Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 5

Should this be archived?

Should this be archived? It seems that some of the reports aren't garnering any further attention, and several of them seem to have been resolved.--Vercalos 19:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm refering to the /incedents subsection.--Vercalos 19:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? That page is archived several times a day by a bot that removes any section where there has been no discussion in two days. Essjay (Talk) 01:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Akron Wiki

I feel that the Akron Wiki article is being unfairly deleted, and that it, and the word "Akronness" should have article status. Please tell the people involved to make changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiwiki1950 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussions about this were at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akron Wiki and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akroness. You or anyone else is quite welcome to revisit either of these at Wikipedia:Deletion review. On the other hand, unless something significantly changes (like the website is still there in two years and has become a widely known and used regional resource) my guess is there's approximately a 0% chance that either of these articles will be restored. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

ANI archive size

Currently, ANI is archived by Essjaybot such that the archive is "filled" until the archive exceeds 300KB. The result of this is that the archive can get up to 350 or 400KB. The consequence of this is that there is a delay in loading even on newer computers with fast connections, and an even greater delay on older machines or slower connections or when opening several archives at once to find discussions from a particular time period. The typical archive size for article talk page is more around 130KB, and the typical size for administrative noticeboard archives—when the switching of their archives was not ignored—was more around 200KB and less. The reason given for having such large archives is to reduce the number of archives. This provides no great advantage—we have no shortage of numbers—but there is a practical disadvantage for having large single archives. —Centrx→talk • 11:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the size should be reduced. I don't know exactly how the bot works, but it should be an easy thing to change. Maybe reduce the 300k to 100k? --Tango 13:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Takes about 2 seconds to do; all it needs is consensus. Essjay (Talk) 13:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great to me and my extraordinarily sketchy dial-up. Snoutwood 08:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Amen - do it -- Tawker 08:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, reduce the archive size; I know how hard it is to view the old large Help Desk archives. --ais523 08:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, go for it. the wub "?!" 13:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely (guess who's on a 56k on weekends?) yandman 09:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do it. Alphachimp 09:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been reduced to 150 KB. Ah, the ease with which consensus is implemented. Essjay (Talk) 02:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Template for reporting offensive usernames?

Hi there!

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this but I think it is. Please gently point it out to me if it's not.

At times, I am running through the new user log and I find an offensive username. Rather than put them on WP:ANI or WP:AIV, I would prefer it if I could just put a template, like {{Offensive username}}, on the offending user's page. If this template added the usernames to a category, like 'Category:Offensive usernames', then admins could just run through the list and block these users indef. If this was approved I could change all the sections in policies and guidelines saying to put the template on instead of reporting the users on WP:ANI or WP:AIV.

Cheers and thanks for considering this,

Yuser31415 05:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that reporting them is better, especially reporting them to AIV because it is meant for that sort of thing and it is wiped clean rather than archived, because it is better to not create user pages or talk pages for offensive names. The user or talk page could be deleted afterwards, but it would be more work and admins might neglect to delete them. -- Kjkolb 13:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. Never mind at the moment then :) Yuser31415 18:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Except .... admins already leave a message on the user's talk page, don't they? So the offensive username template could be put on the talk page ... all it would make worse would be the fact that admins would have one more place to patrol. Yuser31415 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see enough gain to justify giving admins yet another place to monitor. --Tango 13:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason to not just use WP:AIV. It's just as easy. I'm with Tango. -Patstuart^talk|edits 19:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Format seems to require this template here

Sorry to bother this page but the mediation process advised; "Add the text {{RFMF|Case Page Name|05:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)}} to the top of the talk page of all involved articles")and the incident page is the only involved article. Canuckster 05:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a farcical RFM, and you should probably be blocked for WP:POINT. – Chacor 05:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

if someone with more wikipedia power than you was falsely and publicly accusing you of having an "anti-american agenda" perhaps you would feel differently; and I have no point to make; I am trying to mediate the ongoing hostility Sarah expresses towards me. Canuckster 06:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

All of this because I closed the convo because it was just becoming a flame war between you and Sarah? Seriously man, get something better to do.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

if someone with more wikipedia power than you was falsely and publicly accusing you of having an "anti-american agenda" perhaps you would feel differently. Canuckster 06:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the tag; the RFMF tag is intended for articles where there may be multiple parties who are interested in the subject but unaware of the mediation. It does not apply to disputes with a limited scale like this one. Essjay (Talk) 05:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How to avoid edit conflicts and clutter

I just experienced several edit conflicts here, and I really hate to clutter this page with discussions, when it should be reserved for notifications. While I still think in the concrete case there was an easy way to avoid the discussion, I am aware that it can't always be avoided. — Sebastian 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Transclusion

Would it be possible to transclude the individual notifications from sub pages? — Sebastian 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It could be done... much the same way that WP:AFD is. However, it starts to get complicated. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's way too much work for each discussion. Perhaps a better thing would be to create even more sub-noticeboards. —Mets501 (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Linked subpages for discussions

[Transclusion can be complicated.] OK, let's keep it simple, then: Instead of keeping each case in its own section, they are just bullets in a list. Whenever someone enters a request, an admin replies with two simple steps:

• adding his ~~~~ after the request
• adding a template to the user's talk page that says "I'm taking care of it, let's discuss it here".

In addition, sections could be used for different purposes, as in the vandalism page. — Sebastian 00:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Much of what goes on here requires discussion. "This is what I did, any comments?" type notes are very common. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I think we can address that. Not everything that's said in a discussion needs to show up in everybody's watchlist. I think people should have the option:

• Bulk of the discussion: on some dedicated page
• Important alerts for everyone: add to existing bullet (e.g. as sub-bullet) — Sebastian 01:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm not understanding what your getting at here. ---J.S ^(T/C) 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's try it with an example. Instead of keeping this whole drama with its many pages of gory details all on WP:AN, and creating scores of changes that show up on everybody's watchlist, we would have the discussion on a dedicated page that only those watch who are involved or interested. On WP:AN, we would simply have something like this:

• Death Threat Accusation Someone needs to have a chat with User:Morwen. The user has just accussed me of making a death threat against her [117] which is totally absurd. ... -- Husnock 10:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Discussion moved to this page. -- Brookie 10:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A suggestion has been proposed - please comment, everybody. -- bainer (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • More drama: someone has now posted this personal attack at my talk page. Morwen - Talk 15:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Case closed: And all was well in the wiki. --bainer (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm interesting. That might be possible. How would we name the sub-pages? Would it be for everything or just for long discussions? Lets see what others think. ---J.S ^(T/C) 02:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, it would help, but I think it would be more hassle than needed. However, when a thread gets large, I think it is a good idea to move it to it's own subpage and provide a link under the original heading here. After all, it is 1 out of 7 threads that take up most of the space on this board. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea to do it only for long discussions, although that means we can't have the bulleted list. I created a table with statistic[1], which shows that there are indeed about 7 threads that are longer than a screenful (5000 chars on my computer, YMMV). That's about 12 paragraphs + headline. (Excluding headlines, there were 462 pars and 185679 chars w spaces. Thus, the average paragraph was 400 characters.) So a guideline like this would make sense:

If a topic reaches 12 paragraphs then its discussion will be moved to another page and it will be replaced by a short summary and a link to that page. When the discussion reaches a point that requires everybody's attention, someone will add that to the summary.

