discussion to /Dissolving the noticeboard. Oh, wait... Daniel (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I really like the idea of archiving inactive sections of very long threads. The only drawback I see is that people might repeat themselves because no one reads the archives, but that hopefully won't happen. --Conti|✉ 15:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

MZMcBride, is that suggestion serious? If so, the wider community will need to know about that "proposal". ANI just lately is starting to become like a serious rework is needed. D.M.N. (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, simple idea, ramp up archive time to 12 hours or less. Then allow for anyone to put <!-- Delay archive --> or <!-- Delay archive 12:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC) --> to avoid archiving of something considered to still be open(The bot would need a slight modification to do this). If a thread is long, but still unresolved then we can decide on sub-pages on a case by case basis. _{1 != 2} 14:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We might need to find a way to avoid situations like this occuring. D.M.N. (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, would that have happened if the thread wouldn't have been moved? It could've been courtesy blanked, archived and forgotten. Now there'll always be a subpage. And I'm pretty sure it's not the best feeling in the world to have a subpage on WP:AN/I named after you, either. --Conti|✉ 15:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If one does partially archive, it would be useful to leave, say, the last two posts still visible so that people know vaguely what it's about. Possibly even the first post too. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The title and functions of this page

I would like to relocate the functions of this page, and its subpages WP:ANI and WP:AN3, to the village pump. Many people have complained about the toxic atmosphere of these noticeboards. I think that removing the word 'administrator' from their names, and placing them instead as subpages under the kitschy title "village pump", would be at least a first step toward bringing about a change in atmosphere.

I'd like to put forward this idea first to see how acceptable it sounds before working out how many new subpages of the village pump this would involve, and what to call them.

Please let me know your thoughts. — Dan | talk 06:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea inline with the values of the project. MBisanz ^talk 06:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea. giggy _(:O) 06:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned this off-wiki, I would not like these kind of noticeboards to move to the village pump. The VP functions fine how it is subdivided and covers its scope adequately. Now, putting these noticeboard pages under subpages of Wikipedia:Noticeboards would be a fine solution to me. I agree with Rdsmith4 that a renaming would be appropriate, though it'd be nice if he'd credit me with calling the village pump name "kitschy" :) Keegan^talk 06:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I hereby credit you for the term. — Dan | talk 07:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I can still remember being a new-ish editor and trying to figure out where to get some help for a problem that was well beyond my limited abilities at the time. The word "Administrator" in the name of the noticeboard actually was helpful to me; at least I was relatively certain that someone here would be able to help me out. (Indeed, the episode was mentioned on my RfA, because someone made a joke about "Risker" not wanting to take risks...) Perhaps putting a link to a list of noticeboards into the toolbox would be more helpful than lumping these pages (and other similar ones, like WP:RFPP and WP:AE) into the Village Pump.

Out of curiosity, why would one think that changing the names of these pages will change the behaviours associated with them? Risker (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The name of the page begins to determine users' attitudes toward the page: how they feel about using it. 'Administrator' and 'noticeboard' are stark and legalistic. 'Village pump' is easygoing and friendly. Of course this change will not solve everything: like I said, it's a first step. It's worth a shot, wouldn't you agree?

As for the confusion, perhaps we need to improve our tutorial and help pages, but that is a small price to pay for making AN(I) less intolerable. — Dan | talk 06:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, who is the target audience? Roughly 80-90% of our regular editors only show up on these pages because they have a need for administrator intervention of some sort, and I'll be honest enough to say that my experience with several of the existing village pump pages has been less than enlightening when trying to solve problems or get useful answers. The term "village pump" sounds more like a chat room to me than a place to get a serious response, and on many occasions our current village pump pages pretty well act that way. Help and tutorial pages may be helpful for newcomers, but I am not certain many experienced users have looked at them since their early weeks here. Having said that, I think that moving AN3 is a good idea, and would bring it more in line with other similar pages, although not to VP but to its own discrete page, as is WP:RFPP. Risker (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The second part of your post is pretty much how I feel and is the crux of my idea. The idea that a semantic change will have editorial effect has merit; as pointed out off wiki that changing "Fair use" to "Non-free content" has had an impact in uploading under such criteria to a positive effect. But I think that the Village Pump should stay the style it is, and the more legalistic aspects of noticeboards should continue and the two should remain separate. However, a refactoring of the noticeboards is due as well as working on the drama that we so feed upon, specifically on ANI. Keegan^talk 07:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Risker and Keegan: At the moment, the village pump crowd and the AN(I) crowd do not overlap a lot: this explains the difference in style of response. If we relocate AN(I) to the village pump, administrators will start watching the relevant sections of the village pump. The response will be equally effective, but (I am betting) there will be less 'drama', because the process will feel less legalistic. I think a dose of casualness is exactly what AN(I) needs: it would discourage hotheaded behavior and incivility, and de-emphasize the difference between administrators and other users. The legalistic attitude of AN(I) is exactly what gives rise to its toxic, drama-ridden atmosphere. This is a modest first step toward discouraging drama.

