Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

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)

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)

(Example) This is a continuation of the thread at
[[ANIarchive999#subthreads]]

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is an issue where something needs to be done. It can't go on like it is now. We need to change the system we have, and searching for the "perfect" solution won't work. We need to change AN and ANI now as the problems are getting worse. I can't even load them anymore. This is a good solution, and one that absolutely needs to be adopted. —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. My computer has a 2.0 GHz dual-core processor running with a 5Mb/s internet connection and it takes an appreciable amount of time (read: more than 4 seconds for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) to load those pages. That is ridiculous. I can't even imagine what it would be like on a 56k modem with a like 1 gigahertz single core. Wknight's idea seems like it would work fairly well, and at this point, pretty much anything (within reason) is better than what we have now. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to go ahead and disseminate this proposal. It definitely works, and is not difficult to implement. The size of these pages is becoming a serious technical problem. Like I said, I can't even access them any more (unless I'm extremely patient and there is a lunar eclipse coupled with a Venusian occult of the Sun). —  scetoaux (T|C) 06:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, instead of five, how about two or three pages to start. That might be a bit more palatable.

In addition, I think it should only be WP:AN/I. With this proposal, I think admins should be able to freely move "incidents" from here to the AN/I board. (Which I think would cut down the length of this board considerably.) - jc37 20:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Admins moving incidents sounds good, and it wouldn't make my computer cry. Leonard^(Bloom) 00:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. Although if the page is still too large, perhaps just a second "overflow" page (rather than 5 subpages, which is far too many) for AN/I that later moves discussions to the Incidents page when space is avaliable. Kinda like a queue, so people wouldn't have to manage two pages as everything would eventually end up on the main page. Would this be technically feasible? --.:Alex:. 16:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Be careful when you say "this board". Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents redirects to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. I had massive confusion when I originally posted this because I didn't know the two talk pages were wired together! I meant to post to ANI's talk page.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(Re: to Alex) One of the points of my proposal was due to people's complaints about discussions moving to subpages, namely that moving existing discussions at all causes confusion. I wanted the discussions to start in a subpage automatically. I'll often look at my own contributions and click on the section link to get me directly to it. You wouldn't be able to do that if discussions kept moving about. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional proposal

One of the main confusions, I think, is that when editors see "Administrators' noticeboard", they think they've come to the right place, and post, without reading the text at the top.

Perhaps it would be better if this page was only the nav links. (Non-postable, and possibly protected).

To implement:

• 1.) Rename/move this page (WP:AN) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Administrators
• 2.) copy/insert the descriptive text, navbox and nav links to this page WP:AN. Using this page as an "overview" page.

(Note that implementing this proposal does not preclude the implementation of the "multiple page" proposal directly above.)

Also, As this page has a lot of edits in it's history, it may require a dev to move it. - jc37 20:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Even simpler

• The last few days has seen an unusual number of incidents listed there that rather obviously belong elsewhere--at AfD, or at Copyright problems, or the talk for CSD, or whatever. All it takes to fix them is to move them where they belong, by whoever notices (as long as everyone who needs to be notified does get notified). I'm as guilty as anyone of simply dealing with the problem there, but if we all actually put things where they belong, the remainder of the page would be more manageable.
• There's also been an increase of notifying people on ANB or AN/I that there is a discussion elsewhere--like WT:N. This is well and good, as long as people, similarly, dont fall into the temptation of discussing the issue at the admin board as well. DGG (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I've seen a lot of notices on AN and at the Village pump. How about we create some form of "Notice" template that distinguishes it from actual posts and perhaps has some fine print saying not to reply to the notice? I think that might help quell the problem of multiple discussions on the exact same topic arising from such notices. Plus I know that on some particular occasions this problem occurs because some editors feel they aren't being heard and post there to gain attention. Such a template could prevent this, as we could have it so that any replies to the notice may be removed at any time. Thoughts?

EDIT: Something like this. --.:Alex:. 16:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of this page for comments made after closing of AN section.

A section on the project page was closed (twice). I had written two comments, one of them clearly before the close, but missed the close due to edit conflict with Giano. The second comment was written in response to Giano, I had not realized that a close had apparently happened (that is, the original conflict masked an additional edit conflict with the close.) So here I had two perfectly good, pearls of wisdom, posts (albeit suffering from my usual wordiness). One of them was already there, so I added the other and pulled them both under the close blanket. That was reverted by another user, and after, going through the initial "Revert me, eh!" response (yes, I have those also), I realized this user was right, so I read the close notice, which suggests putting additional comments on Talk. So I did that.

I commonly add comments to AfDs, RfAs, RfAr, and nailed down, closed, rejected proposals, in Talk, which remains open for just that purpose.

Allemandtando, however, has apparently interpreted the material at the top of this page differently: He reverted me, first, with:

• 19:32, 15 July 2008 Allemandtando (read the notice at the top - this is NOT the place for such issues - if you feel so inclined, open a new section on the AN page itself.)

Note that I could think that this was an upstart user registered last month, telling an experienced Wikipedian what to do. Of course, we all know he isn't new. Nor am I truly experienced, I just have a big mouth, even though I did register in 2005. So after taking a few milliseconds to get pissed off and then drop it, I read the notice at the top:

• 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.

Of course, Allemandtando is right in that "Continued comment on closed discussions" isn't listed. However, that's Wikipedia standard practice, all over the place. I didn't want to open up another AN report or reopen the original one, I wanted just to have a place to stuff the comments I wrote already, and there is great freedom on Talk pages. I wasn't "reporting a problem to administrators." I was, indeed, "discussing administrative issues," but it wasn't a primary discussion, the notice at the top of the page is written for someone who wants to know where to open up a report or question, which may be missed if placed in Talk.

And then there was the closing message from the original section, boilerplate:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In other words, I was following explicit instructions. So I reverted Allemandtando:

• 19:40, 15 July 2008 Abd (Hands off, Allemandtando. This is exactly the place for comment on a closed discussion, see the close notice.)

In case it isn't obvious, Allemandtando and I have a bit of a history. I was the first one to confront him on being a returned editor who came in swinging, and some of his very first work was on an AfD where I successfully rescued the article. And there has been plenty since. He was really the wrong one to be simply removing my Talk posts, if it was going to be done. Be that as it may, it seems he didn't take the suggestion to read the close notice, which is explicit, so, after another user had added a brief question, he again removed the Talk page content:

• 19:45, 15 July 2008 Allemandtando ("This is not the page to report problems to administrators, or discuss administrative issues." moved to actual AN/I)

Now, this was edit warring. (Some might draw the line in another place.) I don't normally edit war, I will use a single revert sometimes, which I don't count as part of an edit war unless it repeats someone *else's* revert, or my own.) So I simply accepted it, since putting the content on the Noticeboard page was less harmful than edit warring.

He didn't move it to AN/I, he moved it to AN, which I'm sure is what he meant to write. And there it sits at this writing, with, so far, one user saying, effectively, "WTF is this doing here?" The user apparently didn't read the fine print at the top.... This did not belong on the main project page. Period.

However, the matter should be addressed explicitly, unless Allemendtando is willing, now that I can presume he's read the close notice, to accept that the Talk page is the appropriate place to put continued discussion related to a closed section. --Abd (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

He shouldn't bother, since he was essentially absolutely correct: this page is for the discussing the mechanics of running the main page, not some sort of backyard for it. If you didn't want you comments to appear on the main page, you ought not to have written them in the first place or should have just deleted them. If you want to whip more verbose and pointless drama, here would not be a good place for it nor would the issue be a winner for you. --Calton | Talk 21:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your opinion, Calton. Could you please explain to me, then, what the closing boilerplate means by, Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page? As far as I can tell, I simply followed directions. --Abd (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I would interpret that to mean the page on which the notice appears. AN and AN/I are not article pages, they are discussion pages in and of themselves. The discussion had been closed. Edit conflict or not, you would have been better off to have just thrown away your comment and moved on. -- Donald Albury 22:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. That's a possible reading, but we normally call a page like that a "project page." In any case, I wanted to neither throw the comment away nor to gunk up the Noticeboard, so... what, exactly, would have been the harm in leaving it in place? I had in mind the analogy with AfDs, RfAs, and RfArs, with their associated Talk pages. Clearly the Closing statement contemplates "subsequent comments," but it doesn't look to me like it is asking for a new section to be opened up, and it clearly doesn't want the comments to be stuffed in the closed section, so.... I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation. Perhaps I'll look to see if there has been prior discussion of this.--Abd (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I looked. I thought I'd seen sections of comment deemed inappropriate on the project page moved to Talk, on this or other noticeboard pages, here is an example, and it was actually post-closure discussion. In other words, If I'd done what Allemandtando and others are now saying was what I should have done (beside just trashing it), precedent could be that it would be moved to Talk. Deletion of comment is frowned upon unless there is good reason. Here's an example of comment moved to Talk: [2]

I'll stand on this, in fact, because this is the way it *should* be, if it isn't the way it *is*. There is another possibility, though, which would be a separate Talk page that doesn't watchlist with the Noticeboard. But that definitely isn't being done, that's a new idea. Again, though, if this has been discussed and consensus found, please point me to it. The post above was a year ago. --Abd (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2008

To explain a little more, there is way too much noise on the Noticeboards already. There have been proposals in the past to factor down the page content, to put closed discussions in those shrinking boxes, and the like. In this case I wanted to go ahead and make the comments I'd already written -- it takes me far, far longer to write them than for anyone to read them --, but I did not want to increase the noise on the noticeboard page, hence I did what I may do in, say, an RfA when I want to comment on something going on that isn't directly on point for the RfA itself. Likewise others sometimes move discussion, mine or others, to Talk when they think it too much or inappropriate (but not so inappropriate that it is simply deleted). Or a subpage may be used. The purpose of the Noticeboards is to bring things to the notice of all administrators watching the pages. The basic AN ranges a bit wider; and what I see now is that all noticeboard Talk pages are redirected to a single Talk page. That does not seem optimal to me, rather each page should have its own Talk, as is normal. I'm sure, though, that if we look back, there was a reason for it, but consider the problem:

The Close discussion template clearly contemplates that users may want to add discussion to something that has been closed. So where do they add it? To the "current discussion page." Now, the Talk page is called a "discussion page," and a Noticeboard, in theory, isn't a discussion page, though, in fact, that's what the noticeboards have become -- and that is a major problem, what is actually urgent gets lost in the noise. The interpretation being made by Allemandtando and others makes the close discussion instructions rather strangely worded, if that was the intent. Why not just "this page" rather than the "current discussion page." (Now, perhaps a generic close template is being used, but, if so, this would point to the practice being quite what I've suggested: "current discussion page" normally refers to the Talk page connected with a project page, and the Noticeboard is a project page, it would be described accurately as "the current project page."

But the point isn't to make anyone wrong, it is to become clear on what should be done. Nowhere else are those who have written comment that might be off-topic or extra prohibited from adding that content to a Talk page. And Noticeboards should be no exception, and we should get much discussion off of the Noticeboards and into Talk or subpages. The disadvantage of Talk is that it would still gunk up the watchlists of users to some degree. I'd suggest a single noticeboard subpage for extra comment, whether placed there by the author or by someone else keeping the noticeboard clean, with pointer to it on the noticeboard when it's removed. Then a close template for noticeboard discussions could be customized to point to that subpage. Until then, I'd suggest, Talk is the place. --Abd (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Organization Of Archives And Subpages

Right now, it's Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1 instead of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident/Archives/1. Please change all appropriate pages to this format.68.148.164.166 (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick look at this and the move log for the page, from what I can see, it seems all of the pages are in Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1 format. So in order to rename it to you proposed idea, it would take over 400 page moves. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 19:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that the pages are archived automatically, and that any change to the manner in which we do that archiving should be discussed with the bot operator(s). I think AN and ANI are Miszabot, yes? Though I think this might be a case of a solution seeking a problem, as I'm unaware of problems with the current system. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any need for this? Stifle (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No there isn't, and I recommend ending this thread until 68.148.164.166 wants to give a reason for his/her request. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem, but I don't think the naming is the problem. The problem is that many, many pages point to AN/I reports which can be tedious to find later. "Search" seems broken, I enter a section header, exactly copied from a diff, and it doesn't find it, I have to go to the archives and figure out which one it is in through the diff date, which can take looking at quite a few pages, since the archives are not date sequenced, exactly, due to threads being archived in completion order, and a thread might be open for a day or a week. I'm not sure what the solution is, beyond an index to section headers, showing start and completion date and archive link. That's a possible bot task. But there should also be a set of clerks for the administrative noticeboards. I see that's been proposed before. Continual increases in scale will make this more and more necessary. Doesn't have to be an admin, at all, but whoever does it would get a lot of exposure to admin stuff, so it would make a nice preparation for adminship. --Abd (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've suggested this before, and I still think it would be a good idea to have a table of contents for the noticeboards style to the reference desk archives, divided up by date and giving the headers within each archive. The date divisions may be a bit fuzzy given the different archiving practices, but the table of contents would still be nice, and you can just leave a bot to make it...Someguy1221 (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanking suicide and violence threads after resolved

What do people think about blanking threads regarding threats of suicide or other violence, once they're resolved as far as they can be, on-wiki? It seems to me like a good idea -- any substantive discussion of our response is best kept somewhat more abstract and away from a specific example. Leaving the threads open only draws unneeded attention, encouraging either useless comments or repeat incidents... so removing the content (but leaving a placeholder heading, probably) seems a course of action to consider. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems sane. A placeholder note with a link to the oldid (or at least to the page history around the time of the thread) should be fine. —Giggy 05:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100%. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanking, but not deleting. Beam 22:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this seems very reasonable. A link to the oldid would be best, but as Giggy says, the page history from the time would work too. delldot talk 05:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEGAL by User:Fowler&fowler

Resolved

 – Was resolved elsewhere, seems like forum shopping. Beam 19:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see this edit diff edit-diff . Please see that the edit summary is an indirect legal threat. As it is quite serious, I request immediate action.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Appropriateness of Point Barnstars on WP:AN

Someone^who claimed that Pointy Barnstars are not appropriate for WP:AN. I have seen no such guidance from the What AN is not for? I'm raising the discussion issue here.