— Sebastian 18:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

More subpages

How about two new subpages, "Complaints about admins" and "Complaints about non-admins"? If you are specifically complaining about someone, you make a subpage (the name of the user being complained about, similar to ArbCom, probably) and transclude it on to the appropriate page. I'm suggesting 2 pages, as complaints about admins usually requires multiple admins to respond so we can develop a concensus, whereas a complaint about a non-admin can often be dealt with by a single admin. Once a complaint has been dealt with, it is removed from the page (perhaps archived somewhere, in any case, the subpage can hang around for eternity). This should work quite well, as complaints are generally resolved at a certain point and it's clear when it should be removed. With more general discussions there often isn't a clear end, it just gradually goes inactive. This is moving towards creating a Court of Administrators, which some people might not be happy with - personally, I have no problem with it.

The only major problem I can see with this idea is that it might end up with almost everything happening on these subpages, which defeats the object of trying to separate things. Someone with more time might want to go through the history of AN and see how much of it is complaints and how much general discussion and requests. AN/I would probably cease to exist, as almost all of that is complaints, by its very nature. The non-complaints things that are considered incidents can move to the main noticeboard. So it boils down to having one more subpage than we have now, but having them slightly more structured. --Tango 12:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like any idea that further widens the cultural gap between editors and editors who happen to have a mop.... but the idea of more sub pages might have merit. ---J.S ^(T/C) 04:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

WP:BEANS ... I don't like the idea of implying that the purpose of ANI is to complain about someone. The purpose of this page is that there is an incident that needs immediate resolution, usually though not necessarilly by an administrator. If there is a "complaint" that doesn't require immediate action to stop it, the dispute resolution process is available for that purpose. BigDT 19:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Canuckster socks

Can we get the page semi'd? Canuckster socks repeatedly remove Sarah Ewart's comments as "uncivil", making the whole thing look very one-sided. I've been getting edit conflicts trying to remove them. Can we do something? – Chacor 02:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the entire convo to archive 158. Feel free to rollback there.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI Archive time?

Can we archive WP:ANI more often or decrease the archive interval? Right now, ANI is around 500K. It is usually 300-350ish. 500K makes my 1.7 GHz machine scream for mercy. BigDT 19:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The time before archiving needs to be changed to 1 day, like it was before when Werdnabot archived and the page got long. —Centrx→talk • 21:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

24 hours? Seems a little quick. It's set at 14 days now, right? If it was brought down to 7 days that might be reasonable. ---J.S ^(T/C) 22:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI sections are currently archived after 2 days of no comments in that section. When it was archived by Werdnabot, it varied between being archived every 1 day and being archived every 2 days, because it was a setting that could be changed in the text of the page, and was changed depending on the activity of the page. These low times are reasonable because there are hundreds of people watching and discussing things here. Any time someone leaves a dated comment in a section, the "timer" for that particular section is reset. —Centrx→talk • 22:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably, ANI is unusable for anyone on dialup or an older computer. Hopefully they won't put it on the One Laptop Per Child project. —Centrx→talk • 09:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The archiving was 1 day when EssjayBot handled it previously; when the toolserver went down, taking the bot with it, it was changed back to Werdnabot. When Essjaybot took over again, the request was to make it 2 days; if there is consensus to switch back to 1, that can be done in a matter of seconds. Essjay (Talk) 21:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, I should point out that there is always the middle ground ... send anything between 24 and 48 hours old to something like WP:ANI/Recent and then from there to the archive page. Another alternative would be to be more proactive in removing closed issues. If an issue is closed, rather than tagging it with whatever version of {{at}} is used here, just manually archive it and leave only a link to the archived version. That way, it wouldn't need to wait 24/48 hours. Also, issues that really belong on AIV or RFP could be removed outright and a notice left on the user's talk page. BigDT 05:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as you have a bot that can do that, by all means, go for it. If EssjayBot II is going to continue to do it, you get whole-day increments. Essjay (Talk) 05:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky spamming at Funk

IP users starting with 84.151... are continually adding linkspam to Funk, it's removed, then another similar IP comes and adds it again. I don't know what to do about this since it's different IPs each time. See the history --AW 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for page protection ← This way, please. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

New notice at top of page - RFC/NAME vs. AIV

At the top of ANI, the new template reads in part, "Reports about improper usernames, or requests to block those belong at WP:RFC/NAME." That may be true for debatable usernames, but I thought obviously improper ones went to AIV for faster response. Should it be changed? Newyorkbrad 17:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd support mentioning both and explaining when to use each. --ais523 18:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The colors could be tweaked ... maybe the background could be lightened or else just WikiLink the page itself and not the whole description. It's kinda hard to read ... but I really like the idea. BigDT 18:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to sofixit, but I'm not much good with headers and colors, so will leave it to an expert. Please note that whatever is done on ANI should be conformed on AN as well. Newyorkbrad 18:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried my hand at it ... I think this version may be more readable ... feel free to edit mercilessly. BigDT 19:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of archive templates

I hope the people who use the {{Archive top}} and {{Debate top}} templates will see this here...you have to put the template below the ==Section header==, otherwise the archival bot may split the top and bottom templates if it archives the lower section before the upper section. Thatcher131 19:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Question for Essjay about this - does archiving the section reset the timer? In other words, are you going off of edit dates or signature dates? BigDT 20:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I can answer this--the bot looks for the most recent standard signature timestamp. (You may see from time to time an old unsigned post that the bot has missed for this reason.) At this point, if the last sig is more than 24 hours old when the bot runs, it will archive the section. Thatcher131 22:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Where to report

I am lost, what's difference between notice board and incident board, where and what to report?