Risker, I thought you were just concerned about newcomers being confused -- well, they can go to the tutorials. Experienced users will invariably know about the new forum already, once we get the word out about the name change -- the same way they do now. (Also, some users find the word 'administrator' in AN(I) useful, while some mistakenly assume that this is a noticeboard that only administrators can use.) — Dan | talk 07:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with those of you who are saying that there is an unpleasant degree of toxicity on these boards, particularly ANI; the little play on words about my username would never have been made in today's climate, and when MessedRocker's thread asking people to identify something that made them happy on WP got deleted as "trolling" I thought it proved his point beyond anything that he had written. At the same time, I'm not sure that making these boards part of the village pump network will have the positive effect that people are looking for. I'd be a little concerned that the toxicity here might bleed into the other VPs, to be honest. Many ANI threads leave me with a bad taste in my mouth too. What about an interim step, renaming ANI to "Requests for Administrator Assistance", and narrowing the scope of AN to notices that have direct pertinence to administrators such as backlogs, sockpuppets that need to be blocked, largescale copyvio rollbacks, and Arbcom decisions requiring administrator action? Risker (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to a compromise, but I'll point out that I think the word 'administrator' on these noticeboards has contributed much to the separation of administrators from other users, into their own class. I'd rather drop that one alltogether. We actually already have Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, which should perhaps be more widely circulated: it would be a fine way of drawing people's attention to the new board, even if it did not contain the word 'administrator'. — Dan | talk 16:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving these pages to Village pump subpages sounds like a fantastic idea. The sooner the better. : - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Do we need to taint the village pump with the sometimes acidic atmosphere of the Admin noticeboards? Much of the reason for the appearance of incivility is the type of post to the boards - plus that the most contentious posters will use both boards - and the manner of posting. I don't think the nature of the type of post to the boards is going to change (we are long past the days when a post would be refactored for incivility) no matter what we call it, and the current regime of active admins are generally more concerned in dealing with the complaint itself than enforcing protocols of behaviour on the boards (which is perfectly understandable, primly reminding someone of WP:CIVIL when they are upset at being reverted by a troll is not helpful). Lastly, I live in a village, and the one up the road actually does have an old - but defunct - water pump. From what I understand those who gathered at the pump would exchange inanities and gossip, and very little of any consequence was ever conducted. I think the early denizens of WP wanted to introduce the idea of the "water cooler/coffee machine" discussion scenario, but give it a folksy communal name; typically the urban office dwelling pillocks gave a hopelessly romanticised bucolic name to it...LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We do need a place there a user can request action from administrators. With the action usually be a block in circumstances more complicated than those handled by WP:AIV or unblock and there the action is urgent enough to make WP:RFC or WP:RFAR impractical. We can name the noticeboard Wikipedia:Pink Elephants/Love and Mutual Admiring but if the purpose of the page is to request blocks then the atmosphere there would be caustic and legalistic. I also feel that LessHeard vanU is correct: Village Pump is for socializing and exchanging gossip. Encouraging socializing on AN/I (whatever the name is) would make this already bloated page unreadable and unusable. If anything we should encourage people to be to the point. Whoever starts a new topic should specify what administrative action he or she requests and why it is so urgent that the discussion cannot be handled elsewhere (e.g. user RFC). If no administrative action is needed the thread should be archived. Comments unrelated to the proposal administrative actions should be moved elsewhere or deleted. Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The village pump is "for" whatever it happens to be used for: there's nothing necessary about its functions. It's not very popular these days -- our sense of being a single community has declined as the community has grown. As for its being "tainted" -- urban public housing officials have discovered many times in the past fifty years that putting all of society's problems in one place only magnifies them. That is exactly what AN(I) have done.

I don't share your assurance that the atmosphere is necessarily caustic. I think that is a matter of people's attitudes toward the things being done -- not the things themselves. This is in fact a principle in which Wikipedia has believed for a long time. The administrators' noticeboards are embarrassments to our project. Shouldn't we at least try something new? — Dan | talk 16:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to such a move. What is needed is better managements of the current noticeboards, and an attempt to reverse the culture here. It would also help if those objecting to the tone of some threads actually said something. Sometimes those posting to a thread can get too involved and just need to have this pointed out. Maybe we just need to set up a pump here and brew lots of WP:TEA? Carcharoth (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