File:TroutStar.png		The Trout Barnstar
		I hereby reward (redacted) the TroutStar for brining this important global issue to our attention. AdultSwim (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

--AdultSwim (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha! Please don't do this here though :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for brining it here, but the trout is a freshwater fish and would quickly die if immersed in salt water. --Rodhullandemu 18:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• If you feel the need to ridicule a concern raised in good faith and slap an editor with a trout (noting that this particular editor is not in the category of wikipedians open to trout slapping), do it on his talk page. Noticeboards are not the place for such things. –xeno (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Inviting scrutiny to the complainant

Every now and then, we receive a report detailing "abuse" or "edit-warring" or impropriety of some sort, and when we point out that it is the original poster who shouldn't be doing something that violates policy or is somehow improper, they try to divert attention away or insist that "we stay on topic". How can we make it clear that whenever someone posts a complaint on either AN or ANI, they also invite outside scrutiny in their own behavior and actions? —Kurykh 07:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Say as much in the header? ➨ Ʀƹɗѵєɾϧ collects very sharp bread knives 11:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Splitting up /Incidents

"Incidents" is such a vague term. Not to mention the page is pretty darn crowded. What do you say? --harej 05:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What would you split out? The reason it's so crowded now is that it was demonstrated not to be healthy to have the CSN board, and that would be the most logical split. Risker (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Faster archiving for {{resolved}} threads would help the crowding problem. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

AN/I proposal

As for WP:AN/I, the more I look at it, the more I think that the solution(s) implemented at WP:CFD would be perfect here.

Since the page is archived every 24 hours, we could just as easily move to a system of a new page every day. (Discussions not resolved after 5-10 days could be relisted, just as they are at XfD.)

I honestly don't think anyone could say that these pages would lack admin attention : )

As for watchlists, since the "blanks" are often created a month in advance, it would be simple enough to add them "in advance" to one's watchlist.

And for those who like to view the discussions all on one page, CFD has a solution to that as well. Simple transclusion.

As an aside, this would also simplify archival, since each page becomes its own archive.

Anyway, thoughts welcome. - jc37 06:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, could probably use some more discussion/input and hashing out stuff though. Cirt (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed archiving method for long threads

There are one or two at the moment but this is for threads that end up being very long, to the extent that they end up as subpages. Now we all know there's a serious disadvantage with this - nobody knows what's going on as not everyone remembers to watchlist these subpages, and it does kill discussion and potential additional opinions. The advantage of this method is that it shortens the noticeboard.

A simple analogy would be a sockpuppet rant, which could be hidden by a toggled box (those show/hide things), except that because the content doesn't exist on the noticeboard, it speeds up loading times, and it wouldn't be able to be shown/hidden.

The method uses the subpage solely as an archive, while maintaining the bulk of the "action" ("drama") on the noticeboard itself (i.e. WP:AN, WP:AN/I), and archiving portions of discussion that is "stale".

Here's a sample fictional thread: User:X42bn6/Sandbox/Wikipedia:Some noticeboard, which is after some archiving. I believe this accurately reflects 99% of long threads.

Here's the original behemoth: [3] It's not quite accurate as I'll be archiving over 3 days - the 20th, 21st and 22nd, so some posts wouldn't have existed after archiving. But it works for now.

• August 20
  • First, I create the subpage (which would be called Wikipedia:Some noticeboard/Drama, but I've put it at User:X42bn6/Sandbox/Wikipedia:Some noticeboard/Drama:
  • Then, I remove most of the "stale" discussion [4], and put in a template and a HTML comment indicating the extent of the archiving, and put it here, including the first post ("Drama drama drama [...]"). Result: [5]
• August 21: I repeat for the next thread: [6] [7]
• August 22: [8], [9]
• August 22: Still on August 22, I kill off a stale thread that has gone nowhere: [10], [11] - I put the "rest" of the thread into the archive, and remove the first post.
• August 23: Resolved! [12]

One question is: Where do we split a thread? On the first archive, I kept the first post (thread starter), to keep people informed about what the thread was about, and left a bit of discussion to keep the thread running, unless I was killing a stale thread.

Advantages:

• Keeps discussion on the noticeboard, keeping activity up.

Disadvantages:

• Complicated.
• Makes noticeboard harder to search.

Comments welcome. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS ?

The bit where it says:

Please do not try to stop other people from continuing a discussion by inserting {{discussion top}} – {{discussion bottom}} templates to "archive" ongoing discussions.

— Alan^✉ 06:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, someone actually reads that mess of boilerplate. I kind of agree — even if some people have repeatedly shoved beans up their nose, that doesn't mean we need to post signs on the wall telling everyone not to do it. Better just to handle it if and when it occurs. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed it. There is a separate discussion page for the header, which I've suggested be redirected here, it's oddly fairly active. Hopefully no one there objects.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hadn't spotted that, but yes, the talk page for the header should either direct here, or be prominently linked to from here. — Alan^✉ 12:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Individual discussion subpages?

I'm sure this has been suggested before, but I find the difficulty in locating archived discussions that I've participated in or that I find links to (from when they were active discussions) troubling. If I find a user talk page with notices about an AN or ANI discussion it is a tremendous effort to locate where the discussion was archived. Why don't we have separate subpages like WP:MFD and some of the other XFDs do? Another alternative would be to organize by dated subpages like WP:TFD. In either case, the point is for the name to stay the same after archiving. Any history on this line of thinking that anyone can point me to?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This happens to me at least once a week, I think it's a worthy notion to somehow factor these sections each into their own page/URI. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that I look more carefully, it appears jc37 is suggesting something similar two threads above, but seems to be limiting it to ANI. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't that would work. It takes attention away from the discussions - most people become aware of them by watchlisting the noticeboards. It's not that hard to look through the archives if you know the approximate date of a discussion. Kelly ^hi! 00:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also "not that hard" to look through the logs of CfD. And there's the added benefit of automatic archiving, with the edit histories remaiing intact (rather than having a single page of immense edit history).

As for watchlisting, it's rather simple to watchlist cfds ahead of time, thanks to the naming standard. I've done over a month in advance before, and fairly quickly.

Note that I only advocate this for AN/I (see #AN/I proposal above. - jc37 00:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't, not sure about most people. I gave up on watchlisting AN and ANI a long time ago. You can't even tell if anyone has posted to a particular discussion you are interested in or even started one you're interested in, only the last post will show. Because the page changes so rapidly, it's best to just visit the page from time to time and read the TOC.

It is quite hard to look through the archives in my opinion. You have to start with a guess and start searching by date, since the entire page doesn't archive at once and you never know when one ended, you have to do a lot of searching sometimes. Add to this the fact that the archives is sequentially numbered rather than dated and the first guess is usually just a wild one.

jc, why would you want to only apply it to ANI, it's a simple set up to use.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Copied from my post at your talk page:

• Consider that (at least) more than half of the postings as WP:AN would be placed at AN/I, if AN/I were fixed in such a way as most "incidents" would be funnelled there, I have doubts that there would actually be a need to split AN at all.

Hope this clarifies. - jc37 01:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it shows greater urgency, but doesn't explain why such a process shouldn't be implemented in both places at once.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I notice now that you actually proposed something along these lines as an AN post currently still showing but scrapped the line of thinking to rework it. Unfortunately it won't help for me to link to it because it will archive soon. Can you give more details about what you were proposing?:-)--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "scrap" anything about the initial idea. (To move the content/edit history of AN to a subpage, and make AN a navpage.) Merely that others looked at the idea and decided that that was the place to place their personal sub-page ReOrg ideas, which was obviously leading to confusion. - jc37 17:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry jc, I didn't mean it the way it came across; I'm not meaning to come down on your plans, just trying to understand them. What exactly was the idea? I was having trouble following it. Would it be along the lines of AFD's set up where you don't find any discussions on the main page?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, after having seen all too many discussions regarding AN and AN/I, all usually devolving into confused discussions of ReOrg, where most everyone agrees that there is an issue, but everyone has their own tweaks to the solution, and so nothing gets implemented.

So I decided that the best course would be to start with something that I think most could agree upon: That AN is often the "first stop" for editors, and regardless of subpages they post to this page.

So if, instead, this page was instead, a navpage, (sort of like an office building's directory) which would point you to the proper sub-page, then we would eliminate that problem.

So the question would next be: How can this be implemented in the least disruptive fashion?

My answer: move this page (which retains/maintains the page's edit history) to a new location, to "free up" this location for use as the navigation directory.

The new location would still be on people's watchlists (the software does that automatically), which would deal with those concerns. And we'd lose nothing, yet gain in navigation and usage. Would seem like a win-win to me.

And currently, there seems support for this move at WP:AN, but I'm waiting for the thread to archive, and I'll re-start it as a straw poll.

(For the reasons outlined above: If we keep it to a simple question of whether the page may be moved, it reduces confusion, and gives people something straight-forward to discuss/understand. ReOrg proposals, by their nature, tend to be complex in some way, and people often oppose due to merely not understanding (among other reasons).)

As for AN/I that's a different question. Whether the page should be split up, and how that should occur. There has been consensus in the past that it should, but then the discussion unravels on the "how". So rather than re-invent the wheel, I was suggesting to replace the single noticeboard with a process just like CfD. Since AN/I is archived daily, there is ample justification for going to a daily log system like CfD uses. And it's a system that most are aquainted with and accustomed to, due to it being a system already in use elsewhere.

Anyway, I hope that clarifies my two proposals. Note that I don't want to conflate the two of them, because either one can be implemented regardless of whether the other one is. Of the two, I most strongly support AN becoming a nav page. In my opinion, the AN/I proposal is incidental in comparison. - jc37 20:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so would AN in its current form continue, only under a new name, such as "Administrator's noticeboard/General notices"?-Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Though based on past discussions, and such: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Administrators. - jc37 00:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Role of AN?

What is the current role of WP:AN, as distinct from the sub-boards? I never know when to post something to AN vs. AN/I, for instance.--Father Goose (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding has been that AN/I is for informing or soliciting action or opinion concerning an action/event or incident. With the implication of wanting insight (at minimum) but typically wanting action or consensus concerning an action.

AN would seem to be more a general "administrator's talk page". A place for admins to be notified of things which might interest them. A place for admins to ask other admins concerning their own actions, which sometimes doesn't suggest an "incident", or isn't an incident yet. (Though sometimes it does. It can be a fine line. And sometimes, those involved don't realise that the situation may have crossed that line.) A clear example might be: an admin asks for a 3PO concerning his or her interpretation of a situation or policy. It's not about an incident, or it's tangental to an incident. But a place for such proactive requests for comment should exist. (As opposed to reactive, as WP:RfC seems to be.)

So I guess the short version is that it's a notice place for admins, and a place for proactive requests for comment concerning an interpretation, or future action.

So I guess AN/I is reactive, and AN is proactive.

There's probably more, but I think that's the main distinction. - jc37 18:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. What I'm driving at is that your proposed name for the relocated AN (Administrators' noticeboard/Administrators) is even more confusing than the current situation. How about something like Administrators' noticeboard/General issues?--Father Goose (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have my heart set on any specific name, I'd just like to reduce confusion : )

And "general issues" would get everything : )

But anyway, the reason I'm not incredibly concerned about the name is that, when this becomes a nav page, each page can be explained there, and quickly explained on each. (And not have a monstrous intro header on every page, which no one reads.)

I only put for /Administrators because the last few times I seem to recall that that had the most consensus, for the least disruption.

Atm, I just want to see this move happen : ) - jc37 04:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, pick some name that gives at least a vague indication of what it's for, even if that's "everything that doesn't fit in the other categories". "General notices?" "General discussion?" "Other issues?" Hmm, I think I like "other issues" best, since it is the "everything else" page.--Father Goose (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

How about /Not incidents? : )

I honestly don't think that any of the suggested names will do anything but suggest: "Place anything and everything here".

I wish there was a way to convey the "proactive vs. reactive" duality of "AN vs. AN/I" in the naming, but I honestly can't think of anything. - jc37 07:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Two issues, both need action

OK, so there are two distinct issues here:

1. AN needs to move to a subpage and we need to make the current AN page a directory. There is no one saying the current system is better. Let's settle on a name and make this happen. If others don't like the new name, it can change later. I personally like jc's suggestion of /Administrators as it helps editors understand that it's really a place to talk about administrator issues, rather than to get administrators to do something. But I really don't care.
2. ANI (and possibly the new AN subpage) need an improved archiving system sort of like some of the XFDs. jc prefers the WP:CFD model which has dated subpages where the actual discussions take place; I would prefer a model more like WP:MFD where each discussion gets its own subpage so that it is possible to watchlist a single discussion. Again, no one is disagreeing about the need. Maybe the WP:AFD model would be best as it incorporates both (there are dated subpages and discussion specific sub-subpages). We certainly have sufficient volume to justify it. Anyway, I think it's time to act.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the current system, and don't see the need to change it. Why make things complicated for no good reason? The current single page AN and ANI system works just fine. I like having everything on one page, so history and watchlists are easy to track. I don't want to have to bounce around transclusions and subpages. Neıl ☄ 18:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying the current system is better. Rather than moving AN and disrupting what has been a long standing noticeboard, create a subpage as a general list/directory of noticeboards if such a page is actually needed (I don't think it is). I don't believe moving all discussions to subpages similar to an AfD system will improve anything, and will only serve to complicate matters. No change. - auburnpilot talk 19:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I see this and similar proposals keep coming up; as far as I can tell, they've not been implemented because they're not supported by a critical mass of people. As far as "no one is disagreeing about the need," that's hogwash I'm afraid. Subpage models work in scenarios where discussions get "closed" decisively with a finite end point, and each discussion has a clear focus on one specific, predetermined topic, neither of which is the case on these pages. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion was really hard to follow so I'm not quite sure where I'm supposed to be adding my two cents, but I was just going to come here to suggest this (to suggest that each discussion be on its own separate page like Articles for Deletion)... its really frustrating looking at your watchlist when you're just trying to follow one distinct discussion and you're trying to figure out what changes are relevant and which are not... not least the fact that it takes up a lot of room on your watch list. Being able to watchlist the individual discussion would be fantastic and I'm sure it would make things a lot easier all round. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 22:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• I object to this change in its entirety. We already have problems with vandals attacking the ANI page, requiring it to be protected from time to time. You fragment it into multiple little pages, and keeping track of what's been vandalized, what's been protected, and for how long will be a nightmare. Corvus cornix_talk 06:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't cascading protection ala the main page work here? spryde | talk 13:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That would prevent legitimate anons from being able to post. Corvus cornix_talk 18:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Cascading protection only works for full protection, so unless these discussions will be admin only, that won't work. - auburnpilot talk 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Increase archive kb limit

Unless anyone objects I will increase the archive size limit to 400k. Maybe it's just because of my OCD but 474 archive pages is...a lot. We're half way to 1000! --mboverload@ 02:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

On the same sort of note I was thinking that Cluebot3 could be used to archive AN and ANI. It has a new feature that will archive a section when the section has a set string in it as well as the standard time. Maybe set the string to {{resolved}} / {{resolved| and things like that. This could help keep the main AN and ANI pages a little smaller. I also agree that the archives are getting too big, It's quite hard to find anything you need now. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

400k is a good limit, also I like the idea of moving resolved issues out faster, I wonder if we could have Misza and Clue bots tag team the page? MBisanz ^talk 08:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I brought up a similar idea with Misza here last December. Not quite sure whether she managed to change it (not quite sure whether there was any related discussion to discuss the proposed change. D.M.N. (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have increased the limit to 400kb. Please note that AN is 444kb right now, so an archive @ 400kb would be very reasonable, perhaps conservative! I am pretty interested in the faster removal of resolved threads. That would be most helpful! --mboverload@ 04:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am seeking opinions on increasing the limit again to 550kb. Currently the archives are only lasting around 6 days! Maybe we should talk less on this page....--mboverload@ 03:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

How about going to monthly archives with no size limit? Seems like a better choice. If anyone really wants to stay with a limit, then move to at least 750K. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Could be a good idea. the archives could get very big though. Also all the older archives would then kind of be out of place ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 08:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well new months would be that way, we would leave the old ones behind. In the meantime I think we should get some more opinions before we move to 750k.--mboverload@ 02:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to advise caution here: often AN itself causes my browser to hang, and my computer is less than six months old, with AN around 300k. --RFBailey (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you using IE6 or IE7? --mboverload@ 03:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

IE7 on Vista. (That'll teach me to rely on Microsoft products....) --RFBailey (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts

The page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts tends to act more like a "beginners ask questions here" page. This isn't really a problem, but it might be useful to activate bot archiving of the page since rarely, if ever, do threads need to be moved to the real AN. The header could also do with being changed to something a bit newbie-friendly (at the moment it uses WP jargon - not good on a page aimed at people with less than 5 days/20 edits!) with some pointers to other places to get help and advice.