Um, Attention Please

There's a huge picture of a bleeding vagina or something on the home page. You might want to take it down, you know, whenever you get around to it.

Thank you for your report. The image in question has been removed and the person who placed it there has been blocked indefinitely. Naconkantari 00:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

ARYAN818's unacceptable comments on Talk:Dravidian_people.

Hi,

I was referred to you by user Jeandré and this is my first time reporting someone. I am reporting user User:ARYAN818 in regards to his unacceptablecomments on Talk:Dravidian_people [2]. Please let me know if this is the right department to make this complaint since his comment made me feel very, very unconfortable since I am of Dravidian ancestory myself. It almost sounded like he was saying that we do not exist. I found it very shocking and disturbing. Thank you.

Wiki Raja 08:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there really is anything to be done (other then your message). We can't "punish" people for ignorance. ---J.S ^(T/C) 16:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it he could be asked to be a little more civil, not a blatant violation, but not to pleasant either. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

His comment was just like if he were to go on to a Chinese site and put on there that "Chinese people are a joke, and that Chinese people do no exist". Wiki Raja 21:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not endorsing the accuracy of his statement. I'm simply saying It's not really disruptive and a calm response (like has been offered already) is the only real response needed. Is there any other disruption that needs to be considered?---J.S ^(T/C) 22:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

As I mentioned above, I am on dial-up, and it took forever for this page to load. Could someone please archive the page? It is currently at 490 kb. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is archived daily. The Last archiving took place 5 hours ago and archived anything section that didn't have a new comment in the last 48 hours. If you have a better idea how to archive faster without archiving active conversations, feel free to suggest it on the talk page of WP:AN... there is some talk about this already. ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am on a rather fast ADSL connection, and it is slow for me. I would recommend halving the archive age of sections. It is 2 days now I believe, if something has had no comments for a full day chances are it is done with. And if it is not done with it can be moved back no problem. This page is too long mostly due to many small discussions that are not continued. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If I understand right the bot runs once a day (it already ran today) and archives anything 2 days old or older... switching to 1 day might help a bit. But part of the issue is that 50% of the page is taken up by 4-5 of the 80 threads. ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason for that is these threads just get dragged on and on by everyone who visits the page and adds his two cents; sometimes the original people who started the thread are long gone. Any important discussion can easily be renewed by opening a new section, with a link to the old discussion in the archive (This is also conducive to a brief summary, where the person who opens the new section explains the context; few people are going to read these long discussions and join them anew). —Centrx→talk • 23:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Taking into account the discussion above, the discussion here, and previous practice, I'm dropping the timeframe to 1 day, and setting the bot to run more frequently (which will liklely help just as much as reducing the archive time). Essjay (Talk) 03:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Endorse 1-day timeframe. Thatcher131 15:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's consider this an experiment - if the outcome is in some way unfavorable, go back to 2 days and consider alternatives. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that since /IncidentArchive155, the archive bot has neglected to include the {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} template at the top of the Incident archive pages, leaving an unnavigatable archive. I've added them manually, but can whoever runs the archive bot fix it to include the template? Edokter 19:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That's really not something the bot is intended to do; it just archives posts. This is really something for a human to do, and shouldn't be too time consuming for someone to pick up. Essjay (Talk) 04:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've picked it up myself, as well as updating the navbox templates when needed. I mistakenly asumed the bot included the navbox, but going over the history of the Admin and 3RR notice boards archives (which are archived by Werdnabot), I see it's included there manually as well. Edokter 13:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you for doing so! Essjay (Talk) 23:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

ARYAN818's unacceptable comments on Talk:Dravidian_people and on my talk page User talk:Wiki Raja

I have asked user ARYAN818 to show more civility, but he continues to show intolerance for other people’s ethnicity and heritage. Furthermore, he has posted one of his messages in between of couple of older messages on my talk page, which I find disruptive. I have responded to all his messages diplomatically. Below, is my last response to his latest message summing up his previous messages:

---

To ARYAN818 :

• Posted on User talk:Wiki Raja:

"Well anything can be an ethnic group....But Indians are not Dravidian....Nobody calls themself Dravidian...And some probably
dont even know what it means....And again....Why do u keep telling me about the word India?....I never disputed who coined
the name India....BUt I dont understand why u keep telling me about India......And I have been very civil what are u
talking about?......Bottom line....THere is an Aryan heriatge....but not a Dravidian heritage...."
ARYAN818 07:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To whom exactly is this statement “anything” referring to? Are we considered as "things" now? Is this in regards to the name ‘’Dravidian’’, or the indigenous people of Southern India? OK, let us set aside the word ‘’Dravidian’’ and not think of that now. Logically speaking, who are we? Yes, as a nationality we can say ‘’Indians’’, but I am not talking about nationality. I understand what nationality is. However, on the other hand linguistically speaking, it is more than obvious that the languages and language scripts of North and South India are totally different like night and day so we do not need to get into that. Now, on the lines of ethnicity, who are we? Are the Tamils, Telugus, Malayalees, and the Kannadigas Aryan? If we are not Aryan, then to what ethnic family do we belong? What is our heritage? Do we not have our own heritage? Why do I keep mentioning about the word ‘’Indian’’ even though the term is not being disputed? Well, the reason is because that too is not an indigenous word, just like ‘’Dravidian’’ is not an indigenous word. Therefore, both terms ‘’Indian’’ and ‘’Dravidian’’ fall in the same category of being named from non indigenous or outside sources. For some odd reason, the fact that the word ‘’India’’ itself is not an indigenous name is blatantly avoided. On the other hand, the term ‘’Dravida’’ gets attacked at every given moment. Furthermore, the term ‘’Dravida’’ is mentioned in Sanskrit sources like the Vedas, while the term ‘’India’’ is not mentioned in any South Asian literature (be it Sanskrit, Hindi, Tamil, Bengali, Punjabi,etc.). The people who should be concerned or, if so, upset about the term ‘’Davidian’’ are the people who are categorized as ‘’Dravidians’’ themselves.