People have been saying something for upwards of two years. I'm sure you remember numerous squabbles that have terminated in somebody's leaving Wikipedia, or an arbcom case, or a grudge that has never gone away, etc. Every long thread contains numerous injunctions to calm down. Also, nobody is willing to volunteer to "manage" the current noticeboards: it would be a thoroughly unpleasant task. I don't really know what you mean about brewing lots of tea, but I agree about people needing to calm down. That will not happen if we simply leave the system as it is. That would be to say: "We don't need to make a simple name change to affect people's attitudes: people just need to change their basic drives and tendencies". I am suggesting that we begin changing the tone of these noticeboards by changing their name. — Dan | talk 16:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support changing the name but not including it in the VP. It would poison the atmosphere there. No ideas on what they should be called though. How about the public lynching board with subpages like the tarring and feathering for ANI, ducking stool for AN3 and inquisition for ssp. At least that way you know what you are in for... Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestions point to the need for a change. Including it in the VP would not "poison" the atmosphere -- it would change the atmosphere. Anyway, how could it rub off on the other VP sections if it were its own subpage? — Dan | talk 16:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm very much opposed to creating yet another noticeboard for something that already works perfectly fine on an existing one. Renaming AN and AN/I will not change editor behavior and neither will moving it to a subpage of the Pump. I agree completely with Carcharoth that we should improve the use of current boards (point out when somebody needs to take a step back) rather than doing away with the board altogether. This seems very "solution in search of a problem" to me. - auburnpilot talk 15:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I am very opposed as well. These boards work fine for the purposes they are used for. Yes, there is drama, and hostility, but I think that is the nature of the business being conducted. The idea that by moving them to the Village Pump will change anything is naive. How is anything going to change other than there being a new name at the top of the page? We should instead, as Carcharoth suggested, work on the the conduct itself, not the forum in which it is posted. KnightLago (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has recently been described as using AN and AN/I as a "home away from home" I think getting rid of both of them is a fine idea. The purpose of AN is mostly as a community noticeboard, for which we already have WP:CN. There is no need for it to be unduly focused on administrators - admins aren't a separate class, and no issues concern admins exclusively. The other subpages of AN could just as easily be subpages of some other place, and they all serve a specific function that serves to weed out general or unfocused complaints. I'd suggest, though, that AN and AN/I not be redirected to whatever the replacement is - instead, leave it as a map of the various noticeboards so that CN et al don't become new dumping grounds for the same old crap. Avruch 00:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Hmmm. This blancmange is annoying when it's all in the same place on the table. Some people can't reach it to have some." ... "Ah, here's a big heavy hammer I can hit it with" ... "There. That's better, now the blancmange isn't in one place so much". Splash - tk 15:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Suppose we begin like this

Here is a list of the issues presently being discussed at the AN, with my suggestions as to where they should have gone instead of here:

• Talking about an edit war: to WP:AN3
• Announcing a new essay: to a board not specific to administrators, for instance the VP
• Questioning a new user's legitimacy: Probably belongs here, though there's no reason the discussion ought to be limited to administrators. Probably best to discuss the matter on a non-admin-specific board, and then bring the conclusion to the attention to an administrator if necessary.
• Announcing the closure of a merge discussion involving WP:RFCU: to a board not specific to administrators
• Talking about a case of harassment: to AN/I
• Handling an unusual undeletion request: Probably belongs here.
• Talking about the protection policy: to a board not specific to administrators
• Requesting changes to blacklists: to the talk page of the blacklist
• Requesting the deletion of a template: to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion
• Requesting page protection, unprotection: to WP:RFPP
• Requesting edits to a protected page: to the talk page of the page to be edited, using {{editprotected}}
• Requesting 'account creator' flag: to WT:ACC
• Proposing blocks for personal attacks, deleting talk page comments: to AN/I
• Long squabble over a user's behavior: to AN/I
• Reporting copyright problems: to WP:CP
• Announcing a new bot: probably belongs here.
• Soliciting participation in a discussion about a template: to a board not specific to administrators
• Announcement of a WikiProject being marked historical: to a board not specific to administrators

Only a few of these actually seem to belong at an administrators' noticeboard. These are things that (may) require administrative action but aren't covered by the other request pages, as well as announcements that are directly relevant to administrators. Well, why don't we put all of this at Wikipedia:Village pump (maintenance)? This will be a forum for maintenance-related matters that don't already have their own page, or that for some reason are unusual. That page combined with the maintenance pages we have already will render the administrators' noticeboard redundant.