Thoughts? And don't say {{sofixit}}! ;o) ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 09:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I created it a long time ago, and well no one else ever touched it, I'll try to get around to a bot archiving it and maybe some pointers to the help desk or something. MBisanz ^talk 16:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive boxes and comment removal.

I won't revert again, but I don't understand why we re quenching discussion and adding archiveboxes? Why are we also removing comments? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trolling. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How dare you call my edits trolling? Back off of me. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The original request was asking people to help at closing deletion discussions, something that per WP:NAC isn't even a 100% administrative function. Turning it into a discussion as to why a particular user feels they have been wrong by the community by not having the administrator flag is totally off-topic and not particularly helpful to the debate at hand. MBisanz ^talk 23:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a differential edit of someone complaining about being wronged? I know your not talking about my edit. I was referring and suggesting lowering of bars at RFA so we can get administrators. So... what are you talking about? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, you should not be closing discussions because you do not agree with the content. That is inflammatory. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Many of us have been here long enough to understand the implicit meaning behind the statement you made, so let's not delude ourselves into believing it was just another randomly made comment. —kurykh 23:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz: Let discussions die naturally. Butting in to one that's still going and trying to close it annoys people.

NonvocalScream: Work on the issues pointed out in your RfAs. Take issues of general RfA philosophy to the appropriate page such as WT:RFA.

Tossing around accusations of trolling is rarely a good way to get a civil discussion going. Even if you're right. Everyone is advised to chill. —Giggy 00:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not accuse anyone of trolling, this has nothing to do with my RFA, I'm not asking for adminship. I was only trying to address a need for admins on AN. I'm chilling. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To quote from the creation of AN

::::::Its purpose is to allow administrators to communicate ideas and for admin talk to happen. As we're not an elite club, just normal editors with some special functions, other non-administrators can use it. But think of it primarily as an administrator tool.

I would not class a conversation on the fairness of RFA to fall inside what AN houses (what call to action was there?), and as users are continually complaining about its length and as there were better forums for such a discussion, namely WT:RFA or WP:VPR, I felt it best to close the discussion here. MBisanz ^talk 15:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Another example

Here is another example of thread closures. By the edit summary, the intent was to stop an ongoing discussion. Please note that I am not addressing any specific editor above, or now, but a systemic issue. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Essay

I wrote up some sorts on this stuff at User:Giggy/Why early archiving is bad. Comments welcome. Giggy (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I do think there would be some wisdom in revisiting Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Clerks, threads can turn into flame wars or spin off in insane directions, and some form of moderation would be nice. MBisanz ^talk 12:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Violation of TTN's Restriction?

I'm relatively inexperienced in matters of Arbcom, but this [13] would appear to be in violation of TTN's restrictions, especially considering the similarity to this situation which resulted in a one week block. I realize that his restriction expires within the week, but if its a violation then its a violation.75.93.9.235 (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he trimmed out some minor characters, and reduced the size of the article by about 20%. Exactly what restriction do you think that kind of editing violates? Certainly a 20% trim can't be confused with attempted deletion.Kww (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've realized that I should have posted about this at the incident board instead, and for that I appologize. In reply to Kwww, like I said I'm not intimately familar with Arbcom but his restriction page says that its terms are to interpreted broadly and so I am. Futhermore this case is almsot identical to the one I cited and if that was enough to violate his restriction I don't see why this would be any different.75.93.9.235 (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

move protection.

Is there any reason NOT to indefinitely move-protect this page? or is it not possible for technical reasons? ThuranX (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it already was? The only reason it would become un-protected is if someone puts [edit: autoconfirmed, move: sysop] and sets an expiry, and no one notices. Then when the edit: autoconfirmed expires, so does move protection. That's one reason you're not supposed to set an expiry on semi-protection (the other being that the vandals will know when to come back). Or I might be completely muddled and thinking of AN/I... Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 17:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting isn't a move. It's just blanking and sticking a redirect tag on it. Can't prevent that with move protection. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding Persian Wikipedia to the list

Resolved.

Please one of the admins add the [[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:تابلوی اعلانات مدیران]] to the interwiki list. --Kaaveh (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not as obvious as I thought. Leave it with me. --Rodhullandemu 20:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Kaaveh (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Late here for me, and my technical expertise is limited, if not exhausted. Anyone else know how to do this? I guess it's a template somewhere, but I can't find it. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 22:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaaveh: If I understand you right you want the interwiki link [[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:تابلوی اعلانات مدیران]] added to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, right? But I checked, it is already there, don't you see it? And it has been there since 28 February.

Rodhullandemu: If you look at the page code at the top of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard you see this code: {{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}. That is a transclusion of the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header. And if you look in the code of that page you will see the interwiki links at the bottom in the includeonly area.

Anyway, as I said, the link is already there and is working. (And as far as I can see it is the exact same spelling, but I don't read Persian very well...)

--David Göthberg (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged. I'll know for next time. --Rodhullandemu 18:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Easy navigating

Could I nicely ask we not use {{user}} in section headings? When clicking on a watchlist section link, it doesn't interpret the template correctly, so it won't go to the right section of AN. Putting the template right before the section heading should provide the right information. MBisanz ^talk 19:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

But the TOC links work properly, don't they? Sounds to me more like a MediaWiki bug to be filed rather than a constriction we must succumb to. Миша13 19:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. It's a MediaWiki bug. The watchlist isn't encoding curly brackets properly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this pertain to all the user information templates (userNN, userlinks, IPvandal, usercheck, userrights, etc.), or just {{user}}? --MCB (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The bug affects all headlines with curly brackets in them, so yes, those will not work either, even text that does not transclude such as "{hi}" causes the problem. - Icewedge (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have filed a bugzilla report bugzilla:15668. - Icewedge (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Help on Rules

First off I could not figure where to post this so I will post It here

The rules are some what unclear

the rules that are most important are not (clear cut) easily understood. so maybe those obviously Important rules should be made in language that is more understandable to everybody not just for people who take the time to dissect them --65.35.113.170 (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the wrong place. I suggest the help desk for specific issues you have a problem with. Thanks. -- how do you turn this on 21:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Indef protection?

Okay, so it's not protected, and there is Gwp vandalism. So it gets semi protected. No more vandalism. The protection expires. What do you know, more Gwp vandalism. So then it is semiprotected again- until tomorrow. Anyone for an indefinite semi? IP's barely edit this page except to vandalize it. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Those of us who have not yet reached our four days editing requirement can't edit it. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No. It's a variation on the old RBI cycle; semiprotect for a few hours until whoever gets bored. This noticeboard is too busy to indefinitely semi-protect, and independent expiries makes it easy to add brief semiprotection spells.--chaser - t 06:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverts are cheap, good editors are hard to come by. If someone has a problem that should be reported here, they should be permitted to report it. Permanently locking out a large group of editors from reporting problems might scare many of those away. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think WP:ANI should be indefinitely semi-protected. Vandalism can be reverted. IPs should be allowed to participate in ANI discussions. Preventing editors from reporting problems is not healthy for Wikipedia. AdjustShift (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:INCIDENT

I have just created a redirect for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents called WP:INCIDENT. What does everyone think?. Mythdon (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not needed and not linked from anywhere; but redirects are cheap, I suppose. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 11:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We also need redirects at WP:DRAMA and WP:RUBBERNECK.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was sarcasm, but the first already exists.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's hardly surprising :-) Wonders why I watch this page... -- how do you turn this on 11:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that redirect is needed. There are other redirects for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI, WP:ANB/I). AdjustShift (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

New section button?

Could we put something like this at the top of the page?

(Unfortunately, I can't get rid of the input box - if anyone else can, that would be great!)

<inputbox>
type=comment
editintro=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Guidelines
preload=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Preload
default=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#
buttonlabel=Create a new section
bgcolor=clear
width=0
</inputbox>

Text of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Preload:

*{{Userlinks|name of user concerned}} <!-- (repeat or remove as appropriate) -->
*{{IPVandal|IP address concerned}} <!-- (repeat or remove as appropriate) -->
*{{La|name of article concerned}} <!-- (repeat or remove as appropriate) -->
A description of the problem, issue or incident.

I'll leave the guidelines up to you...

What do you think? Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 23:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That renders:

Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 00:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Got it!

<inputbox>
type=comment
editintro=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Guidelines
preload=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Preload
default=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#
buttonlabel=Create a new section
bgcolor=clear
width=0
hidden=yes
</inputbox>

creates:

Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 01:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to change the "Using this page" heading if you chuck this at the top. --Gwib (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for reminding me. This should help to standardise AN reports, if used consistently. Maybe we could get rid of the new section tab too...

This needs consensus before I will implement it, so I could do with some discussion =P. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 08:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Will it break the bot's ability to archive? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No - it simply adds a button to the top of the page - like a larger version of the 'new section' tab, but allowing us to standardise AN reports. The bot won't even notice. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 22:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh - and it will get rid of {{s in section headers. They break edit summaries. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 14:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything like this, to skirt the bane of {{foo|bar}} tags in section headers is ok by me. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. How would it have that effect? What's to say some idiot won't pick the most applicable template and paste it into the edit summary box (which, in &section=new mode, becomes the section header)? You'd be better off running a bot to de-link the section headers (I mean why not? We're de-linking everything else these days...) — CharlotteWebb 15:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

{{foo|bar}} tags? I keep finding out how little I know, sigh. Doug Weller (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to be confused with FUBAR tags such as {{DTTR}}. — CharlotteWebb 16:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now, people use things like =={{User1|Dendodge}}==. This way, they would see a place to put a username and put it there instead. It wouldn't completely abolish templates in section headers, but it would help. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 20:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lime green? Yuck. The color really does not look good. Maybe it's just my screen. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh - that happens on IE. Is this better?

Still lime green. It has no color on firefox. 63.80.111.2 (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's made by:

<inputbox>
type=comment
editintro=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Guidelines
preload=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Preload
default=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#
buttonlabel=Create a new section
bgcolor=white
width=0
hidden=yes
</inputbox>

Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 15:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I'll go ahead and add it. DendodgeTalk^Contribs 16:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI is too large

At 600k plus, this page becomes inacccessible to people on slower connections. We need to keep it smaller. Possible solutions:

1. Add "angry mode" to the archive bot so it archives quicker when the page is too big.
2. Create a new sub-board for conplaints about uses of admin powers. These threads are often lengthy.
3. Create a new sub-board for discussing bans and sanctions. These discussions are also lengthy and should probably remain open longer that 24-48 hours.
4. Have a bot that automatically creates a subpage for any thread that exceeds a specified length.

Thanks for considering this. Jehochman ^Talk 12:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The last time I (as LessHeard vanU) participated in this perennial discussion there was a suggestion about making the page similar to WP:RfA, where the topics were subst'd onto the page and editing each topic topic took you to an individual page. I think there were technical difficulties in archiving, as there wasn't a bot sophisticated enough, as well as general inertia regarding change. I don't know if this should be resurrected. LHvU (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the bot I wrote for that task is still idling somewhere nearby; it had solved most (all?) technical concerns but was still subject to significant change inertial and the proposal simply faded. — Coren ^(talk) 15:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If Jehochman doesn't mind perhaps we can try to see if there is any more support this time for this proposal; maybe if we make it a new option along with those he placed above? LHvU (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll revive my idea at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 7#Solution to size and subpage issues. It seemed to get positive response but never went anywhere. FWIW, I've actually stopped looking at WP:ANI altogether because it brings my entire machine to a screeching halt. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I dropped ANI from my watchlist some time ago for the same reason, Wknight94. I have cable internet, and it took quite a while to load; for dialup users it simply refused to load. Horologium (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the best bet is to just break it up by topic. If people post to the wrong place, it should be easy enough to move things and leave them a note where the post can be found, and leave a link to the original diff. What does ANI consist of?

• Complaints about harassment, personal attacks, disruption
• Proposals to ban/unban editors
• Complaints about admin actions
• Misplaced stuff where we tell the people where else to go

Why not just sort this out into these categories?

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for incidents requiring a block
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Bans for long term problems
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Complaints for whining informal complaints about admins

I think the technical solution or changes in formatting will encounter a lot of inertia. Simply sorting content by type and putting it into three buckets with clear linkages should work pretty well. People can watch whichever pages they like. If ANI is so big that people don't bother looking at it, that is clearly a problem. Jehochman ^Talk 18:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If the board is split, it is better if none of the new ones has the name of the old one. That helps counteract inertia. So maybe Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and bans and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Complaints. This would affect the header which says "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department." — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing that is not being considered here is the effect that this will have on people who are trying to post a new incident. I am not exactly making an argument against splitting, just saying please consider the position of the poor user who may be coming here for the first time and may have very limited Wiki experience. The page header is quite intimidating enough as it is with already 16 choices of places to post and this proposition is only going to increase that. Maybe simplifying the layout into an easy to read tabular form might help. The idea of sub-pages, if it were to function anything like at AfD, I think would be quite intimidating for the inexperienced. SpinningSpark 21:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(Most) Newbies don't know this page exists. They are better directed to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. Perhaps we should add that link to the welcome templates. I have just shortened Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader. Imploring people to use clue doesn't really work. Either they have clue, or they don't. Also, people are more likely to read shorter instructions.