• Posted on Talk:Dravidian people:

I cant believe there are still people who think there are people who call themselves Dravidian.....THe term Dravidian is a
racist term made up by Euorpeans....In India nooooobody calls themself Dravidian.....I live in America and ive never met
one person from south India who says there Dravidian.....I dont know anyone that takes pride in saying there
Dravidian......And a big chunk of people dont even know what a Dravidian means!......Dont u people get it by now!....Its
2006!.....The Aryan invasion theory is a joke.....ANd the label of Dravidian is a joke to!.....Brrrrrrrruah Punjab India!
ARYAN818 22:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe that someone would post something like this on Wikipedia. First your statement "the term Dravidian is a racist term made up by Europeans..." is an accusation against the Europeans and calling them racist. "Dont u people get it by now!..." is posted. Just what on earth is that supposed to mean? "u people"? Is this statement directed towards us, or the ethnic groups in Southern India? And then the message is ended with, "Brrrrrrrruah Punjab India!"? Correct me if I am wrong, but am I sensing some kind of superiority aura here?

• Posted on User talk:Wiki Raja

"U asked me if I consider the Punjabis & Tamils the same group of people.....today no.....In the bigger picture....yes...they
are the same." ARYAN818 23:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly does "in the bigger picture" supposed to mean? I'm sorry, not everybody thinks the same, or can read other peoples minds, but please be more descriptive. The more we discuss into detail about the ethnic cultures of India, the weirder and eerie it gets. Now, I am not talking about the name ARYAN818. In the first place nothing crossed my mind about that particular user name since I understand that it stands for Indo-Arya. There is already a disclaimer message in bold face cap letters on your site. It is not the user name that is offending people, it is this discourteous attitude of intolerance towards other people’s cultures and heritage, and I am not talking about nationality. The above statement posted on my user talk page sends me the message that the indigenous people of Southern India in general do not exist, and should not exist.

[END ITEM]

Wiki Raja 10:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the archive for the first half of December?

— Sebastian 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to the archive box at the top. If someone forgets to update the box when they create an archive, you can use the all pages listing to find it. -- JLaTondre 21:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! — Sebastian 21:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Personal Attack Intervention Noticeboard

The recent deletion of the noticeboard for personal attacks raises several questions.

1. Why was such a major decision taken after such a short time and so little discussion?

2. If it was indeed agreed to delete the noticeboard, wouldn't it have been more professional to have dealt with the open reports first?

3. What benefits will this bring. That it will lead to an increase in uncivil behaviour is pretty certain, but what are the major gains?JdeJ 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The closure has been reverted. The debate continues on MfD.--Doc^g 21:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I was confused for a moment, but I see now that it wasn't deleted, just(!) blanked and made into a redirect to WP:AN/I. Still, an odd think for anyone to do. I see that the editor in question has been asked if he'd explain his action here, but it's difficult to see what explanation could be give.

Incidentally: "That it will lead to an increase in uncivil behaviour is pretty certain". A glance at the debate indicates that it's by no means certain, any more than it's clear that uncivil behaviour decreased after PAIN was introduced... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard as the discussion that existed at the time was sufficient to ascertain a consensus to deactivate WP:PAIN. Since the critiques of WP:PAIN were based on claims that the continued operation of WP:PAIN was counterproductive, and did not assert a justification for deleting every comment made on WP:PAIN from the page history and from users' edit histories, I saw no consensus to administratively delete the page. Redirecting the page to WP:ANI (and protecting the redirect if necessary) is quite sufficient to ensure that the operation of WP:PAIN is discontinued. With regard to the question of "What benefits will this bring", the critiques of WP:PAIN were based on two principle claims:

(1) That severe personal attacks, of such a nature as to warrant prompt administrative action, would be handled in a more timely and effective manner if reported on WP:AIV or WP:ANI, both of which receive far more administrative attention than WP:PAIN

(2) That WP:PAIN encouraged editors to report borderline personal attacks and relatively mild incivility by users with whom they were involved in content disputes, where such situations did not merit prompt administrative responses, and might have been better dealt with through the dispute resolution process. John254 00:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

1) Closing an MfD after 26 hours seems highly unusual. (I've no objections to early closings, but there's no pressing need to do it that early). 2) Given the high-profile nature, probably best done by an experienced admin 3) Most people are saying DELETE. Whist there's no reason not to redirect somewhere after deletion, there is no pressing reason (or even argument being made) to retain a record of general nastiness. Best leave it to the closing admin to decide that. --Doc^g 00:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If the outcome of the MfD discussion is in favor of deletion, I suggest that implementation of the actual deletion should be held off until (1) pending issues on the page are resolved, and (2) text can be written advising users with personal-attack-related issues what steps they should take. Simply making the page a redirect to any one particular place is not a good solution. Newyorkbrad 00:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of that can happen after deletion. --Doc^g 00:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I !voted delete, but I'd still say the MfD should have stayed open at least five days. Let's give everyone a chance to weigh in - such as users who primarily edit on weekends, who never got a chance to say their pieces. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Messed up on the noticeboard

Oh, bother. I was reverting an accidental revert of someone else's and some of the unicode characters were changed by an uncompatible browser ("Links", in console mode). By the time I realized that, about 4 edits had been made and it was impossible to revert with a compatible browser. I apologize greatly and hope this doesn't offend anyone. Yuser31415 22:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Section from AN/I deleted instead of being archived.

Hi, I've had my attention drawn to this diff. [3]

Despite the edit summary, I can't find the deleted section anywhere in the archives. Looks like it was removed rather than archived. This isn't a good thing, since this discussion prompted various other actions. Shouldn't it be archive it in the suitable place? --Barberio 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I put it in ANI archive 174. It was created by Yrgh who was incoherently trolling and it was then repeatedly attacked by Cplot socks who were also trolling.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mkil problem, I need protection against this individual asap

[moved to WP:ANI]

Interesting stats

I did a statcheck using an off-wiki tool to determine the following facts –
Stats for the AN page –

• The page has been edited over 37463 times, of which 4195 or 11.2% of the edits are minor edits.
• This page was created by Ta bu shi da yu on 12/10/2004 at 05:35 hrs.
• 27829 edits come within this year and 3021 number of edits within last month.
• There were 3187 unique number of editors of which 561 were IP addresses.
• The average number of edits per user is 11.8.
• The number with the highest number of edits on this page, unsurprisingly is Tony Sidaway (578), follwed by Jnc (469), JzG (424), Zoe (372), Geni (323), Ta bu shi da yu (311) and Radiant (300).

Stats for ANI –

• The page has been edited over 80478 times, of which 8677 or 10.8% of the edits are minor edits.
• This page was created by Jayjg on 01/04/2003 at 00:11 hrs.
• 64203 edits come within this year and 7360 number of edits within last month.
• There were 5711 unique number of editors of which 1197 were IP addresses.
• The average number of edits per user is 14.1.
• The user with the highest number of edits on this page, unsurprisingly again is Tony Sidaway (989), follwed by SlimVirgin (827), Zoe (762), Netscott (743), El C (716) and Thatcher131 (688).

Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 16:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I ran that same check and discovered I was in the top 20, with over 300 edits. Incidentally, it's wrong about the page creation - I distinctly remember Ta bu shi da yu (talk) founding it. Mackensen (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{{C} {L}} 16:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. I'd like to apologize for inflicting myself on you these many months. In the immortal words of Homer Simpson, "Lord help me, I'm just not that bright." Thatcher131 21:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that WP:AN/I was founded before WP:AN; wouldn't you expect sub-pages to come afterwards? Or am I just missing something? Picaroon 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, really. However, you can check this site – [4]. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there is database corruption regarding Jayjg's earliest edits [5] .His user page says "I joined Wikipedia on June 15, 2004" Thincat 12:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

His timestamp gives Jan 2003, but the page edits surrounding his are from March 10 2005 [6]. Looks like the issue happened at the time of posting, in March 2005. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the database is corrupted regarding those two edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating

Nick, this is a fascinating study, what off-wiki tool did you use? Just H 02:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have provided the link above. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cause I'm spammy: http://vs.aka-online.de/wppagehiststat/ ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How to deal with personal attacks now?

Now that WP:PAIN is no longer, I have a problem where should I report violations of WP:NPA. Of course, I could start WP:DR procedure and go for mediation but honestly I don't have time to deal with the amount of bureaucracy involved in that too often. I prefer to write articles, not essays on behaviour of another editor. As the current WP:PAIN notes that WP:AN is one of the places personal attacks can be reported, I wonder what's our procedure for dealing with them? Can and will we issue warnings or block? Or will we refer people to DR and if they have no time or will for it, tell them to grow a 'thicker skin'?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the de facto policy is to ignore them. Then if neccessary we block people who ignore the policy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I'm puzzled by those two sentences. They seem to say we should block the victims of personal attacks for reacting to them -- because they ignored the policy to ignore the attacks. That seems so unfair that I know I've misunderstood your meaning. But what did you mean? -- Ben 23:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, educated them, if they are already educated warn them, if they know the policy and have been warned and choose to ignore the policy/warning, I do not hesitate to block. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If they've been warned and continue to violate WP:NPA, report them here (that was, I understand, what proponents of removing PAIN were arguing was an option). But for lesser things (like accusations of being a "vandal"), the best approach is probably to ignore them. John Broughton | ♫ 03:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe ANI would be better? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes to header

I've made some changes to the notice templates at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader, which are transcluded onto AN and AN/I, respectively. The main thing is that I noted that blatantly inappropriate usernames and persistent spammers can go to WP:AIV - I've definitely reported a blatantly inappropriate username there (Fukkie (talk · contribs), IIRC), and I've most likely reported spammers past {{spam4}} also. I assume there are no objections, seeing as all I did was put standard process into writing. Picaroon 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Attack Page talk page input

Since attack pages are referenced on the noticeboard fairly commonly, people may have useful input for Wikipedia talk:Attack page#Request for Comment: Namespace And Definition? Шизомби 03:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

archiving frequency

Hey - why is Essjaybot archiving threads only 1 day old? Are those discussions "over?" Rama's arrow (3:16) 18:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The page was getting far too long with longer archive times. I doubt there are many active discussions that go more than 24 hours without added to. --Tango 11:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition to header?

Should the language at the top of this page (AN and ANI) also contain the suggestion/requirement that if the user is posting to address an action by a particular administrator, that person should be advised of the posting? Newyorkbrad 20:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd support that idea, although it appears that most guidelines at the top of AN[I] are ignored 90% of the time :(. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - good idea, but will probably be ignored anyway. I think other readers inform people when they are mentioned, anyway. --Tango 11:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea; I'll go ahead and be bold in doing this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference - Oversight

A question: is there a reason that requests for oversight aren't listed as a link in the "Are you sure that this is the page you are looking for?" section? I realize that they aren't all too common, and when brought up as a post usually get taken care of with a good amount of speed. However, something simple that would circumvent some public postings references to "there is personal information here" (particularly with minors or any other sensitive information) might be worth the line that they'd take up, no? Bitnine 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing WP:BEANS. Just pointing a page may be enough to have people checking the history for addresses, phone numbers or anything personal. -- ReyBrujo 20:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was simply forgotten. We can't hide the whole of oversight on BEANS grounds. --Tango 11:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Bitnine may be misunderstanding the nature of requests for oversight; the page details that such requests are done via email because of their confidential nature and the possibility that people would check the history, etc., that you pointed out. I don't have a problem with pointing people to RfO, and I'll go ahead, be bold, and add that in in a moment. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm, apparently less than completely clear, as per usual. ;) I was actually referencing how such items currently get posted now and again to the noticeboard directly, usually with a note such as "I'm not sure where to bring this, but..." and that a link to the page might better steer people towards the email instead of public posting in this manner. Is all good, though. Bitnine 00:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

False Accusations of Vandalism

We need a location for reporting False Accusations of Vandalism --Frank Lofaro Jr. 22:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If they are made in good faith ignore them, if they are made in bad faith treat them as vandalism. No need for another place. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You need to discuss issues you are having with article edits on the talk page of the article, not constantly reverting. The addition you are trying to add is unsourced (see WP:V, WP:CITE) and conroversial - discuss it on the article talk page. Thanks/wangi 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the level headed comment; that does far more to advance our common aims than the accusations spread about. I am discussing it on the talk page and have made a strong concession on my last edit. Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss this particular case so we should probably take any discussion back over there. --Frank Lofaro Jr. 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Open informal complaint over the behaviour of an Administrator

As per this thread and This helpful comment at the top of WP:ANI it is clearly stated that "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here". However when I did that, the reponse of several, very established and respected, editors what that I had bought up the complaint in the wrong place. If this is the case I would propose removal of the line and an alternative appropriate place, if such a thing is needed. Please note that the text states informal complaints and therefore WP:RFC does not seem to be the place.Pedro1999a |  Talk  11:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. Guess it's going to stay. Feel free to archive this someone. Pedro |  Talk  20:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels

Will someone please tell me why his SSP's are blocked instantly. I have seen a few of his Contribs, but they aren't bad, unless I looked at the wrong user. Zbl 22:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrators tend to block WoW-style usernames immediately because of his nature. PTO 01:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WOW was a major bot-style pagemove vandal back in the days... back before it was easy to fix. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