I volunteer to keep out the things that don't belong, and redirect the confused folks to the proper destination, for the first few weeks, or longer if necessary. Nothing will be left that can 'poison' the atmosphere of the VP. (I'm not suggesting anything about AN/I at the moment.) — Dan | talk 17:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

My prediction: if you call it what you suggest (Village pump (maintenance)) then it will be seen as a redundant copy of Village pump (technical), admins will be as unlikely to watch it as they are to watch the other village pump boards, and you will lose or dilute the current value of WP:AN as a board where one can get the attention of a reasonable number of admins. Although many of the threads you classify above could have gone to more specific boards, WP:AN will often get a quicker response or a bigger set of eyes on something. I don't how your proposal would solve any problems, I just see it as a backhanded way of getting rid of WP:AN, and I don't see why that should be viewed as a good thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) We've talked about admin tasks as 'maintenance' or 'janitorial' for years. Let's pretend like we meant it -- maybe the attitude of the community will begin to change. (2) 'Maintenance' and 'technical' are clearly not related; and if it were not clear enough on its face, a sentence or two at the top of the page should make it surpassingly clear. (3) There's no chance of admins simply going away. They'll migrate en masse to the new board we set up. If they're so upset that it no longer has 'administrator' in the title, then they do not deserve to be administrators: this position is not meant to be special in any way. (4) While a bigger set of eyes can get things done faster, it also leads to useless drama. I think the extreme popularity of this page is one of the reasons it (and its parter ANI) has been so destructive. We have a lot of good, hardworking administrators who are willing to deal with problems and watch the relevant boards -- it will be no secret to them that this board will need watching, and response-times will be just fine. Anyway, all this argument is purely suppositional. What we have now is a toxic and unacceptable system. I suggest that we try this as a first step toward a solution. It's worth a shot, no? — Dan | talk 17:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Could we discuss a bit more before making changes like this? I see a lot of reference to a "toxic atmosphere", but a lot of good things get done on these boards as well, and that aspect could get lost unless things are discussed properly. Has a notice been placed on the noticeboard itself, for instance, about this discussion? I also see a long list of off-topic threads - off-topic is not the same as toxic. Could you point out the threads, over the past two or three months, that you felt contributed to a toxic atmosphere. Note that tough discussions and strong opinions does not make a thread toxic, nor does AN/I-disrupting behaviour by the editors involved in the incident. It is poor handling of such threads that turn things toxic, especially when threads drag on and reach no conclusion. Maybe subpages should be used for "toxic" threads, not just for "long" threads? Carcharoth (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think discussion is what we're doing right now. There's little chance of the utility of this board being lost: as long as the new scheme is clearly explained and publicized, which isn't hard to do, we can divide the labor of administrative issues a bit more evenly among the various pages that already exist, and get rid of the term 'administrator' in the title of the pages that handle especially contentious matters. Anyway, if a new scheme doesn't work, everything is reversible. We'll call it a trial period, perhaps.

Strong opinions, heated discussion and disruption don't necessarily, but certainly can, give rise to what I am calling 'toxicity'. Toxicity is strongly correlated with (1) heated, emotional argument, (2) thread length, and (3) threats, implicit or explicit, of blocking or other official sanction. The problem with an administrators' noticeboard is that the word 'administrator' in the title means that the threat of official sanction, the taint of the legal system, is always present -- if it weren't, the matter wouldn't need to be on a noticeboard specific to administrators.

My point about the off-topic threads is that if we insisted that those be moved to their proper locations there would only be about three threads on the board right now, which would all be fairly non-toxic. This supports my contention that toxicity happens when things that could have been done elsewhere are instead brought to an admin-specific board, thereby invoking all the connotations of the word 'administrator', all the community's perceptions of administrators as a class apart from regular users, and all the confrontational atmosphere that comes with the possibility of a block being issued. If we rename the board -- or, rather, decommission it, start a new one to handle the core of its old business, and direct everybody else to the other forums we already have -- then it will quit attracting these toxic issues.

I was hoping people would agree with my general sense that this board attracts nastiness, but I'll dig through the archives and find some representative examples of troubling threads. — Dan | talk 20:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As I stated in the section above, I don't see a need for creating yet another noticeboard. We have far too many as it is, and I see no evidence that WP:AN and WP:ANI are failing to do what they've been designed to do. Certain topics will always generate heated discussion, especially when discussing bans and blocks, and retitling the page will not change that. I simply don't agree that there is a general atmosphere of "toxicity" as has been stated. If threads need to be redirected to a different area of Wikipedia, or an editor refuses to stop generating drama, archive the discussion, inform the editors where discussion should occur, and block them if they refuse. The problem is not the board itself, but that editors are allowed to turn certain threads into circuses. - auburnpilot talk 21:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting the creation of yet another noticeboard: I'm suggesting that we divide the tasks of the present board between the many other boards we have for specific purposes, decommission the present board, and start a new, less confrontational board to take up the slack. The number of boards remains the same; the functioning and atmosphere improves.

Certain topics will always generate heated discussion, sure. But we can reduce the heatedness in some of them -- many of them, I think -- by getting rid of the word 'administrator' in the title of the board. As I say, this means that before any discussion has occurred there is already a tense and legalistic atmosphere. We can discuss exactly the same issues without the predetermined tension if we reorganize as I am suggesting.