Either we need to be diligent about hacking out long discussions to sub pages, or we need to split the board. Having a page that is consistently 400k - 600k disenfranchises people on slow connections or using low spec computers. That is just unacceptable. How about Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks (ANI would redirect there), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Bans (new page), Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard/Complaints (new page, for possible abuse of sysop tools). Jehochman ^Talk 08:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC) (Added 10:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC))

As experiment, I've dropped the archival time from 48 hours to 40. Let's see how it will behave for several days. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

...and I've just archived two very large threads. Jehochman ^Talk 08:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jehocham, I don't think it is right to dismiss newbies with they "don't know this page exists". They soon find out if someone makes an AN/I report on them. Someone with something to report is most likely to be directed here by Editor Assistance. There are such redirections there right now. All I am saying is give it a thought, there is no advantage in making it uneccessarily difficult. SpinningSpark 09:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Most newbies don't get reported at ANI, and most (>95%) newbies don't know ANI exists. This is not "dismissing" them; it is a statement that most people posting to ANI are experienced enough that they can follow directions to post on different pages according to topics. ANI is a less desirable forum for newbies to post to than WP:EAR because ANI is geared up for blocking people rather than helping them. Jehochman ^Talk 10:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We should also look to see what lessons were learned the last time we tried to split off a subcategory of AN/I traffic: Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. (It was closed about a year ago, in October 2007.) The purpose of that board was to move all discussions of long-term community bans of disruptive editors to a specific place. (Those discussions had a habit of growing to be quite lengthy, becoming mini-RfCs on AN and AN/I.) I'm not sure what happened to that board, exactly. Was the problem that its mandate tended to overlap with that of AN/I, meaning that discussions tended to be misplaced?

One alternative practice to control the size of these noticeboards is to shuffle long threads off to a subpage. While that strategy does keep the size of AN/I down, it has the unfortunate side effect of polarizing discussions. (Only the people who are emotionally involved in the issue will watchlist the discussion and continue to participate.) I'm not sure that I've seen any issues reach any sort of successful consensus after being subpaged, but I could be mistaken. In some cases, it may be beneficial solely because it removes the audience and disputants lose interest once they can't play to a crowd. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Before we go and sort AN and AN/I into subcategories, I would ask one (or more) of the advocates for this solution to hit the archives and break up a couple of sample pages according to their proposed scheme. This would serve at least two useful purposes.

1. We could see if the strategy would effectively reduce the size of AN(/I). If we get twenty threads per day and only one (on average) is about admin abuse, then creating a separate subpage may not be useful.
2. We can see if the categorization scheme is actually workable. In the vast majority of cases, is it clear which subpage a particular request belongs on? Do many cases involve situations that might belong on more than one proposed subpage? Are there many cases which might start out in one category, but properly belong elsewhere by the end of the discussion?

To be fair, there can be other advantages to splitting AN/I beyond merely reducing its size. It might allow editors with expertise in the investigation or resolution of certain classes of disputes to focus their attention better; it would also finer-grained control of things like archiving times for specific types of discussion. The flip side is that issues might receive narrower exposure than they do now; some subpages might just become WP:AN/DRAHMA cesspits. Still, the mockups would help. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This board's Edit Notice

Just a thought: We have an edit notice here (located at MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Administrators' noticeboard) that suggest users that cannot edit the page that they try an other location. If I remember correctly however, edit notices are only visible when you can edit a page. I'm not sure the notice is useful :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, and there is no Viewsourcenotice, so this should be deleted. — CharlotteWebb 13:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed the notice. Any other admin should feel totally free to reverse me if they disagree with this action. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and added a different notice. Feedback welcome. --barneca (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Good thought, yes, but is there some way to express it without drawing attention to the misfortunes of a specific user? — CharlotteWebb 15:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to do that, but I thought a link to the decision was appropriate, and that's the only way to link to ARBCOM decisions, AFAIK. I'll temporarily remove the link and see if someone has a better idea. --barneca (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is intended only as a "gentle reminder" there's no need to mention arbcom or its rulings. — CharlotteWebb 15:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Further tweaks welcome. --barneca (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A very interesting consequence of this. The notice changes are also showing up on all sub-pages of WP:AN. Edit notices on one page appear to automatically cascade down onto sub-pages. Specifically so far I've seen it on WP:ANI and WP:AE. This brings up 2 important issues. 1) This behaviour of edit notices needs to be known and kept in mind when working on these things. 2) I wonder if there is any way to disable the cascade effect if it is not desired. Maybe a blank edit notice at the sub-pages will override the cascade. Hmm....

In this specific case, I think the new message is still applicable to all three noticeboards, so the cascade is not a problem. But we should keep it in mind as we further tweek the message. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I created a test MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (now deleted), but it has no effect; MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Administrators' noticeboard is still the edit notice when you go to edit WP:ANI. --barneca (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In this specific case I agree that the cascade effect is a positive one, less work to maintain these. Even better if we could somehow invoke it for all pages matching Wikipedia:.*[Nn]oticeboard. No idea how it's done but somehow all disambiguation pages share a common edit notice, whether they have "_(disambiguation)" in the title or not.

Personally I think we should capitalize on this feature (whether it's intentional or not) and add an editnotice for all AFD subpages.

On the other hand if you want to keep the base-page editnotice from appearing on the sub-pages you could put something like:

{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}} | Page for which intended | Happy editing <snicker>}}

Then it will not appear when editing Page for which intended/Subpage, though it might still prevent a different editnotice from being used there. I'll have to test this. — CharlotteWebb 17:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind that, you have to replace "/" by "-" in the page title anyway, and yes it would be cumulative [14]. — CharlotteWebb 17:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguations are useing the {{disambig}} template somehow to know which pages to put that template on. I've seen a number of times where, before the template was added, no edit notice. After, edit notice. Maybe an archaological expedition into that template is in order to see how it's triggering it.

For a single message source for a disparate series of articles that want the same edit notice, I myself just templated up the notice like normal, and used the template on the MediaWiki page. That way, I only have to change one template to change the message on a number of pages. Specifically {{Romeo notice}} if anyone is interested. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Dmbox}} seems to be the core functionality template for disambigs, and by Dmbox's documentation, it's triggered by the "type = disambig" parameter. Still digging.... - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

And the message itself comes from {{Disambig editintro}}. I think I've reached my limit, though, as the code of Dmbox is beyond my level of technical expertise to decifer. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, it's all template-driven. Which means that, in theory, such messages could also be triggered by AFD, PROD, or CSD templates. I would love to see a warning edit message on CSDs, for instance, with info for the original creator not to remove the CSD notice, but that they can add Hangon. A short and sweet version of what's in the CSD templates themselves, but so often missed by article creators. It'll need someone well above my level of wiki-coding expertise to implement, though. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. The magic is worked at MediaWiki:Common.js, in the (currently) very last section on that page.

This discussion is now far, far from the topic of the WP:AN edit notice, so does someone know of a much more proper place to continue this? - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:Village pump (miscellaneous) or maybe the mailing list . No really, I don't know. — CharlotteWebb 17:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

For the discussion of where to continue this discussion (discussing edit notices for other pages), I'll move to CharlotteWebb's.... discussion page. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty bad case of not RTFM. :-) Wikipedia:Editnotice, Template:Editnotice, and Wikipedia:Software notices. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The current edit notice seems.. well.. really stupid. For starters, this is not an arbcom ruling, it's a finding of fact (things that are already facts...). Second, wtf is it supposed to mean? A threat in the name of arbcom (ooo, scary) that if you comment about stuff you don't understand you'll.. what.. get banned by arbcom? I would certainly hope that's not what is being implied here, because that's absurd. The current edit notice isn't helpful at all, and should be removed. -- Ned Scott 02:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive timeframe

I'm not sure if it matters, or which one is correct, but this shows the archive timeframe as 40 hours. If you look at the top right section of the page, it says it is archived every 48 hours.--Rockfang (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

When subpaging a thread due to size/edit velocity concerns, please remember to update Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/Subpages. MBisanz ^talk 15:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Archiving 3

Why do Archives 497, 499 and 500 have only one entry each, and archive 498 only has three? Mike R (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Smashville's close and warning

User:Smashville closed a thread with the "full enclosure". This closure template says that "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page" So my initial threshold question is what is the "appropriate discussion page" for this issue? Is this the appropriate discussion page? I would also like to point out that the comments on the closure clearly did not meet the consensus of the other editors at the discussion. "He has been warned that his continous pursuit of the matter is disruptive and that any further mention of it will lead to a block" makes it seem like he was warned by others. However, that is not the case. It was Smashville that just issued this warning. Not only that, there clearly was no consensus among the editors at the thread that the 72 block was warranted, if a block was warranted at all. This makes Smashville's closure and warning that be would be blocked if he ever mentioned this issue again all the more troubling. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI and AN

Are two boards needed? Why not one? ANI are for moderate fires and AN for little fires? AN has far fewer archives and could be combined with ANI. I'm sure there's a history that I'm not aware. Enlighten me? Chergles (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It was already discussed on ANI (I Believe), and the common answer is "We're already having to archive things too quickly, and combining them would make it too big, unwieldy/unreadable) SirFozzie (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Volume alone, I think, would make a merge prohibitively difficult. That aside, it may be more useful to better distinguish the purpose of each board; to my mind, AN/I in particular is more suited to the sort of urgent thread where one or two quick responses can settle an issue, where AN is more suited to issues which are less urgent, or need more time in the limelight for whatever reason. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Community sanction noticeboard

What happened to it, and does anyone know of the thread which gave consensus to closing it? Given the greater seriousness of community sanctions, it seems worthwhile to have a page devoted to them, so that they are not drowned out by the more trivial notices on the general boards. II | (t - c) 20:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (second nomination). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

DRV link in header

Current wording:

To request a review of a deletion or to request undeletion of a page, see deletion review.

Shouldn't this be "a review of a deletion discussion"? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily; speedy deletions are also reviewable at DRV.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is covered by the second half. As it is written, contesting a discussion which closed in keep or no consensus aren't covered. Most of the time, the people who are contesting those decisions understand the proper procedure, but occasionally we see such requests at AN. I agree with Chris Cunningham on this point. Horologium (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Collapsing BC discussion

Can we only collapse those sub sections where discussion has ceased, and move any now current sections into the collapsed area as required? I think we should balance readability with access. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest subpaging it. At the least remember to link this discussion at {{AN/B}} since it seems important. MBisanz ^talk 15:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Subpages are evil. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Subpages only hide threads. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is at 100kb currently, AN is only 300kb long, is 1/3 of all admins attention currently needed to resolve this matter or can it be nicely subpaged to be handled by those admins who have already responded today? MBisanz ^talk 04:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Subpaging is a bad idea, because it doesn't encourage new voices to be heard. This situation should remain on the main ANI page so that as many new voices can be added to the discussion as possible. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed for exactly the reasons you provide. I'm wondering why there's this odd fascination with shuffling discussions off to subpages lately. So what if the page is over 100kb? Sections have been collapsed using templates, that solves the big issue. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a nice cable modem, so it doesn't matter is a page is over 100kb for me, but for poor souls with dialup or overtaxed corporate networks, loading an extra 100kb of an already 300kb page is grindingly slow. MBisanz ^talk 09:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think both concerns are legitimate. However, it's neither fair nor ideal that this incident can seemingly appear to be more important than another which has yet to be reported due to the sheer size of the page and how long it takes to load (collapsed boxes do nothing in that regard). We can't wait the full week hoping something will happen; given this is the second day of discussions (or so), I suggest subpaging after 24 hours. If the community is interested in resolving this, adding one extra page to a watchlist will not be a problem. In the meantime, for those who aren't so interested (but will contribute while it's on the main page), they can do so in the next 24 hours. I think that's a fair compromise? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

People can't "add one extra page to a watchlist" if they don't know the discussion exists. As was mentioned above, it's best to leave it where it is for more eyes and comments as people come across it. They won't "come across it" hidden on a subpage. I say leave it where it is, in a collapsed state as it progresses. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 10:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? People know the discussion exists because it's linked on ANI - so uhhh...they do come across it. Additionally, I wasn't aware that it was a requirement for Wikipedia users to have high speed internet in order to make a complaint at ANI...nor was I aware that it was a requirement to force users to read a discussion (because of its sheer size), even though they may have no interest in it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is forced to read it. Forced to download it maybe, but not to read it. Once the situation with BC is addressed it can be archived. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; "download" then - that would still be resolved via subpaging. Further, you failed to address the issue of suddenly making it a requirement that others need high speed internet in order to make a complaint. I refuse to participate in that discussion for burdening other users with such costs. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection of ANI

Resolved

 – Motives of protecting admin misunderstood due to imperfection of the english language. –xeno (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection of ANI to prevent non-admins commenting is disruptive and divisive. DuncanHill (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This was temporary to reduce the edit conflicts while subpaging; I don't see a problem with it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The trick is to set up a subpage first to save the page creation lag, even in the most heated editting I've always been able to swap in and out on a subpage. MBisanz ^talk 22:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It was reversed in any case. Avruch ^T 22:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops - I wouldn't have reversed it if I'd understood that "subpage" was a verb. I read the summary ("temporary halting high traffic to subpage") to mean "Halting high traffic to a subpage (of AN)". Oh well - no harm no foul. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I too read subpage as a substantive. DuncanHill (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? We're having drama about moving drama? Can we do something else? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

These aren't the droids we're looking for. Move along, move along. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"No further edits should be made to this discussion"

This relates to an ANI thread entitled User:Eleland, following the closure of the discussion:

Is this how this board is supposed to work? An administrator (in this case ChrisO) involves himself in a discussion, his involvement is questioned, he responds by criticizing those who questioned his actions, and then four minutes after one of his responses, he himself closes the discussion. I guess that's a good way to make sure you get the last word in a discussion -- just declare the discussion over as soon as you say what you want to say. That way, the other parties to the discussion have three choices: One, remain silent in the face of injustice; two, re-open the thread; and three, start a new sub-thread which totally loses the continuity of the discussion. One, I don't do silence in the face of injustice very well. Two, this humble non-administrator does not wish to risk the potential consequences of undoing the closure of a discussion on the administrator's noticeboard. So three, here is a new sub-thread with my response.

ChrisO says I was "incivil" and suggests that I "tone it down." Since the strongest thing I said was that there was an "appearance of impropriety" -- that's not the strongest thing I thought of saying, but it's the strongest thing I actually did say -- it's tough to see how I could have "toned it down". Any more toned-down and I wouldn't have said anything at all -- which, I guess, is the point. But I have every right to say something, when I see an administrator repeatedly using his administrative powers to shape articles in a manner consistent with his ideological positions. If the rule really is as ChrisO says, that "Any administrator is empowered at any time to take admin action on BLP issues", then the rule needs to be changed. The reason why such a rule can't work is that there is no mathematical formula for distinguishing a BLP violation from a reasonable edit. There is no red light that starts flashing when an edit should be removed, so that any editor who happens by could merely take it out and shut off the flashing light. It is often a value judgment, and an involved admin should not be the one making that judgment. The "involvement" need not necessarily be with the specific article -- in this case we have an admin who is "involved", on a particular ideological "side", in an entire subject area. The ArbCom has said that actions against editors in this subject area should be taken by uninvolved admins. Why does it matter that an action is connected with what someone calls a BLP violation? Aren't there something like 1,500 admins? Aren't the vast majority of those admins uninvolved in the subject area in question? Why do we need one of the relatively small number of admins who is involved in that area to be deciding what is and isn't a BLP violation, or what length of block is warranted by another editor? Shouldn't the ArbCom's prohibition on enforcement by "involved" admins apply more to these situations, not less?