When you say "his" you sort of lose me, he was one of the early pagemove vandals, banned from the site a long time since. These days Willy On Wheels is a synonym for pagemove vandal (Much the same way that some trademarks become generic and lose their trademark status) --pgk 23:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Odd problem editing ANI

In the past few days, I have encounted the odd situation that I want to edit ANI, I click on "edit" for the relevant section, and the edit window opens with the text of a different section. Has anyone else experienced this problem? Thanks for any info. Newyorkbrad 21:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That happens when someone breaks up a section. The edit link contains the section ID of the section you are trying to edit ... #1, #2, #3, etc. Well, if you add a section break to section #2, then what was section #3 becomes section #4. So if you have been sitting there reading ANI (or any other page) since before the section break was made, your links are all going to be off. In short, that's normal behavior, not a problem. ;) --BigDT 21:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Section archived with no response or action - what next?

I posted Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive200#Possible sock puppetry at Jung Myung Seok this incident on the noticeboard two days ago; it was archived without any response being posted to the section, or (as far as I can tell) any action by any admin.

The instructions to the page say If no comment, or no further comment, has been made after a 48-hour period, your post and any responses will be automatically archived. So I understand what happened, in, in some sense, why. Obviously I'm a bit frustrated as well. Should I just repost the incident and hope that someone says that they will either look into it, or why looking into it would be pointless? Or should I just assume that this is considered such a minor problem that I'd just be bothering everyone (and wasting my time) if I were to repost? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The noticeboard is archived automatically, so all it means is that either no one noticed the report or no one wanted to get involved. You can re-post it. You could also post it at Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets; there is a long backlog there, but it won't be archived automatically if no one responds immediately. —Centrx→talk • 17:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents effective or not? Many of the sections created are archived without any admin response. Are frivolous reports not worth responding? Should admins at lease acknowledge that they have read the report and give a brief summary why no action is required? Any other suggestions to make it better?

Lots of sections are archived without any admin response. If admins are busy, make more people admins. Lukas19 02:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You shall see that often, it is not that we have too little admins responding. It's that there are too many frivolous reports that aren't worth responding. Not every incident report ANI receives needs a detailed explanation or requires admin intervention. If your report has been continuously ignored, perhaps you should ask yourself why it was ignored, not rain upon us recycled complaints. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Too many frivolous reports? Are all reports being red? If they are, it's not hard to write "no :::::action required". It'd take 5 seconds. If no response has been given, I'm just assuming that noone bothered to read. And if I "rain upon" you "recycled complaints", perhaps you should really consider the possibility that AN/I is ineffective. Lukas19 02:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

ANI is not ineffective, but perhaps your method of persuading others to look at your complaint. Try again, and use the power of language to persuade people to see your method. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, if there is a complaint, people shouldnt be persuaded into looking at it. Adminship is a responsibility, not something in which people only look at complaints they are interested in. If you do not have time, ask for more admins. I'm sure there are many candidates. If there are enough admins but some of them only look into problems they are interested in, sack them and make other people who can do this job admins. Lukas19 02:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want more admins, you can always nominate suitable and willing candidates. However, adminship is not slavery. We do not have the obligation to listen to every complaint, to read every report, and to act on every plea for help. We are here out of the goodness of our own hearts, not to be pushed around by editors seeking assistance. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If an admin sees 10 issues a day on four different noticeboards and all of them are week/nn complaints and they take 30 seconds to respond per complaint to say "no action required" that takes 20 minutes a day to ignore bullshit we see enough of that in other places. If admins only looked at things we are interested in CAT:CSD would NEVER get worked on. Admins dont have to put up with crap complaints that have no backing or evidence. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 02:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously thinking only the crap goes non-responsed? And to write "no action required" wouldnt take more than 5 seconds. If you get that many "crap" you can copy&paste it as well. Lukas19 05:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone here is a volunteer. As such, they are free to choose for themselves any part of the infinite pile of tasks that is the collective wikipedia backlog. If you have something you'd like someone to do, try to make it attractive for someone to do it. And you're always free to run for admin yourself, if you think you're the right type. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Having said, that, LSLM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly heading into NPA territory. Eg [7]. I'm not sure why your complaint was ignored, maybe because it was too long. However, you tend to edit in contentious areas, so maybe no-one wanted to buy into what could turn into a nasty fight. I've had a quick look at your edit history and I don't see anything I definetly object to, though I do see some comments about white and sort of whites and so on that make me think that properly exploring your claims would be a lot of trying to understand what seem to be complicated issues, and looking at possible counter claims against you, and I suspect it would all turn into a big and possibly unrewarding exercise real fast. I suspect that plenty of admins have done much the same thing I did, had a look and said - hard. So that's my guess at why you didn't get any satisfaction but also why people didn't say action isn't required. It might be time for an RFC. I'm tempted to suggest that this section belongs on the project page. While it started as a discussion of the noticeboard, I think you're more interested in your particular post being ignored than in the issue of posts in general not being actioned. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• AN and ANI are somewhat overloaded and rather overly broad. It would help to (1) merge the boards since their difference is far from clear for most editors, (2) create specific-purpose boards, such as WP:DRV and WP:RFC/U, (3) summarily move all complaints to the proper board, and (4) be less lenient against false complaints. >Radiant< 12:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You had PAIN and RFI noticeboards which was deleted for some reason...Lukas19 02:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

They were being abused. As for repsonding with 'no action required', it would be presumptuous for one admin to label an item that way when another admin might come along later and think it is worth action. Just because I don't want to respond to an item does not mean that others will feel the same way. -- Donald Albury 02:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Often, yes. Of course, sometimes it only becomes clear that no action is required after a bit of work. Then it is worth saying "no action required", and why, so that other people don't duplicate what you've already done. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The only reason abuse was any sort of problem there was because few or no admins were monitoring them. The same problem would happen if we split out specific-purpose boards—or there would never have been reason to delete WP:PAIN and WP:RFC: more admins would have monitored them. —Centrx→talk • 03:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My rationale for admins writing no action required with a bried summary was to make sure all of the reports get read. Currently, I think this isnt the case. Many reports get archived without being noticed. I find the excuse "no need to respond to crap" crap itself. People desperately need a reality check if they think this board responds to all "non-crap" reports. Ideally, all reports should be read and responded to without taking too much admin time. If this isnt the case, it may be due to a) not enough admins b)lazy admins c)ineffective system d)a combination of these and/or some other reason.