The problem is that "editors are allowed" to do certain things -- well, on Wikipedia editors are allowed to do pretty close to anything, and I doubt you really want to see them formally disallowed from commenting in certain ways. I don't think moderation of noticeboards is the way to go here: in order to avoid that necessity I am suggesting that we reorganize the noticeboards so that editors can still be "allowed" to comment as they please, but with a structure that will tend to discourage heatedness. — Dan | talk 21:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see you convincing me that removing the word "administrator" from the title will change anything, and we clearly need more eyes on this, so I've posted a request on AN. - auburnpilot talk 21:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And I now see you did as well, just moments apart. - auburnpilot talk 21:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly trying to convince you. :-) Let me give the argument another shot: The word 'administrator' means that anyone who starts a thread here is at least implicitly looking for an administrator. The only reason they might want an administrator is because they want some administrator-only action to be performed. The most problematic, and one of the most commonly discussed, of these is the block. So the possibility of a block hangs in the background of every thread about a user's behavior or a content dispute. Thus the person starting the thread is implicitly requesting a block, and the person the thread is about is implicitly defending himself against the suggestion of a block. This predetermines the attitudes of those who participate in threads on this page: confrontational, defensive, and so on. This is why threads on this page turn "into circuses", as you put it. Removing the word 'administrator' from the name can begin to change the atmosphere of the page. Does that make sense? — Dan | talk 21:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Try as you might, I assure you, it's not happening. ;-) We truly have such completely opposite perceptions of AN, it's almost astounding. I've never perceived an implicit request for a block simply by posting to AN, and I've certainly never felt that any response on AN has an implicit defense against a block. For one thing, these type issues should be brought up on AN/I rather than AN, but I really don't have the same view of a block-heavy atmosphere at AN. - auburnpilot talk 22:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're right: this criticism belongs primarily to AN/I. Well, what would you think about applying a similar scheme to AN/I? (I was hoping I wouldn't have to start that way, since AN/I is a much less pleasant thing to deal with.)

Also, do you think that AN is perfectly acceptable the way it is now? I have to say I still think that having a specifically administrative hangout has contributed to the administrators becoming a separate class of user, sociologically as well as techically -- just the way we never wanted it to be. I am willing to become the temporary unofficial nightwatchman of the new forum -- keeping out the irrelevant stuff, sending people to the proper place -- if we de-administratorize WP:AN, in the hope that we'll create a collegiate atmosphere in which to bring up issues that need input from administrators, and to make announcements that are of interest to everybody who works in the Wikipedia namespace or is interested in project issues (which we have generally assumed are just administrators -- this is not so), in a way that does not formally set administrators apart. — Dan | talk 22:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"What we have now is a toxic and unacceptable system. I suggest that we try this as a first step toward a solution. It's worth a shot, no?"
No. AN ain't broke so no fix is required. Sometimes it can be confrontational but that isn't necessarily a bad thing, a bit of confrontation can help clear the air. RMHED (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You're partially right: most of the unpleasantness takes place an AN/I. In reply to your other point, in day-to-day functioning a process can look just fine, but its general tendencies can be harmful. In this case, the general tendency of the admininstrators' noticeboard (and AN/I, and AN/3RR, and for that matter the bureaucrats' noticeboard) is to formalize the social separation of administrators from everyone else. This is a tendency that as a community we must work to reverse. Even if you don't find AN unpleasant to deal with, still you have probably noticed what a 'big deal' adminship has become. This change will begin to make it less so, and if it makes the board even a bit less tense in the process, all the better. — Dan | talk 22:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I can indeed be caustic and at times downright nasty, AN less so. Your proposal though, is just papering over the cracks and doesn't address the underlying issue. The best way to make adminship 'no big deal' is to fundamentally change the way admins are appointed and removed. The RfA process has become combative and unpleasant primarilly because adminship, once attained is so difficult to remove. This is why adminship is a 'big deal' and this is why there is often a 'them and us' atmosphere pervading Wikipedia. RMHED (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

How are these proposed changes going to have an impact on anything when we are addressing the forum and not the conduct itself? KnightLago (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

[Reply to RMHED, which I think addresses KnightLago's concern too.] Actually, I claim (and perhaps this is the crucial part of my attitude toward the problems of this community) that it does not all begin with RFA. RFA probably helped create and certainly reinforces a problematic state of affairs -- with its ever-increasing 'standards' it further sets administrators apart from the community at large, and makes adminship a bigger deal -- and in this way it is a cause of problems. But it is not purely a cause: it also a symptom. The community began gradually, in many places, over several years, to accord administrators greater respect, social status, and so on. The problem is now spread all over the community: it doesn't just emanate from RFA. Now, for instance, we have another mechanism to separate administrators from everybody else: the administrators' noticeboards. So there is no reason our attempts at change should have to begin with RFA. It's not exclusively at fault, and I don't even know that it ever was.