In the end, this is something for the larger body of admins to decide. If you folks can't police your own, us powerless serfs are left to either bear the brunt of administrators who decide to make their own rules, or we can leave. Recently, I have mostly done the latter; I have edited Wikipedia very little recently, due in large part to my unwillingness to spend time doing work that can easily be undone by people bent on using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes, some of whom have administrative powers and aren't shy about throwing their powers around to advance their agenda. Nevertheless, now and then there are things that need to be said, and I guess this has become one of those times. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Eleland where the prior history is. A new section could be appropriate if that was in fact archived, but this is just forum shopping. The last complaint was posted in three places and now its closure is being posted in two. I have half a mind to block for disruption for if you continue. Suggest closure as redundant. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

User:MiszaBot II seems to have stopped archiving the noticeboard and I can't work out why. It seems to be still archiving other pages, but this one hasn't been done since 8th December. Martin 14:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I noted the same thing. It's started again though. Apparently some spam links were blocking it from editing the page.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Following a similar stoppage in the past week, User:Canis Lupus changed the archive bot from MiszaBot II to ClueBot III. A side-effect of this change was the insertion of a space between "Archive" and its number:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive180 (MiszaBot II)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 180 (ClueBot III)

Fixing it may be as simple as removing the space in format= %%i, but I think that named template parameters already strip whitespace padding. Any mismatched archives must be moved to their proper names. Archiving seems to be working fine otherwise, so fixing this is not terribly urgent. Flatscan (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Every bot that ran off toolserver was down at the end of December as the servers were being relocated; this was announced beforehand on Meta. They should all be up and running now. – iridescent 15:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Does that mean that reverting to MiszaBot II should work properly? The naming mismatch still exists – should I try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) for more input? Flatscan (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted back to MiszaBot and archiving resumed, per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive182#Bots and Archives. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

copyright

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. Only public domain resources can be copied without permission — this does not include most web pages or images —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.80.236 (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Context please? —kurykh 20:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Anon probs

Please help me with [15] and [16], they are the same person who is disruptive, I found with 2 anon IP's (they admitted on my talk page) is all over user talk pages giving their personal "knowledge" of drug effects and "highs", and please read the bizarre exchange at the bottom of my talk page. I don't usually get involved in these things but there is a problem here. Thanks. Mjpresson (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Esp: "What else can I do to remove drug-forum-like information from the article and discourage this kind of drug-abuse?". Mjpresson (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Automatic archiving at ANI

Seems like MiszaBot is a little overeager to place 'inactive' WP:ANI threads in archives. Surely there's a way to avoid that problem (as seen here and here for a discussion prematurely archived twice.) Shouldn't threads that aren't marked as resolved stay on the board until they have been? ~Eliz81^(C) 03:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Threads on ANI are archived after 24 hours of inactivity. If something needs more consideration, it 1) can be brought back from the archives, and 2) doesn't really belong on ANI anyway, as ANI should be a place for more urgent requests. —kurykh 04:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist

Ncmvocalist, peeved at something or other in the AN/I thread, insists on extending this matter by edit-warring to enforce a {{resolved}} tag with a negative and misleading summary. It was removed by me and User:Dayewalker.[17]. I don't wanna be involved in such pettiness, so can someone else please deal with this. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

An involved administrator has no more standing than an uninvolved experienced editor, and I approached Dayewalker on user talk page. The only thing I'm peeved about is Deacon being given a license to refactor another person's comments in a thread where his actions were reversed for not being preventative. I warned Deacon here, then he removed the warning and opened this ridiculous thread. I request that he blocked to prevent disruptive edit-warring (without engaging in any discussion whatsoever). Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I just left a comment on my page in answer [18]. I reverted Ncm because it seems that Ncm is once again overstepping his authority and acting as an admin by closing a thread with a slght against an editor who he's having an argument with. I changed it to what I felt was a more accurate depiction of why the thread was resolved.

As for edit warring, Ncm, you've now made that same change four times in 24 hours. I didn't make another change because this really isn't worth fighting over to me, but it seems that you're the one edit warring to keep your interpretation of the discussion on the page. Dayewalker (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: While I was posting this, Ncm has now [19] reverted to his version a fifth time. Looking back, Ncm was both the editor who placed the tag [20] and who tweaked it [21] to add the disputed "punitive" tag, which he's placed five times now. Dayewalker (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dayewalker, it's futile to argue this point given that it had come to the point last year where I've been waiting for an excuse to leave this project. You have no excuse whatsoever in this case to remove my comments and replace them with your own or another person's. None. Additionally, given that you both reverted my comments without making any attempt to discuss it, I consider that utterly unhelpful - I extended an extra branch of good faith to you, clearly I didn't need to. You both could've discussed it, but chose to revert as a tag team. I have nothing further to add. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right. So when more than one appears to support you they are "consensus" but when against a "tag-team"?Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You reverted the same number of times, minus one - the minus one resulted from Dayewalker's revert which was identical to yours...what a coincidence! :O Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to learn to count.

Don't use "waiting for an excuse" to continue the same behavior. You originally closed this thread with a simple NPOV explanation, then after you and Deacon tied up on the talk page, you changed your "resolved" tag to reflect a POV on the matter. You are clearly edit warring, acting in "good faith" would involve admitting that and reverting your own insertion of opinion. Dayewalker (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh pft! Let's put that to a vote then shall we? I'll contact each admin that responded in the thread and ask them the simple question: was Deacon's action preventative? From that consensus, it'll be clear who's trying to POV-push to avoid responsibility, and who's trying to aid them in doing so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(OD)There's absolutely no need to canvass here, because there's no need to include your (or anyone else's) POV in a simple resolved tag. I'll assume that since you have no comebacks, my interpretation of the events are correct. Dayewalker (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: And now another editor has reverted you to a neutral, simple explanation for the closing of the thread. Please do not revert again. Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not here to play games and have comebacks with you, even if that's why you're here. In any case, I suggest you read up on canvassing seeing you clearly have no idea what it involves. Lesson #1: Contacting each admin that responded to the thread, regardless of their opinion, is not canvassing - it's simply a friendly notification. If the consensus reflects that Deacon's action was in fact preventative, then yes, I will remove the part about punitive from the tag. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant canvass in the grander sense, which is why I didn't link it. If you'd like to ask for a grand vote on whether or not to put that word in a resolved tag, by all means go ahead. Dayewalker (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My issue was the community consensus on how to deem his action (rather than what was the consequence - which was, reversing it). Deacon refused to accept that consensus which was the entire problem; the vote would've been to explicate the consensus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretations of your edits, but there's no point in continuing the discussion. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(@ Ncmvocalist) Deacon did not revert Georgewilliaherbert's reduction of the block; he accepted the unblock in practice and voiced his objection to the way it was done, which he is entitled to do. Whether the block was preventative or not was not much discussed by the three substantial contributors. My own opinion is that enforcing civility rules prevents civility violations; that point is so obvious it didn't need to be said. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If Deacon reverted, he would've lost his tools, however temporary or permanent that might've been. Yes, Deacon is entitled to object if there ws something wrong in the way it was done - the fact is, the dust has settled and the only person in the whole community who thinks something's wrong is Deacon. Deacon was given ample opportunity to fix the mess; he chose not to, compelling the community to do so for him. And why did the community find the need to reverse it? Because it was not a preventative measure, nor was it a well-considered action in the light of several circumstances (detailed in the discussion). I support measures to enforce civility violations; this is reinforced by the fact I reported one earlier. The entire issue is how you went about handling this incident at the time, and handling it afterwards. And again, if you were enforcing civility rules to prevent civility violations for the benefit of this project, you wouldn't engage in the exact same conduct, even below - which only reinforces the point that there are issues with your conduct and adminning. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The community didn't reverse it, Georgewilliamherbert did. My problem was that the matter was still under discussion. The thread was then taken over by you and your pointless aggravating posts. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

EC I think there is no need to have a personal attack in the resolve message. I have shorten it. If you think a need to discuss the matter further please open an RfC on Deacon or use other methods of WP:DR Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Alex; finally I can stop talking to an editor who is an example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I heard it, Ncm. I heard it and have tried to discuss it with you on two different pages. I'm glad you're listening to someone finally, and the edit war is over. Dayewalker (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you did hear it, then you should know that there's a difference between your edit, his edit, and Alex's edit; only one of them was acceptable for 2 reasons; status in both wiki and the incident, AND, the comment thereafter. I'm glad this is done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I disagree with you, but it's a moot point. Case closed. Dayewalker (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You revert 4 or 5 times to reinstate text you composed that was clearly designed to damage me, and then suggest I - the one against whom it was aimed - get blocked for removing/replacing it 3 times [despite the embarrassment of having to do this]; now you add another little personal attack like that and are postting calumnous comments on Alex Bakharev's talk page? It all just strikes me as childish petty malevolence. Your history with this kind of thing is long and much written of, and I do not particularly care if you leave wiki and thus end your delusional disruptive career as a self-appointed admin boss. Like the Dwight Schrute of television, the view might be funny from the outside but is not so nice when one actually has to deal with it - or at least when one has to deal with this negative side (I assume you do good things occasionally). Thanks to Dayewalker and Alex Bakharev for resolving this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh pft! Your ill-considered, malicious and deluded talk will get you no where, except to compound and reinforce the point that there are problems with your adminning and conduct. And btw, if you think that's a personal attack, feel free to sue me; my only response would be that the truth sometimes hurts (no point trying to hide your problems under the rug). The only history I have is for insisting the project does what is right by its contributors, and vice versa. That involves being vocal: calling a spade a spade, and doing what is necessary to (1) rid the project of problem editors; (2) ensure good contributors do not leave or think of leaving as a result of mistakes or problematic decisions by others, etc. It doesn't involve careers or being some kind of boss. Enough contributors have found problems with you as it is, and I am yet another who also had the displeasure of interacting with you. Rest assured, you're not worthy any more of my time, especially when you refuse to refrain from blatant incivility yourself. Bye! Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As someone who does the job you seek to do well, I'd seriously suggest you find another hobby. Your posts are characterised by lack of insight, bad logic, and useless appeals to social truths usually invented by yourself. You think all your opinions are worthy of merit just because you write them, but you are about the only one. The fact that you call a multiple FA 1000+ article writing admin a "problem contributor" sums it all up. Just get over yourself and stop running around wikipedia making trying to slander me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Both of you, stop. NOW. The tag situation is resolved. Get away from each other and go do something productive. —kurykh 08:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is an undignified proceeding. I find it highly embarrassing and won't post again here ... but seriously something needs to be done about this guy! Seriously! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. I had hoped that flagging the thread as archived would nip this dispute in the bud. Frankly, edit warring over the verbiage in a resolved tag (of all things) sounds like a textbook example of the sort of lame edit wars listed at WP:LAME. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As someone who's spent time at WP:LAME, I will voice in here by saying this is definitely not the kind of thing suitable there. The edit warring here is over a resolve tag that accused one editor of making a punitive block (a big no-no). It is perfectly understandable that an editor being attacked in this way would revert that addition to the resolve tag. WP:LAME is for things where you start thinking, "WTF? Why are people getting upset over this? And why are they spending so much time on it?" This, I hope is clear, is understandable why someone would get upset over. The amount of edit-warring is also insignificant compared to what would be needed to appear on WP:LAME. Sadly, LAME is not well-patrolled so people are always putting in their minor edit wars, but it is only meant for seriously big ones. It's a kind of sisyphean task to remove the entries that don't belong. --C S (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, most events that end up being chronicled at WP:LAME have people doing a face-palm while exclaiming "people edit war over crap like this?!? How lame!" For the thread in question, fixing the issue at hand took less than a dozen posts, with another dozen thrown in as per our standard AN/I drama best practices. However after everything was fixed, four people rewriting and reverting each other's "resolved" tags was pretty, well, lame. You are certainly correct that this does not quite measure up with some of our edit wars of WP:LAME legend, but it is the worst case I have seen for months. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the shortcut WP:LAME is probably similar to that with WP:POINT. With WP:POINT, people see the word "point" and then invoke it anytime somebody makes a point in discussion that they disagree with. Similarly people see the word "lame" and think, "hey this is lame, it should go on WP:LAME". But WP:LAME is not intended for things that are lame. If you actually read the page, it is clearly for listing the lamest edit warring ever on Wikipedia. So anything listed is supposed to be among the lamest ever. Also, something qualifies as lame when the amount of time spent fighting over it greatly exceeds the worth of what you're fighting over. So even with something like Liancourt rocks, which might be considered a less trivial matter than a matter of punctuation or how tall Andre the Giant is, the amount of fighting has gotten so ridiculous as to become lame. --C S (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice at ANI

I'm not sure how many are noticing this, but the editnotice that appears while editing ANI consists only of redlinks. Could someone check this please? ^LeaveSleaves 13:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fancy code broke the template. I've reverted to an earlier version for now. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 13:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Tma0673

Resolved

 – Vandal has been blocked already; don't see a need to remove the history.

--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place or not, but I wanted to report a user User:Tma0673, who edited the wiki page on Okonkwo I tried to revert the page, but I couldn't figure out how to get rid of all of the history pages. If someone could help out with that and also be on the alert for this user, that would be splendid! Thanks so much! Cariel (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Liberty of article Illuminati

There two atheits 'controllers' blocked on article (melmac and blueboard) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markvision55 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What? I think you put this in the wrong place. //roux   03:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Shortcuts

Can someone remove the shortcut WP:DRAMA? As it does not redirect here. I would do it myself but I do not see it in the source code. --DFS454 (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the redirect WP:DRAMA on AN. It is, however, on AN/I, and it does in fact redirect there. Hermione1980 19:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're asking that it be removed, you'll likely have to take it to TfD. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

I couldn't find the location to ask someone to do this so I am doing it here, feel free to remove this and post it somewhere else if it is more appropriate. I would nominate for deletion myself, but as only an IP I am hesitant to actually do that as well as not totally sure of all the steps that need to be taken, and I don't want to miss something which invalidates or makes the process not work correctly.