If there arent enough admins here, giving "nominate yourself" or "nominate others" are simplistic answers, or rather non-answers. Wikipedia must have something to influence rate of new admins. You have lots of RfA's in which people can steer the direction according to the need for new admins. A concrete example is the recent RfC about Trodel. If Wikipedia need more admins, "new users shouldnt nominate admins" is not a mindset that should be preserved. I will not comment on b , but on c Radiant! makes good points. In all cases the stupidity and ineffectiveness of your current system is exampled by the fact that people can get away by making personal attacks right at AN/I. [8]

And addressing this by giving answers such as "dont give us recycled complaints" or "make your writing more interesting" is ridiculous at best. I dont think of any way to make personal attack reports in the form of a horror book Lukas19 20:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You make some excellent points. What are you going to do about them? Regards, Ben Aveling 20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For starters I have opened a RfC and posted this on Village Pump. Any suggestions? Lukas19 00:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I wish had more time to spend on it. But one offer I will make. If you have suggestions on how to make Adminship more appealing or less difficult, I'd be curious to hear them. If they can be done with a script, I might be able to find some time to implement something. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

archive the page

I have added WerdnaBot code to the page to archive comments older than 1 day. Regards, Navou ^banter / _contribs 14:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

note: For the incidents page anyway. If my coding is not reverted, I or someone else will do the same to the pther noticeboards. Werdnabot has been doing fine with the community notice board. Navou ^banter / _contribs 14:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Good, archiving ANI manually is not much fun... However, it seems that a new bot is also being worked on to replace EssjayBot II. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#MiszaBot_II. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What's going on with subheadings

I fixed several headings that had "== =...= ==" - i changed them to ";..." because that seemed like a better fit for the intent (have it appear under the top-level heading) than breaking it out into a top-level of its own - is there some archiving issue I'm not aware of here? --Random832 19:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Misza13, do you perhaps have any insight to offer here? Based on looking at the history it looks like your bot's doing it (but you're doing a good job fixing it - i don't mean any offense or anything) so i'm really asking more as to what technical problems are causing it specifically --Random832 21:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please see User_talk:Misza13#MiszaBot_and_third-level_section_headings. Misza13's new bots MiszaBot II and MiszaBot III are replacements for EssjayBot II and EssjayBot III. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Username promoting company -- self-edited article

Per WP:Username: Usernames that promote a company: Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies and groups are discouraged and may be blocked as a violation of Wikipedia policy against spamming and advertisement.

Sounddogs has only edited the article Sounddogs, and based on the precedent of AudioSparx, should have the name banned. Autocracy 18:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The user has already been blocked; for future reference, note that these notices should probably go on the the Administrators' noticeboard itself, not on its talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive boxes

I just "fixed" several sections that had the archive box header above the section header. Can someone clarify whether this was necessary or if the bot can deal with these? (particularly as one of them was unsubsted and discussion had continued after it) --Random832 20:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Can a user be banned from editing a single page?

Can a user be banned from editing a single page? Does our software allow this? - Peregrine Fisher 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, no. Blocks have to be used to enforce violations of page bans. Trebor 00:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As a policy matter it can be done by the Arbitration Committee, by the community after a discussion on the noticeboard (note that this is relatively new and sometimes controversial), or by agreement as a condition of an unblock. However, the software can't be programmed to enforce it at this time. I believe there was once a suggestion to implement that but I don't know if it's been pursued. Newyorkbrad 00:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, the database backend is there, only that no one has bothered to code the interface. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Users can be banned (different from blocked) from editing a specific page, or pages on a specific topic, or anything else the community or the arbcomm decides. Enforcement of such bans is done by humans, not by software. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Newyorkbrad beat me to an explaination, in clearer words than I might have chosen. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a javascript solution I'm working on that users can possibly voluntarily install to prevent editing on specific pages. --Random832 20:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Using Template:Usercheck

May I suggest as possibly helpful: add userchecks below the headers of sections on problematic users, because this gives a one-line linklist to available subpages -- and where there are no such subpages, to the reporting and/or summary pages. Format: <p align=center>{{usercheck|1=username}}</p>   -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 01:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What happens after the message is archived?

Could someone please write a small comment under Using this page about what happens when the message is archived. Is that it - issue solved / too hard so it's ignored / keep posting till someone answers? see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive217#not_simple_vandalism.3F - Ctbolt 12:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Change title to "Administrative noticeboard"

(Apologies if this has already been discussed and shot down!) Over at Wikipedia talk:Community noticeboard, it has been proposed that this board be renamed to "Administrative noticeboard." The discussion is being held in the larger context of a proposal to delete the Community noticeboard altogether but renaming this board seems to be a separate issue. It's also been received favorably by those participating in the discussion. Before someone boldly steps on a potential land mine, it might be helpful to gather additional input from those who may not monitor the Community noticeboard.