We could certainly try to do something new with RFA, but that's been shown in the past to be pretty darn difficult. I have not given up on RFA, but I do think that rearranging the administrators' noticeboards will prove to be a bit easier. That is why I am advocating changes here and not at RFA. Of course the changes I am suggesting do not go to the heart of the problem, but that's because there is no heart of the problem: it's spread throughout the community. These changes are not just papering over the cracks: they will begin to encourage people to talk about administrators differently, which in turn will begin to make them think about administrators differently. Any linguist or cognitive scientist will tell you that the way people talk about something, the way they hear it talked about, the connotations of the words they use for it -- all of these determine the way they think about that thing. I'm suggesting that we begin to change the way people think of administrators, by changing the way they talk about them -- by depriving them of their own special hangout. I contend that this will also help to solve problems of drama on the boards, as I have explained above. — Dan | talk 00:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A noble ambition to be sure, but one doomed to failure IMO. Changing the way people respond to those in positions of power only occurs when you empower them. This you do by giving them the ability to remove those they deem unsuitable. A kind of reverse RfA is needed, if such a process were in existence then admins would be far less likely to abuse their power. RMHED (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that dooms it to failure is the community's unwillingness to accept change: in fact your very conviction that it won't work is what makes it unable to work. If you allow the possibility that it might work, then it might work. This is entirely a matter of attitude, mine and yours and everyone else's -- and if we wish to change anything we will have to start by making ourselves more open to suggestions like this one. — Dan | talk 02:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

People could be bold and move threads (hopefully before they start to attract replies) to the correct location and leave the section header and a link behind. Providing a reply at the new location, especially if it is a quiet backwater, would also be good. The village pumps are often just a place to notify people of discussions elsewhere. Many of the AN posts could be just that - notices of discussions taking place elsewhere, but only if "more eyes" are needed. Having said that, people replying like I am now (I originally posted this at AN), will tend to split discussions, which is always a danger. One of the main problems is multiplicity of boards. Not everyone can, or wants to, follow every board. Subcommunities and regulars tend to develop around each board. In some ways this is good, in other ways it is bad. As I've said in the discussion, more proactive management of off-topic threads and more participation at other boards, plus some poeple trying to keep an eye on the bigger picture in the, um, more active threads (you know the ones I mean, the ones that attract tens of editors and kilobytes of sometimes heated discussion). Carcharoth (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

People could certainly be that bold, but they haven't tended to be so far. I doubt they'll start being bolder in the future. Resistance to suggestions such as this one is ample demonstration of the community's extreme timidity. I don't know anybody who's willing to manage the current boards more proactively, but I do know someone who's willing to help with a transition to a new set up -- myself. A solution that relies on many people spontaneously beginning to behave in a way that they've never behaved before is no solution. I am suggesting a change that, as I have argued above, will encourage -- though only slowly -- community-wide changes in behavior and attitude. We can't just say "Oh, the behaviors just need to change [on their own]". That is a diagnosis of problematic behavior, not a suggestion of a solution. — Dan | talk 02:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly a need for AN/ANI/AN3. If something not appropo to the board is posted, simply move it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment appears to make no arguments, and certainly does not reply to any that I have presented in the above thread. Could you explain your position in detail? I would be glad to talk over your reasons with you. — Dan | talk 02:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to give my quick opinion on the matter: It is definitely true that things are often added, and discussed at AN/ANI that should be elsewhere, as Rdsmith pointed out above. I would suggest getting rid of ANI completely. Some people use them interchangeably, and don't know the difference between the two (and honestly, I'm not sure I fully understand the difference). That leaves AN, which is fine. At that point, we'd have to work a bit harder at keeping the board clear of any discussions that could take place elsewhere (and we should actually remove those discussions, and place them on the correct noticeboard/page). - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