Anyway, if an admin can take a look at Blue Fugates and read the discussion, this article should be deleted and a redirect put in it's place to send anyone who finds it over to Methemoglobinemia, there was discussion about a merge and it seems rather split, but those who stated they had more information on the subject have never followed through. All the current content has already been merged with the article on Methemoglobinemia. 216.211.255.98 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If the merge has been completed, there is no need to delete anything. Just replace the text of the Blue Fugates article with a redirect to the Methemoglobinemia article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and completed the merge by creating a redirect to the merged-to-section. In the future, you can do this yourself; admins are not needed here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't totally sure exactly how to do the redirect or what needed to be done exactly. 216.211.255.98 (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate use of an AfD talk page after the AfD has been closed?

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Foswiki. This doesn't seem to be an appropriate use, but I'm not 100% sure. Thanks dougweller (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it appears as though a few people have arrived too late for the discussion. The AfD talk page is a harmless place for them to voice their disapproval of the deletion imo. A watching brief only, I think.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. I left a note to suggest that any collection of links be done in userspace and to remind them that significant coverage in reliable sources independent of subject are what are needed.

As good as place as any I guess... Better than the talk page of the now redlinked article. –xeno (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are the appropriate place for discussions after an AfD has closed. Kingturtle (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Slightly off topic but as long as this thread is here I'll mention this. It looks like a few of the accounts marked as SPAs had a few edits outside the topic, particularly this one which IMHO should not have been marked as an SPA. If you were to give those just a little more weight and and ignore the lame "delete per nom" !votes, you could almost make a case for "no consensus". Someone who has a dog in that fight might have a DRV case here. (they'd probably lose though)

I'm beginning to wonder if the mere presence of socks/SPAs yelling "keep" (or the infamous "DO NOT DELETE") might not be tipping AFDs toward a "delete" outcome. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Briannebassett

This user has requested the account be deleted. On the talk page, there was some discussion of renaming (for privacy reason) and blocking. Could an admin provide any advice on whether this is possible? Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This belongs on the noticeboard, not the talk. And I'm already handling it :) (not an admin, but requesting the rename & scrub of identifiable data) //roux   18:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) - just so long as I can leave it in someone else's hands I'm happy. And oops about the mis-placed posting Pseudomonas_(talk) 19:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Age of Concrete

This question arises in my mind but I don't find any answer to my question. -Does anyone know how to determine the age of concrete structure? How long ago was the particular concrete structure constructed? The method/ procedure used by Archeological department may through some light on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.4.4 (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you're looking for the Reference Desk. Hermione1980 12:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo missing (image above "navigation")

Hello. I was surfing through Wikipedia and noticed that the Wikipedia Logo is missing. May someone please fix it? Thanks! Alatteofwisdom (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's still there. Probably a browser or connection problem. Try reloading the page. Chamal ^talk 01:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy failure / Reword Template / Reword Header

(Moved from ANI.-chaser - t 02:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Note - This post was moved from it's original location at WP:ANI - as such all references are to WP:ANI, not this talk page Exxolon (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just had to notify two editors about the threads about them here as the creators of the threads (Slrubenstein & Daedalus969) failed to do so (and yes I will be notifying both editors about THIS thread immediately after posting it). I think we need to upgrade the language/policy on this.

Currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader (which is the boilerplate text at the top of this page for anyone who is not aware) says "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting (you may use {{subst:ani}} to do so)." - needs something like "If you are posting about another user on this page, you must use {{subst:ani}} to notify them if they have not already been notified unless there is a compelling reason not to."

Template:Noticeboard key (which is the boilerplate text that appears above the editing window when you attempt to edit this page for anyone who is not aware) does not have any relevant warning/suggestion - needs "If you are posting about a user on this page, you must use {{subst:ani}} to notify them if they have not already been notified unless there is a compelling reason no to." - for some reason this page is fully protected so this will require unprotection or an admin to edit.

Anything else just isn't cricket. Exxolon (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Exxolon. DuncanHill (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been rather busy with life lately, so I kind of forgot to notify the users. I previously have notified varsious parties about various threads. I myself think the template needs to be fixed, the 'thread title' area is misleading.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the real problem is being lazy, forgetful, or busy in most cases. That or simply not reading the admonition. That said, re-wording it might help us to change the culture about the necessity of doing this, so I'd support it.--chaser - t 02:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Just asking, but since the policy already exists to inform the subject as a courtesy, what's there to be gained by making it policy? I don't really think people disregard the ANI-notice as a rule, rather most people are either busy or forgetful about it. Rare is the instance when someone refuses to send the notice on purpose. Although now that I think of it, that did happen to me from an angry editor once. Dayewalker (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be a policy, and remain a courtesy. And I also regret that I was neglectful. I appreciate Exxlon calling this to my attention. That said, I was not even sure that my notice rises to the level where it merits real discussion. Perhaps we could have a guideline, that if an incident is "seconded" then th involved parties must be formally notified. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not telling someone about a noticeboard thread about them is like talking about them behind their back - as Exxolon said, it's just not cricket. Telling them is an easy thing to do and may save misunderstanding or hurt feeling later on. DuncanHill (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Implemented on both pages. If people disagree, I expect they'll follow the BRD cycle. Cheers.--chaser - t 01:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - think it's the right call. Exxolon (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick question...

This might not be the best place, but I figured I'd get a prompt reply here, so here goes: the most recent edit by this user was deleted, but without actually deleting/restoring the page to which it was made. How was this done? (i.e., so I can do it in the future) Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems strange; the page is still there and visible, at least to admins, but with edit summary markup I haven't seen before, which leads me to the assumption that this is a technical issue. In the absence of sensible answers here, I'd ask at WP:VPT where the developers hang out. Rodhullandemu 03:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I assumed it was a new technical development that I had missed. I'll try over at VPT. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, this is oversight. Icestorm815 • Talk 05:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Need opinion from admin

Is there any place I can go to get an opinion from an admin about something? Specifically, I suspect someone of sockpuppetry but I am not 100% sure. Because one of the users has been contributing for a long time, much longer than myself, and has made many good edits to articles I've been working on as well, I feel I need a second opinion. I know I could just open an investigation, but that is tantamount to making an accusation, and I'm not ready to accuse someone who, other than a couple of questionable recent edits, seems to be a good contributor.--Susan118 (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand why you'd want to be discreet about it. Email me. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Susan118 (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed tag

I have removed the Resolved tag which was placed on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#wiki-hounder User:Kaiwhakahaere by User:Michael93555 who started the section. He originally entitled the section "wiki-stalker User:Kaiwhakahaere". I left a courtesy note on his talk page saying I had removed his tag and directed him to here where I explain I have not yet made up my mind whether to just walk away or take him to task for labelling me a wiki-stalker, a very serious accusation which he could not justify, and for calling me "a little, dirty troll". He removed my courtesy message from his talk page a couple of minutes after I posted it there. Certainly justified my reason for removing the tag. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Kaiwhakahaere. Like I stated before, You are an individual who enjoys creating conflict on the internet. You create and fuel arguments which upset other members of the online community. Please leave me alone. Don’t send me messages, Thanks.--Michael (Talk) 08:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Michael, if you find that you are one of the members of the online community feeling upset, my best advice is to go outside, wander around, smell some flowers and watch the little birds who live their entire lives without caring at all about Wikipedia. It really doesn't matter in the end, honest. :) You do need to understand though that if you bring a complaint to an admin noticeboard, you can't really just turn around and say "leave me alone now". It was you who started the escalation, so you do need to see it through, right? Even if it was a mistake, there's nothing wrong with admitting to an error. And if you're right about the other editor, time will prove it, n'est-ce pas? Franamax (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You know what, Your going to have to try a little harder to get me to leave. Your not going to get me upset. I am a Administrator on MySpace and I have been working for MySpace for 5 years now and I been thou all of this before..--Michael (Talk) 23:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

NOINDEX tag on page

The NOINDEX tag has recently been added to this page [22]. However, I think there's actually a point in Google indexing the page - in particular a user may want to search for the page by typing "Administrators noticeboard" on Google (as I often do for other pages), so I think the NOINDEX tag should be removed. Laurent (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this page already is on the local robots.txt, so there's not much of a point in using the NOINDEX tag. AN (and ANI) were added to the list since both noticeboards regularly discuss issues that really shouldn't be found by google. --Conti|✉ 12:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Wrong place to have the argument, all of AN and its subpages / archives are blocked out of Google by Mediawiki:Robots.txt. The NOINDEX is superfluous. For the record though, I tend to agree that Google would be useful here, and have never really bought the argument that AN, in particular, was so mired in personally identifiable crap that it needed such global protection. Dragons flight (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the redundant NOINDEX. Dragons flight (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that the internal search engine works correctly (try the search box at the top of the page), the drawbacks of allowing Google external search engines to index these pages is bigger than the benefits IMO. -- Luk ^talk 06:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Should WP:DRAMA redirect to ANI?

Arguments for yes:

• WP:DRAMA has redirected to ANI since 2006, until the most recent RfD in March 2009.
• Two previous RfDs (in 2007 and 2008) reaffirmed that WP:DRAMA should point to ANI.
• The most recent RfD did not have wide participation, and Jimbo says that you cannot claim consensus of just who happens to show up.
• It was inappropriate to keep listing WP:DRAMA at RfD to get the desired result.

Arguments for no:

• Consensus in the most recent RfD was to retarget to WP:Drama.
• Consensus can change.
• Though the 2008 RfD had more participation than the 2009 one, it is quite a stretch to say that the 2008 discussion represents community consensus while the 2009 one does not.
• No one listed WP:DRAMA for deletion more than once.

The "yes" arguments are being given by User:Promethean who has reverted the retargeting from the most recent RfD several times. The "no" arguments are mine (I have reverted back each time). Wider community input would be appreciated. Link to the most recent RfD is here. The earlier RfDs are linked from there. Mike R (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. To those who might complain that this is the wrong place to post this: Where would be better? Start a new RfD? This is a high-traffic page that should attract enough comments to determine consensus. Mike R (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Struck since no longer on ANI

I have moved this thread here from the project page. Discussions about ANI belong here. Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that since the most recent form of consensus (RfD '09) says that it shouldn't point here, it shouldn't point here. Just saying, "Consensus shouldn't be based on who turns up," could be used to undermine any community decision, it's not a constructive way of going forward. I am going to point it back to the Drama project; if you want to form a consensus to have it directed here (and yes, consensus can change) then edit-warring is not the way to do that. Nominate it again. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Pointing it here would be sarcastic and funny. However, the other page is a serious essay that should probably get priority for this choice redirect. There's nothing wrong with a little fun and mischief, but not at the expense of serious endeavors. Jehochman ^Talk 14:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The redirect in question had pointed to ANI for a long time, one must take that into consideration before changing it. I don't think it was in this case...   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

<< There was extensive discussion at the RfD about how to deal with the change of existing links. There is a hatnote at the top of the page to which it is currently targetted. And the points that I made above still stand ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "This looks like a job for ... Super-man Super-"dab" — Ched :  ?  15:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A constructive essay is superior to a snarky redirect any day. There are enough alienating injokes as it is.--Tznkai (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that "snarky" clarifies "redirect", but just in case: I hope you didn't take my comment as snarky Tznkai, it certainly was not meant that way. I'm only entertaining that possibility due to WP:INDENT as I understand it. It (my comment) was just my attempt at a light-hearted suggestion; that I think that there are many areas, essays, and boards which people could consider to be "Drama". It's in that respect that I believe the best use of WP:DRAMA would serve the community as a dab page. — Ched :  ?  17:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to WP:DRAMA redirecting to ANI as a snarky in joke, and the Wikipedia:drama essay to be constructive.--Tznkai (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record this is really lame, and people should know better than to edit war over a redirect.--23:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Zzz. Is this really even worth discussing? bibliomaniac15 23:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the redirect. Anyone who feels it should be re-targeted it can take it to WP:RFD.--Aervanath (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

constant deletion

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Constant deletion — Gavia immer (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Protected?

This noticeboard is protected, so how can I report things? 70.29.210.174 (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Cubs197

User:Cubs197 is refusing to talk to me and is giving me vandalism warnings in return for trying to discuss issues with him. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is going on?--Cubs197 (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted my warnings, I'm sorry.--Cubs197 (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think your access to automated tools should be suspended. Why did you issue your vandal messages? 70.29.210.174 (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, it is my first day doing this, and probably got tunnel vision. It will NOT happen again, we don't try to make people feel bad, absolutely not, we try to welcome them to Wikipedia. Once again I'm very sorry, and I have removed the vandal messages.--Cubs197 (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Mischievious behaviour

Dear Friends, This is to bring to your kind notice that editors on WP:Goa and WP:India are themselves creating vandalism on wikipedia. The objections raised on articles (in discussion pages) are just not being considered and are being deleted without notice and reasons. Is this how Wikipedia works? We are very enraged due to this. Please sort out the matter at your earliest convenience. [23] [24] [25]--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: Editors and admins may be interested in reading these prior discussions on the India Noticeboard where the fringe and OR claims being propounded by Gaunkars of Goa (talk · contribs) have been discussed: March 09, June 09. If someone is interested in knowing more about the content issues and why they are problematic, feel free to ask. Abecedare (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: This discussion should probably be moved to WP:ANI or WP:FTN. Abecedare (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrectly used hyphen(s)

This project page has one or more incorrectly used hyphens, which editors can find by searching on the page for "ly-".
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens, sub-subsection 3, point 4. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to be glib, but in being glib, {{sofixit}}. Keegan (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the MOS applies to articles only, not project pages.--Aervanath (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit tabs

Is anyone else finding that the edit tabs on the project page are missing? Am I going crazy? No need to answer my second question, thanks... ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I see edit tabs. Maybe you were looking at a diff or a version in the history? (They turn off edit tabs for those.) – Quadell ^(talk) 20:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I am also seeing edit tabs. Or, in developer-speak: "not able to duplicate bug". :) --Aervanath (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I see tabs fine. I recently had a problem with Golan Heights where the tabs showed up in the wrong palce but I originally thought that they were missing. It's apparently a long-standing feature [26]. --Peter cohen (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks all. I haven't had the problem since. It was very weird and wasn't just looking at a diff. I couldn't figure out what was up, but maybe I imagined the whole thing. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

NYScholar

What is the procedure now with respect to the NYScholar discussions at AN? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In my view consensus for a community ban has been achieved, but of course as the proposer of the ban I'm biased. Could an uninvolved admin close it and effect whatever resolution he/she considers appropriate? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I registered my opposition to going straight to a community ban, but with 20 in favor and 6 against, it looks rather like the ban has consensus. (Yes, I know it's not a vote, but I see no reason to value particular opinions over others here... except possibly to discount mine for being underinformed.) rspεεr (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm.... well I think a) it's a bit hasty and b) if we're allowed or supposed to weigh the substance of the arguments then I'm afraid I would read it a bit differently - but then this is as someone who noted (not voted ;-) 'oppose' - I'm not sure pre-empting dispute resolution stuff is appropriate even given that some folk are just really really sure that he wouldn't play ball anywhoo.... that's my tuppence :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving this page

Moved from WP:ANI

How frequently do discussions on this page get archived? Several items which were here yesterday, and were currently being discussed, are now gone. That seems too soon. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

MiszaBot II archives discussions after 24 hours. -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 20:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That seems too soon. I realize the page is edited a lot, but it would be helpful to keep discussions around for a while. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

One way to keep specific discussions you are interested in from being archived is to continue commenting on them so as to deter the bot.  Skomorokh  22:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

But my comments were only a day ago, I come back to see if anybody has replied, and the discussion is gone. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You can always unarchive the thread and make a comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI isn't supposed to be a venue for long-drawn out issues. It's for immediate attention. 24h seems just right to me –xeno^talk 02:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, especially if the discussion is not progressing; it simply takes up too much space. Also, it's 48 hours, not 24:


{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}

|maxarchivesize = 400K

|counter = 196

|algo = old(48h)

|archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d

}}

The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 03:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooooooops. I didn't realize WT:ANI directs here. The original post was found at WP:ANI, so what you said above is inaccurate, Earwig. However, you highlight a good point that issues that require more "simmer" time should go to WP:AN rather than WP:ANI. –xeno^talk 15:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess I just saw Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard at the top of this page and thought that you guys were discussing the noticeboard itself. It's my fault, though, for not noticing Moved from WP:ANI at the beginning of this section. Anyway, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 23:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

How can I be an admin?

I want to be one but I don't know how or if I qualify. How can I become one? Kindest wishes, Her Majesty Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Admins are minted at WP:RFA, however based on your editing history I might point you to a helpful essay: WP:Not now. –xeno^talk 22:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You can find a lot of useful information at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't expect to get responded to so quickly. Sincerly, Her Majesty Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

But what do you find wrong with my edits? You may be confusing me with someone else as I am on a shared computer in my classroom. + But what is so wrong with my edits? You may be confusing me with someone else as I am on a shared computer in my classroom. We could resolve this quickly if you could tell me what I did. Sincerly, Her Majesty Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• It has more to do with the fact that you've been here less than a month and only have 8 mainspace edits, and little-to-no contributions in adminly areas. –xeno^talk 22:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well there's this, not what Wikipedia is for. This too; Wikipedia is not a forum, and article talk pages are for discussing what's actually in the article. Here we have Wikipedia being used as a social network (amongst many other similar postings from you), and bizarre accusations of stalking without any proof. On top of that, you have a total of eight edits to articles, which is problematic. → ROUX ₪ 22:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This shows you your contributions to Wikipedia and where you are making them. This is mine (a non-admin), and this is Xeno (an admin), for comparison. → ROUX ₪ 22:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just gave someone a pie! Here's the link if you don't believe me. Sincerly, Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's very nice, and it's good to foster a collaborative atmosphere, but we are here to build an encyclopedia, not as a social networking site. You may be more interested in Facebook or Xanga if talking to people is your main goal here. → ROUX ₪ 22:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My parents are very strict. I'm on a parental blocking network at home and am not allowed on either of those sites or MSN. Sincerly, Her Majesty Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You might also look into our sister project, where I believe requirements for adminship are less strict. –xeno^talk 22:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Simple isn't a dumping ground for wannabe-admins, though. ;) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I just clicked on that, and the blocking network won't let me on it. Kindest wishes, Her Majesty Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Gwen Gale, but I still aspire to become an admin. Sincerly, Her Majesty Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Then throw your hat in the ring, sheesh. We're all telling you you don't come close to meeting minimum requirements, but if you are that stubborn, have at it. Tan | 39 23:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that was flat out wasn't it? If you are that against it, then talk to me.

Well, I would oppose, yes. Quite frankly, you are a lot closer to being blocked than being made an administrator. But, again, if you are this stubborn, go for it. However, your edits here at this unrelated talk page need to stop - this isn't the forum to convince you if you are/are not admin material. Tan | 39 23:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Shall I give someone a pie? Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Giving out pies won't help much, if at all, and especially not if you put them on this page. You could spend some time improving articles in areas in which you have an interest, in getting to know how the site works and in helping out with challenges such as vandalism. Once you have a few thousand edits (more or less) and have been around a few months so that people have a chance to get to see you at work, then you might think about being an Admin. But what do I know? On the other hand, if your parents are very strict, a lot of what you will see and have to deal with may not meet with their approval WP:NOTCENSORED. // BL \\ (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there goes my pie. Oh well. At least I wasn't blocked. Sincerly, 66.206.233.143 (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I love irony. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Manual archive

I manually archived the thread about abuse filters. It seemed the sensible thing to do when people kept editing through the {{discussiontop}}/{{discussionbottom}} template I had placed. Nothing of any substance was being accomplished by that thread, in my view. Unitanode 19:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This was sort of unhelpful, since people weren't done with the conversation. FisherQueen created a new thread to continue the discussion, which has turned quite productive. Also, while no one got upset about your manual archive this time, I've seen that happen too, and then the archiving (meant to reduce wasted time) actually resulted in more wasted time, with edit wars archiving/dearchiving, threads about manual archiving being "admin abuse", etc., etc. Moral of the story: it's almost never a good idea to decide when other people are done talking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would, of course, have not edit warred if someone had reverted. However, I would disagree about it being "unhelpful", though, since the new thread started by FisherQueen is much more focused, and is actually helping to get to the root of the problem. As I said though, if someone had reverted me, I'd have had no problem with it. That thread was just becoming quite disjointed, and wasn't really accomplishing what the second thread is now doing. Best, Unitanode 21:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Request block on Vandalism-only account

User:195.229.237.37 Reverted an edit from this user today and noticed a few other warnings. Check his contribs and it appears that 100% of this users edits over the past year+ are vandalism. Granted they are spaced out, but the above fact stands. --MiloKral (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

IPs are not accounts, so they cannot be "vandalism-only accounts" (see WP:Vandalism-only account for more information). In the future, however, if an IP or a user is vandalizing, you'll get the bets response posting it at WP:AIV. As for now, this IP has had only one recent warning, which doesn't warrant a block at this time. If the IP continues vandalizing after a final warning, please report at AIV. hmwithτ 14:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I do have some further questions however. WP:AIV does not apply to this case for the reasons you mention, granted. How is one suppose to handle IPs that fly under the radar by only vandalizing a couple times a month, but have history of vandalism nonetheless. It seems they fall through the cracks of the system since they do not qualify for for blocks in the short term, and as such also do not qualify for the Category:IP addresses used for vandalism by avoiding short term blocks. --MiloKral (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(I recreated this topic from my contrib history as it seems to have gotten deleted for some reason??)) --MiloKral (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you're on the wrong page - go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Request block on Vandalism-only account and carry on from there. Bencherlite^Talk 00:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh my! What a silly mistake on my part. Sorry about this. Feel free to delete this discussion thread --MiloKral (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Shut down ANI for 5 days? Would this help WP article writing?

Would WP benefit if we all concentrated on writing articles? What would happen if all non-article pages (excluding article talk pages) were shut down for 5 days? As a safety valve, we could allow ANI edits for dire emergencies. Otherwise, no goofing around, no barnstars, no WP:AN, no complaining, just article writing. After the 5 day period, we could assess the situation for 5 months to see if a holiday on non-article pages helped. If so, great! If not, that's ok.

If there were no consensus, we could have voluntary participation in the 2009 WP article drive (those who abstained from all non-article pages for the 5 day period) and everyone else would be an opponent to the 2009 drive. ArbCom, administrators and Jimbo Wales could lead the way by participating. I know that I waste a lot of time looking at ANI, AN, and lot of WPspace that could be better time spent just writing articles

So how about a July 15 to July 20 shut down of all non-article editing? User F203 (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Shutting down AN/I would deprive thousands of editors of their daily schadenfreude ration. PhGustaf (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My thought exactly. I pop over here every now and then for a good laugh after sweeping up after the elephants --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Every thread on ANI is a dire emergency and requires immediate attention. Just ask the people who post them :P rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I had the thought the other day that all admins should stop doing admin activities for a few hours, just to show something to the DT's of the world. This is a similar idea. Gofer it! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Similar idea? The original poster and Bugs must be sockpuppets! Complain to ANI. Oh wait, I'm the original poster! User F203 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be sure, I think you should file an SPI against yourself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I plan to not look at ANI between July 15 and 20 and just write articles. I might edit a few user talk pages but will do so sparingly and only when there are pressing issues. Member 0001 of the Article Writing Monastery of July 15-20th. User F203 (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I know this entry is harmless, but "Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators" Some guy (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Shutting down ANI, i.e. full-protecting it, would require admin intervention. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Writing new articles is great, but I believe that higher priority should be placed on cleaning up and improving already existing articles. Wikipedia is already huge, what's needed now is not more articles but MAINTENANCE. Category:Wikipedia backlog can attest to that. This 5-day period should focus on strictly cleaning up the backlog. -- œ^™ 22:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This directly concerns the noticeboard. There's a valid reason to post it here. Personally, I love the idea and am in support of it. a little insignificant 22:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a cute idea, but the problem with ANI is not is underlying premise, but the habit of many editors to drama-monger here. ANI still has a raison d'etre, regardless of how much it is abused. Keep in mind that during any "five-day holiday" you have from project namespaces, there are still going to be vandals, sockpuppets, and other real abuses that need to be dealt with; just because you take a break doesn't mean the disruptors will. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Those can be deemed the "dire emergencies". Those reporting the incidents could think twice about whether it was a dire emergency or something that can wait 5 days. User F203 (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above: everyone believes their issue is a dire emergency. If you say "ANI is only to be used in dire emergencies", you're still going to get the exact same amount of activity. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one is required to participate in AN/I. So, if you want to go and do something else, then do it. Personally, I only look in here when I am really bored. -- Donald Albury 00:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's do this

I was WP:BOLD here. See Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout (shortcut WP:NODRAMA) for a proposal to get this very sensible idea underway. I have given a general outline to the event. Please head over there and make any changes/improvements you deem fit, and go ahead and sign up if you are interested. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly support all articles for deletion, miscellany for deletion, categories for deletion, etc. being protected for a five day period. I would seriously like to see the results of all that energy spent creating discussions to replace articles being instead placed on actual article improvement, how many "regulars" actually would shift to improving articles or who really are just here to start and comment in Xfds, and if nothing else at least having proof that if we go a few days without deleting anything (obviously libelous stuff that must be deleted would be exempt and could still be speedied) how the sky would not fall and such and if anything we might actually improve some articles in the process. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Shut down ANI. Your joking right?--Rocket Launcher 2009 (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That's just silly.--Cream Superman (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI is important to deal with incidents.--Freezing Pete Fox (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, 5 days is a long time.--Circulation Of The Dream (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

At least reconsider.--TV Dinners (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In full agreement. Don't close ANI.--Post Office Baggage (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea. Editors will be forced to take issues to proper venues, instead of directly to AN/I, only to be redirected to the proper feeding ground. Law _{type! snype?} 23:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a silly idea that only contributes to whatever drama there might be and will obviously never fly. Also, why would you want to shut down the Reference Desks? What we're doing here is building an encyclopedia; everything involved in building an encyclopedia is equally important, including discussions held here and on other non-article talk pages. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a voluntary thing. No one is being forced to do anything. Nothing will be "closed down". The intent is to take the energy spent on non-article areas of Wikipedia and for 5 days this year (or roughly 1.4% of the time you will spend at Wikipedia) to focus on article writing rather than other aspects of Wikipedia. Please read the proposal before dismissing it; exceptions are of course made for essential activities; but really consider participating, even if it means for 5 days you won't be answering refdesk questions or participating in deletion discussions or helping to mediate a dispute. Since I don't expect anything near 100% participation, there will still be plenty of people hanging around these places to deal with your problems. But if you want to rededicate yourself to article writing, for just 5 days, please consider helping out with this. Is 1.4% of your time too much to ask? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit condescending to suggest that having used ANI once or twice before means you're not also building the encyclopedia. Sure, there are some people who are known to lurk here and follow drama around, but a lot of people (such as myself, I like to think) come here now and then when they need help on something, but are also spending lots of their time writing or improving articles. Hell, I started an ANI thread just a few sections above this, but at the same time I have also been going almost without sleep for 5 days working on July 2009 Urumqi riots, and in that time I had three articles on DYK. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Shut down ANI? ... OH NOES! What ever would we do? Note: that's not directed at anyone here - just that I found a few smiles in it all. I know we can't actually shut down the boards, the reaction alone would be paradoxical to NODRAMA. But, we can hope that there will be a lot fewer things that need addressed next week! — Ched :  ?  17:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Socks above

Would an admin please block the obvious socks above (Rocket, Cream, Freezing, Circulation, TV, and Post Office). If it's not obvious from their comments above, and the fact that they all created their userpages today, AND that their comments all put one thought together -- we can file an SPI. iMatthew ^talk at 00:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Obvious vote stacking. I don't think an SPI is necessary, just indef block the lot. Waste of some good usernames too. a little insignificant 00:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, obvious socks, all blocked now by Rlevse. Insignificant: I know, I've always wanted to be called Post Office Baggage. :D Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Closure of Alansohn ANI

This was open for ten hours before it was closed by an admin who is barely active. Would it really be all that detrimental to the process to allow, oh I don't know, a day for discussion? Otto4711 (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• dunno, do you think if you leave it up long enough you might find someone willing to block Alansohn? You asked for someone to look at the conduct and more then one admin found nothing actionable so where exactly were you hoping this would go? I ave no objection to someone else reversing the close but I honestly can't see any further point to the ANI except more heat and much less light. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• People were asking questions and those questions were being answered. That seems like sufficient reason not to close the discussion in ten hours. Otto4711 (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• well Ims ure someone will come along and undo the archive if they think its worthwhile. That's undoubtedly the acid test here. Why didn't you notify me you had raised this issue on talk ANI? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I thought your talk page comments indicated you had made up your mind and had no intention of changing it. Otto4711 (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• is that a valid reason not to tell me you were complaining about my action here? I think not. Anyway, you might find that editors would be more amenable to changing their actions if you apply a little honey and much less vinegar in your interactions. You were aggressive from the get go and are complaining that I made my mind up. Um.. can you see a link there at all? (You can have the last word, I'm going to work now) Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• One man's "complaining" is another man's "questioning the validity of one man's actions". So, yeah, again, any damage involved in leaving this open for more than ten hours? Otto4711 (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is. It takes up time, space, and resources from a pool of volunteers whose time could be better spent on constructive contribution to the project. Tan | 39 13:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Some would think that dealing with an apparently abusive editor is a constructive contribution. Tarc (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

... but perhaps dealing with an abusive user in discussion with a clear outcome is time better spent than with an outcome which becomes clear after a week of pulling each others' hair out.  GARDEN  says no to drama 13:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) And I agree with that thinking (Tarc's, to specify due to edit conflict). It was brought up, discussed in length, there wasn't even close to any sort of consensus to block, so the thread was closed. Alansohn has been abusive in the past and is under ArbCom restrictions. Even given specific blocking guidelines from ArbCom, there wasn't anything that could be construed as a personal attack or even significant disruption. Unrelated; why was this brought to the talk page of AN when it was an ANI thread? Tan | 39 13:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the talk page for both last time I checked. . .good close btw. . .and agree with comment by Tan at 13:13. R. Baley (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, that's an embarrassing faux pas, perhaps I rarely use AN/I talk? Tan | 39 14:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. You want to give an editor a license to make constant false bad-faith accusations, I guess there's nothing I can do about it. Otto4711 (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

links used in blocks get broken when archiving

(coming from [27])

When blocking an editor, the admin leaves a link to the ANI discussion. 24 hours later the discussion gets archived. When the editor logs back in, he finds himself with a broken link and can't find the discussions leading to his block to defend himself properly. Lots of people won't know how to search the archives.