why we need these two boards

1. there has to be in any complex organisation a central place to complain to where one can be reasonably are of getting attention. AN/I is the place. Where else would complaints of bad administrative actions go?-- except to RfC, which can only be mastered by those really expert in Wikipedia policy wonkery. ArbCom properly insists that matters brought to it have a previous attempt a resolution, and for many there just plain is no other place. The place must be accessible to ordinary beginning wikipedians. We have more than enough complaints that people dont know where to go--the directory at AN/I is a little ridiculous.
2. there has to be a place to discuss administrative problems generally. Per repeated discussion and decisions, this cannot be an IRC channel, because we cannot base action of material reported there since--among other things-- it has no reliable record. That leaves a board like ANB, no matter what we call it.
3. nobody can follow more than a few places. To be exact, very few people can follow more than a few places. I and I think most other people can follow a few key places only, and there has to be one where it can be reasonably assured everything truly important will be mentioned. That's AN/I. I spend several hours a say here, on and off. I try to follow these two and, for specific article issues, my watchlist. As is, I can follow up on only about 10% of the discussions elsewhere. I cannot check and follow up on a dozen notice boards a day plus AfD and the two dozen active policy talk pages. (What I do is try to see a sampling.) I think I'm fast and efficient at this--obviously, some people can do it better, but that's not the norm. We need a rule WP#HUMAN -- WP has to be constructed so human beings of the customary sort can work there.
4. Sure, trivial stuff shows up at ANB and AN/I. Every time it does it shows that our explanation of procedures is unclear or too complicated, and we need to do something about that part. Trivial stuff is customarily directed to the proper place, and people are grateful for it--they need to be helped, and we need to help them.
5. I would personally be very unhappy discussing issues involving the work of a fellow admin or that might lead to drastic sanctions without there being a central place for it to be observed. Otherwise we'll start getting fragmentation and ownership of policy, as well as articles. If someone is going to criticize my neutrality in something, I want it to be where i know a wide range of people will see it. We've had enough complaints about even arb com discussions being excessively isolated, and making broad decisions at obscure and unlikely places.
6. Where would arb com say, or the developers, post things that we do all need to see, where they can be discussed?
7. Where can we post that we know will be seen in a crisis? crises like a compromised account, a credible threat, a truly critical major blp or public relations issue? Some of our practices here are based on the fact that there is always at least one public place where people are watching, 24 X 7. We frequently say this--we need no special mechanism for X, because if it comes to ANI, someone will see it and take action.
8. Yes, we can improve things. Probably by separating out more of the obviously lengthy discussions at an early stage. Then those who want to follow them can & everyone will see them. It will also permit practical watchlisting of a specific discussion. DGG (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

1, 3: I disagree entirely. If there were a central authority in Wikipedia that would be true. There is none, therefore there need be no central place to "get attention". Anyway, attention-seeking should be discouraged at all costs, in favor of drama-free problem-solving. The high degree of attention this page draws, from people such as yourself who spend many hours on it to the exclusion of other boards, means that any hint of conflict is instantly magnified by a dozen people jumping in. The high visibility of this page -- its character as a 'one-stop shop' -- is one of its worst attributes. Nobody can follow more than a few pages -- nor should they try. This is a leading cause of burn-out.

2: No, there does not. When we put all administrators' activities in one place we get a separate class of users and a drama magnet. Diffusion is key: issues should be handled by boards specific to those issues, for instance vandalism, content / personal disputes, edit warring, deletion disputes, sockpuppetry, and so on. Of course we already have boards for all of these issues: AN(I) is redundant with them. It offers the advantage of convenience: people will respond quickly. But the nature of the response creates problems and magnifies problems as often as it solves them. The cost of having a one-stop shop is the unnecessary departure of dozens of users, not to mention innumerable grudges and hard feelings. We can handle all of these things effectively without a central hub where all the problem cases end up. Our community has a lot of grown-up and hardworking folks. I think you're underestimating them.

4: Not 'customarily' -- only sometimes. The rest of the time, threads that don't belong here get handled here anyway, and the board begins to draw more off-topic threads. Suddenly the other boards are put out of business, and everybody does begin watching just this one. Then the drama-magnification and creation of social classes sets in. Eventually a lot of important business is done here and the place looks like it's essential -- but it has created that impression itself. There's nothing necessary about the present state of affairs.

5: I suspect that whatever board ends up being the one where sanctions against administrators are discussed will always be very well-watched. Such situations are always soap operas and will never be short of daytime viewers. Everybody loves a spectacle: this will be true no matter what we call the boards.

6-7: These are in fact legitimate purposes for an administrators' noticeboard. But the administrators' noticeboard now is no such thing. There's plenty of other nonsense on it. Nobody will volunteer to moderate it. I'm suggesting a reorganization that will cause the board not to draw so much other nonsense. We'll have no trouble getting everybody to watch whatever board we end up using for arbcom notifications and urgent situations -- perhaps Wikipedia:Village pump (urgent notifications) -- for the same reasons I mentioned in #5.

8: In this point you can see my thesis demonstrated: one of the primary causes of a long disastrous thread is its enormous public visibility. When separated off, and taken off of the public board, it begins to quiet down. This is a very good argument in favor of splitting up the noticeboards. — Dan | talk 03:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

One point. Some issues need lots of eyes because they get mishandled (sometimes in good faith) by those who respond first. And even on AN and ANI, there are threads that get only a small amount of attention, and no-one realises that something is not quite right there until someone else picks up on it. Spreading the load around different pages is fine, but what is needed is equal levels of competence at all places. Once you start having smaller places with less people watching (and that will inevitably happen if you decentralise), then some degree of incompetence will get through under the radar. ie. The quality of some of the responses will go down. I admit that the quality of the responses can go goes down if you get too many people responding as well. Overall, I see this as primarily a need to balance between the advantages and disadvantages of centralisation and the advantages and disadvantages of decentralisation, without going too far in either direction. It might be more profitable to take a closer look at the need for all the separate boards, and to cut some of them down. I am also not opposed to the idea of having just AN and not ANI, as long as the off-topic threads that start to appear at AN (instead of ANI) are directed to the right places, and that people go and help out at those places (I don't do that myself, unfortunately, and I know I should). There are currently 11 noticeboards. Do we need more or less? How should the workflow be managed? Can it be managed on a place like Wikipedia? Carcharoth (talk) 08:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Rejoinder:

1,3. Here's why there needs to be a central point. People often are aggrieved. sometime rightly, sometime not, and they want to make certain they get a proper hearing. So they need a place they can turn to get it--a place that they can all find, and that they know will get attention. Then at least the rational ones of those turned down will at least know that a wide spectrum of admins and others saw the matter. Paying high-level attention promptly to people's complaints is an important step is in keeping the level of editor satisfaction high--we certainly have enough problems about this that we need to make steps that will increase it, not jeopardize it.

you seem to be complaining it takes too much time when everyone comments. I dont see how that can be the case, since nobody is forced to comment. If one doesnt think one can contribute, one passes the matter by. If you think the board as a whole is taking you personally too much time, ignore it. Many admins do, after all, and still do a good & important job elsewhere. The may who do come here, come because they value it.

4. If something can indeed be handled or dismissed quickly, the spirit of IAR says we should do it whenever we come to it. If its quick enough, no harm is done.

5. The point here is that no one board will--it will become scattered. If it doesnt, it will have all the same problems as the present one. After all, there are only those two possibilities: together in one place, or divided.

6-7. Any admin can moderate it as they please, and if you think specific things should be moved elsewhere, WP:SODOIT. I think some items indeed should go from ADN to AN/I, and there is no reason not to move them.

8. So you see, the move to the subpage solves the problem & we already have a proper mechanism.

9. and a new point, suggested by Carcharoth's comment--the point of bringing an admin action to general view is to get a wide range of comment from other admins. Many admins bring there own actions here for review--they want a place where everyone of their active colleagues will see it--not just a few who happen to be watching a particular board at the time. DGG (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Solution to size and subpage issues

Please check (and feel free to try out) the "Start new thread" link at User:Wknight94/ANI. This link is autogenerated to start a new section in the ANI page that is currently smallest. I've done five but this could be expanded to as many ANIs as needed. The idea is that if one of the ANIs becomes overpopulated by a particular thread, this autogenerated link will cause new threads to start elsewhere and thereby keep all of the ANIs around the same manageable size. It's your basic load balancer. No more subpages and no more oversized ANI. Thoughts? (Of course the templates employed could use some work but you get the idea!...) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So people will have to watchlist 5 (etc.) ANIs? That could be heavy on watchlists. giggy _(:O) 03:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's 5 pages. My watchlist has 1,315. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but not all of them are equally active. I used to have AN and ANI watchlisted and got bummed by the constant updating of those and their talk pages... that might just be me though. giggy _(:O) 03:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I got an error on the main "ANI" page after adding text to "ANI5": "Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character ","&action=edit&section=new Start new thread." Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone interested yet? I notice AN is up over 200K now and ANI is over 320K! On my little home computer, ANI barely loads at this point. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea a lot, but I think it has about a 2% chance of being adopted by the community :) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that is a great idea, (scrolling, still scrolling... GAAAHHH!!!!1!!111one!!!) but I do agree with Jay's sentiments above... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Frivolous notice board report warnings?

There has been discussion today at WT:WQA about how to deal with users making frivolous or malicious reports to noticeboards. I have strong reservations that coming down too hard on such users may inadvertently create a chilling effect against future reports, i.e. people may be afraid they will be punished for making a good faith report, out of some sort of misguided sense of revenge. However, since others seem interested, I draft some possible warning templates for bad faith noticeboard reports. They can be found here, if anybody is interested... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need WP:Noticeboard abuse noticeboard? Mr.Z-man 20:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(reaches for the cleaver) Horologium (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the cleaver for me, or for Z-man? heh :D

Z-man. Just say no to noticeboard metastasis. Horologium (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I am really not sure any of this is a good idea. Actually, I think I am leaning towards it not being a good idea. But the idea was brought up, so... there it is.. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(I took the initiative partially because I wanted to get practice creating parameterized templates)--Jaysweet (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a point that you won't need 2 sets of templates, Gazimoff can record it, so you only need 1 set. MBisanz ^talk 20:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is only 1 set, unless I misunderstand you... I used the uw-vandalism templates as an example, so it includes the extra text if you have a piped parameter, but otherwise leaves it out. (I just had it display both sets so I could make sure it worked right, heh... :) ) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet sent me a message reguarding NE2...

saying I'm posting original research or something. I can't seem to understand what she's talking about. She told me to respond here. But I have no clue what she wants from me, and also, NE2 and some other users. Please reply on my talk.

--Check77 (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)