I find this problem often, I have to search the archives for the correct thread.

There are some technical solutions, and I would like to propose one that I think that has the least problems: get the archival bot to go over the "what links here" entries and adding links to the archived section right next to the links to the archived sections (it can't simply replace the link, as people sometimes unarchive threads, and this breaks the new links).

So:

• "See this discussion in ANI"

would be changed to

• "See this discussion (archived version (bot edit)) in ANI".

In the worst cases, where a thread was unarchived for example three times, you would get

• "See this discussion) (archived version (bot edit)) (archived version (bot edit)) (archived version (bot edit)) in ANI"

--Enric Naval (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, but all of those parentheses scare me. How about

• "See this discussion (archived version) in ANI"

that, and then

• "See this discussion (archived version, re-archived version, second re-archived version) in ANI"

something like that? The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 16:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I posted to the page of the creator of the current archival bot here so he can tell us if this is feasible. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• "What links here" doesn't account for section headers. It would show every link ever made to ANI. Admins ought use a permlink. –xeno^talk 17:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that admins should use permalinks whenever possible, but we're searching for a way to get around the situations when they do not. The bot could ignore what links here entries that don't need to be changed, and only edit the ones that do, such as block notices. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There's probably tens of thousands of links to ANI. –xeno^talk 17:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And many duplicate section headings as well. It is a good idea (and has been proposed in the past), but the coding would be pretty difficult. No one has been brave enough to tackle it yet - I might some day, but I don't have any plans to do it anytime soon. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Plus tab missing from ANI

The add a new section tab suddenly disappeared for me from WP:ANI. It's still on WP:AN. This a code thing or is the page too fucking big, again?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously a side effect of The Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Start a discussion on the talk page, accusing them of removing the tab from ANI, baby seals from Alaska, and "Google juice" from Wikia interwiki links. --NE2 00:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've restored it. Can't tell how it got removed, though. Working on it. Algebraist 01:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Problems with creating AfDs with Twinkle

Resolved

 – Sorted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope someone's not out not creating drama and can help with this (& of course I'll report it at Twinkle). I've tried to take Legend of Empires and Emeon technologies to AfD, and can't figure out how to sort the mess at WP:Articles for deletion/Legend of Empires. I think I fixed the template at the article, which Twinkle left looking like the one here at Emeon technologies -- but that seems to have created an ordinary looking discussion page at WP:Articles for deletion/Emeon technologies and I have no idea what's going on. Neither shows up in the log yet. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

All sorted.  :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have started from scratch and combined them, I realise now. What did you do? I tried to add the template by hand but that didn't fix the discussion page. Should I report it as a Twinkle bug? Dougweller (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a Twinkle bug; just one of the links in your deletion rationale missing its closing square brackets, which upset the {{subst:afd2}} template. Easily fixed when you know what you're looking for. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header

Please add [[bg:Уикипедия:Заявки към администраторите]]. --Petar Petrov (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for that - Alison ^❤ 06:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki no:

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header

{{editprotect}} Could somebody add [[no:Wikipedia:Administratorer/Notisblokk]] to the list of interwikis? Thanks, --Kjetil r (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for letting us know :) - Alison ^❤ 06:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hidden discussions are bad

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header

May I suggest we redirect this page to the discussion page for the main AN page?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki sv:

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header

Please add sv:Wikipedia:Kommentarer om administreringen av Wikipedia. // habj (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

fixing iw-link

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header

{{editprotected}}

Please change the huWP iw-link [[hu:Wikipédia:Adminisztrátorok üzenőfala/fejrész]], it points to the header of the Hungarian AN, not to the AN-page. :( The right iw should be simply [[hu:Wikipédia:Adminisztrátorok üzenőfala]], without the /fejrész section. Fejrész means actually header in Hungarian. ;) Thx. Bennó (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 02:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1000x thx. Bennó (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Change to AN Header about "complaints"

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header

{{edit protected}} We should probably insert "However <font color="red">'''this is not the Wikipedia complaints department'''</font>." into the lower section of the AN header. I noticed that it says this at AN/I but not here. While AN is probably more general in scope that AN/I, neither are "the complaints department" considering that most complains can be solved without direct and immediate administrator attention. Feel free to ignore this if it has been raised previously. Of course, this is only worthwhile insofar as people actually read the instructions to pages...which is rarely. :) Thanks. Protonk (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this header is already too long and too busy. An additional message would be unlikely to stand out even if it were huge and blinking. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammar pedantry

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header

{{editprotected}} "Civility" and "Personal Attacks" seem inappropriately capitalised in the first instance of their appearance (though not in the second), as a use/mention ambiguity exists. Capitalisation should only be used in this context when the words in question are names. The name of our personal attacks policy is Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, or more ambiguously simply No Personal Attacks. "Personal Attacks" is not the name of any Wikipedia policy that I am aware of, and its use as such on the banner of the Wikipedia complaints department makes the project look amateurish. Could an editor empowered to do so please resolve this? Muchas gracias, the skomorokh 18:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 19:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

minor proposed modification in header

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header

I've seen comments removed and I've seen people blocked for posting on ANI. Often these are fairly new users. The excuse of "trolling" and "sock" are often used though it doesn't seem to be a fair accusation all of the time. In effect, we are being bitey.

Change is fairly impossible to achieve. However, we could caution others with a notice. Something along the lines of "New users should post with extreme caution because of the possibility of having their remarks labelled as "trolling" or "sockpuppet"." Alternative wordings could be "Users who are not experienced users should consider their posts carefully to avoid being accused of sockpuppetry or trolling." or "New users are cautioned that their inexperience in Wikipedia may subject them to undesired action against them. Such action is not condoned by Wikipedia nor is Wikipedia responsible for such actions." I don't think there is support for "Only established users are welcomed at the board".

Any other suggested wording? Chergles (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Are these instances where these posts labelled as "trolls" or "sockpuppets" weren't trolls or sockpuppets? I'd say that the vast majority of editors on this board generally do quite well at not biting the genuine newbies. Usually the error is the other way, where innocent and helpful users are trolled extremely effectively. There's a tendency on the part of some individuals to bend over too far backward in assuming good faith — to the point where they might as well be bending over forwards. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There are instances where posts were labelled as "trolls" or "sockpuppets" who were not. If there is a desire to tabulate them, should we start here? I have seen a few even without looking. I have no desire to defend an individual editor at this point so I'm not going to look for diffs. Chergles (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

We're evidence driven, and rather lazy interested in keeping the size of headers to a minimum. Examples would be helpful. Incidentally, if this is a problem – something of which I am not yet convinced – is changing the header likely to resolve the issue? A polite word to any bitey editors is likely to have more effect. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to post in good faith. I think it was one of Jimbo's founding principles that complaints be treated fairly--as such a board like this shouldn't have a disclaimer stating that new users post here at their peril./ Most of the cases of "post-->blocked" came because the poster was a new account of an old nuisance. As far as admonitions about socks, it's probably not necessary. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "most" but not "all". I am concerned because Wikipedia is developing a bad reputation of being young adult hotheads chasing away good editors. Chergles (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to diminish that viewpoint, but that has been a complaint about wikipedia for over 5 years. We try hard to get around it, but one of the few iron laws of management is that organizations grow more baroque and insular as they become larger. We also have to weigh potential lost new editors against time wasted due to trolling. This sometimes requires a tradeoff, sometimes does not--in other words, if the boards get filled w/ trolls and no one responds to queries, we lose new editors looking for answers. WP:RBI is the right response to people trying to stir up the pot by trolling an/ani. Protonk (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Reorganise header

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header

To me, the relationship of the headings does not reflect what I look for when I come to look at it. I would put long term abuse, checkuser and suspected sockpuppet pages next to each other, as they are similar in scope. I am also thinking that a single salmon-pink line for contentious subjects - Wikipedia:General sanctions (not currently listed, and I had no idea this page existed until yesterday), Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Special_enforcement_log next to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and cultural/ethnic noticeboard. I thought highlighting them as they are some of teh most troublesome areas and could do with more eyes.

OR, RS, FRINGE, copyvios, NPOV and fiction could go together too.

Thoughts? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: Would there be a way of coding it so backlogged pages get autoflagged red or orange or something? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That header's very busy and I just skimmed it, pretending I didn't know where to take stuff. You're right, it's not very clear to a newcomer, or logical. Needs fixing. Do a draft and let's see? As for color coding backlogs, our parser functions are not very good at counting or tallying (this just came up on WT:DYK which has just switched to bot driven promotion, no more irregular gapping... the desire there was to show if the work ahead buckets were in danger of running out so the next update would be starved)... but bots can do this and make notes somewhere on a page, which then can be used in tests to decide what color things should be. Hope that's helpful. ++Lar: t/c 04:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Aargh! We're in the wrong place ---> Template talk:Editabuselinks!! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Search bar

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header

Please add below the main nav box for all the boards? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Search_bar_for_AN

rootology (C)(T) 21:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nub question: where specifically should it go? I don't want to put it in the wrong place out of ignorance. :) Protonk (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• The navbox already contains searchlinks. — Edokter • Talk • 22:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't find those already-existing links very helpful. (They're hard to find, too.) Maybe it's my stupidity, but they don't seem to find much of what I look for. I would like to have the new one, as being better for stupid people. I suggest either at the top or the bottom of the top box—the one with General/Content/User issues/Noticeboards. That would be extremely prominent, but so it should be. Bishonen | talk 22:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC).
  • This does all the same things but better and easier, for anyone to trivially find things without having to know the layout of the page and syntax of the searches. rootology (C)(T) 22:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Edokter, this search bar includes all AN boards and archives in one swoop. The others are only for specific archives. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, and how about directly below the main nav table, so it's prominent...? I'll find the right template/code. rootology (C)(T) 02:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• This seems to be our culprit: Template:Editabuselinks. Probably just right on the bottom; every noticeboard will have it then. rootology (C)(T) 02:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wait, scratch that. Let me look again, we only want this on AN & ANI, since it only searches those. rootology (C)(T) 02:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I added it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader which is only semi prot but probably should be fully protected right now, and an admin needs to put it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header directly below {{editabuselinks}}. rootology (C)(T) 02:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh ho, I'm not more clever than MediaWiki. It should go on Template:editabuselinks instead actually, since I see now it does search all the noticeboards. Nice clever coding. rootology (C)(T) 02:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it only includes AN and it's current subpages: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and their archives. My initial thinking was it should be placed on each one's header individually, bottom-right corner, minus "bgcolor=#CAE1FF", which I initially only included to make the inputbox easier to see on WP:AN. The color of the header should provide enough contrast. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Like this?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header

-like that? Protonk (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with putting it in the editabuselinks is that it looks like it searches all of those noticboards, and it only searches the ones I listed above. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, like that. It searches others. 3rr, for example. rootology (C)(T) 05:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

We can also move a few more noticeboards to subpages of WP:AN - I've already proposed to move Community sanctions (feel free to comment). Maybe WP:WQA? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So... is this dead already? This box is really useful. rootology (C)(T) 14:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Search Bar

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header

The search box should have a thin border surrounding like the other navigational and page headers displayed above and below it respectively and some padding so the search bar and button don't hit the top of the box. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 09:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice link?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header

Shouldn't the code shown on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader be {{subst:ANI-notice}} to encourage substing user talk space messages? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I've BOLDly done this; WP:SUB states that all items in CAT:UWT should be subst'd, and {{ANI-notice}} is in that cat. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidents header - column widths not equal?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header

An editor is telling me that the table looks weird, with the left side table cells being narrower than the right side, following my edit to put "purge this page" into a separate cell on the left, with Search in a cell to the right.

I do not see this uneven-ness in either IE 7.0.5730.13 or Firefox 3.0.10 on Windows XP SP3 running at 1280x1024. The cells look evenly split 50% / 50% so I don't know what is the issue...

File:AdminIncidNoticeWidth2-FF3.PNG	File:AdminIncidNoticeWidth2-IE7.PNG
Firefox 3.0.10	Internet Explorer 7.0.5730.13

Incidents Header page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader

DMahalko (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, dragging the window border around has illuminated this a bit. DMahalko, it looks like your tabling of the Purge and Search boxes has also extended down to the existing tablation of the "Are you in" and "Using this page" table columns. The rendering engine thus selects a width appropriate for the overall column contents, in this case observing the minimum width needed for the archive search box, source HTML is:

<input class="searchboxInput" name="search" type="text" value="" size="60" /><input name="prefix" type="hidden" value="Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard" /><br /> <input type="submit" name="fulltext" class="searchboxSearchButton" value="Search all administrators' noticeboards and archives" /><input name="fulltext" type="hidden" value="Search" />

Try dragging your own window smaller, I predict that you will see the left-hand "Are you in the right place?" column get smaller, whilst the "Using this page" column keeps its fattiness.

Yes, this is an artifact of my particular rendering style (which is default) but it does seem to be due to your change in the colspan variables. I appreciate your change to properly locate the "Purge" button, but it seems to have had unintended consequences. Dang WML (and HTML) does have that element of wackiness to it sometimes. Franamax (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay I see what it is, the search field/button is of fixed width and does not compress when the window is narrowed. Meanwhile all table cells must align on a grid so the cells below follow the search/button width above.

The easy fix is to split off the purge / search into a separate embedded mini-table, which can have its own cell spacing that doesn't affect the rest of the layout. I have applied this edit to the header.. DMahalko (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 'tis all appearing tickety-boo now. Thanks for the fix!

BTW, I think on technical terms you should request {{db-auth}} deletion of the images above, since they contain the Wikipedia logo, a reggistered trademark of the blah blah, not licensed under the GFDL blah blah... No biggie, but I've seen the issue come up before now. I'm going to request deletion of the image I uploaded myself but never got to place here because you fixed the problem so fast. Thanks & regards! Franamax (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussions affecting these headers

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header

Discussions affecting these headers are occurring at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 13#ANI page rename - discussion. Uncle G (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)