The proposed change is to change the names of this page, AN/3RR, and AN/I from "Administrators' __" to "Administrative __." Thoughts? --ElKevbo 15:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally support this move. Netscott 18:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be cool with the move, but we might want to get a bot to move all the archives and update the ten thousand links to this page. ---J.smith 20:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the point? Just leave the archives as they are, at the name they had when the archives and the comments in them were made, and leave a redirect, which is the purpose of redirects. Talk page comments and archives should absolutely not be changed; the only links that would need changing are so few and particular that a bot would not be much help and would be liable to error. —Centrx→talk • 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please rename it to Admin noticeboard. Its easier on the eyes when I view my watchlist too. Just throwing this in. Sarvagnya 21:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That introduces the same ambiguity (or outright falsehood) that the present name engenders, though. The noticeboard isn't (just) for administrators, it's for anything that requires administrative action or notice. I very much support this (as long as it won't cause any server problems). —Bbatsell 22:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not ambiguity, but separation. As it is, this board is for administrators (not meaning that only administrators can participate, just that it is for administrator action). I would only support this move if we are deleting the Community Noticeboard (which we should). Then this board could support both concepts, under the umbrella of the "Administrative" name. -- Renesis (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any ambiguity. The noticeboard where you put things for the attention of administrators is logically the administrators' noticeboard. The name "administrative noticeboard" has the opposite connotation of somewhere the administrators put messages related to administration for the rest of us. Chriscf 00:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I am for the change, or for not changing, both are fine. I always use WP:AN anyways. HighInBC 00:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Historically this board is for communication with and between administrators. I'm not sure that the name change would keep that clarity. --Tony Sidaway 15:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that pages should not be named for historical accuracy, but for current accuracy. I'm in favor of changing the name. Eli Falk 15:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if the purpose has changed updating the name is a good idea. Has it changed? --Tony Sidaway 15:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say so, yes. See my comment on Radiant's talk page: "WP:AN has started as a noticeboard for the admins, but by now it's the "everything important goes here"-noticeboard. Arbcom decisions, community bans (before WP:CN was created), big, wikipedia wide scandals. None of these are for the admins, but for the community that cares deeply about Wikipedia (which, of course, consists mostly of admins)." --Conti|✉ 15:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Conti's explanation sounds rather descriptive. I know that when I first started posting on the "Administrators' noticeboard" back when I was newbie-ish I was a bit hesitant to do so. It really felt like a different and reserved area. My thinking at the time was along the line, "Hmmm... well I'm not an administrator.. maybe I shouldn't be posting here." Given Conti's logic here I particular don't see the need for the name as it is now. Netscott 15:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your thoughts echo my own, Netscott. The apostrophe in the board's present name clearly indicates possession of this board by the administrators and that's clearly not the case. Either the board's name needs to be changed to truly reflect its purpose or it needs to be protected so non-administrators can't post to the administrators' noticeboard. This wacky middle ground is confusing, off-putting, and completely unnecessary. --ElKevbo 15:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is pure makework. It will neither improve the Wikipedia nor make it worse. You'd do more good for the encyclopedia by looking for "its"/"it's" spelling mistakes and fixing them instead. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think we should change the title to "Community Noticeboard", because that's what it is at the moment. Incidentally that fixes the perceived problem with overlappingness. Radiant! 17:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  Sounds cool. Then we'll need a new noticeboard for the bit that doesn't overlap. We could call it "Administrators' noticeboard." --Tony Sidaway 19:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  Is there a bit that doesn't overlap, because I haven't found one yet? Radiant! 08:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  One example that springs to mind is block notices, particularly those related to probations, and discussions arising. The latter are in general a matter of administrator consensus, as governed by the arbitration committee. But I was being a little sarcastic. I don't think this page needs to be renamed. --Tony Sidaway 14:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support, if only because the little apostrophe makes it annoying to type the full title out properly. The community noticeboard isn't the best idea anyway, it just fragments discussions. --tjstrf talk 03:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Current policy on removing warnings from user talk pages

What is the current policy on users removing warnings (vandalism, NPA, failure to AGF, spam, etc.) from their own talk pages? I remember at one time using a set of templates but they appear to have been removed or renamed, and they are no longer in WP:WARN. I see a lot of non-policy discussion pages on the subject, including Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll (marked historical), and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings and its talk page, but nothing that says exactly what the status quo is. Are blocks still issued for removing warnings? Should wholesale unarchived deletion of talk page warnings and discussion be reverted as a matter of course? (I'm not interested in debating the policy here, of course; I'd just like to know what it is.) Thanks, --MCB 05:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I know the former {{wr}} template you are talking about was removed, but it looks as though the uw-tpv (as in {{uw-tpv1}}, {{uw-tpv2}}, etc) can be used instead. I am not sure of regarding the consensus on whether blocks are issued for removing warnings, however, levels 3 and 4 seem to indicate that it is seen as vandalism and is blockable. Leuko 05:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you can't force users to keep warnings as they become a badge of shame. If they delete the warning at least you know they have read them. Anyway, they stay in the page history so they can be linked to from the diff if you need to show that a warning was issued. In other words, users are allowed to remove anything they like from their own user and talk pages. There is clear consensus on this at AN and AN/I as this has been discussed many many times. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that those warnings for talk page vandalism are meant to be used where an editor is removing content from other talk pages – article talk, Wikipedia talk, other editors' talk pages – and not from their own page, which they are free to maintain as they see fit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the only time it's a problem is when a user removes a warning right after it's placed to 'cover it up', then ignores the warning and goes ahead in doing whatever he was doing wrongly. Otherwise, warnings are just like other talk page sections. Besides, they're all recorded in the page history anyway. --`/aksha 10:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If they do that, then they can be blocked for whatever disruption they're doing. No need to edit war over the warning template. --Carnildo 22:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, looks like there is no policy on this right now (see Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space). —Pilotguy (go around) 12:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll echo what's been said above. Edit warring over a warning template is neither supported by policy nor helpful to the encyclopedia. If the template was well-deserved, then at least you know the recipient read it. If the template was erroneous (or placed to harrass) then there's no need to leave it as a scarlet letter. Just make sure you leave a clear edit summary when you leave the warning. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There is not policy right now, as there if there should be or not, that is a matter of opinion. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

These templates are similar to an earlier variations, I guess this concept is now a perennial proposal.

As last time: the Uw-tpv templates should be deleted, they misrepresent policy, and violate WP:BITE besides. If someone applies {{Uw-tpv4}} as per the instructions (counts as a 4th revert), the correct procedure is to block them as per WP:3RR.

Just because someone disguises a practice to make it look official doesn't mean it doesn't actually violate policy. :-P

--Kim Bruning 17:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-tpv1}} et al were designed for people who were blanking article Talk pages, if I remember; I don't think they're supposed to be used on userpages (de facto policy, which is all the policy at Wikipedia, at the moment seems to be to delete templates that duplicate {{Wr}} via TfD as soon as they're noticed). I agree that the template's usage instructions could be clearer. --ais523 17:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, alright. Agreed. --Kim Bruning 18:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here."

That text currently appears on WP:AN/I and similar text appears on WP:AN directing users to AN/I. I wanted to make an open informal complaint over the behavior of an admin, did so, and was told in no uncertain terms that I should not have done so on AN/I. Fair enough, and the informal complaint was withdrawn and archived, but perhaps the text of the page can be conformed to whatever the unwritten rule is, so as not to trip up people trying to adhere to Wikipedia procedures. (Separately, I am further bothered that an admin threatened me with a permanent ban over this instead of assuming good faith. If new users can't learn how to use Wikipedia appropriately from reading what's written on Wikipedia pages, how can they?) -- TedFrank 03:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the unwritten rule is entirely arbitrary, random, and differs depending on the phase of the moon. Seriously, there is zero consistency with how to handle complaints against admins. -Amarkov moo! 04:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, the wording is definitely not intended to mean that any behavior by an admin should be raised there; only complaints about use of the admin tools. I'll go change that. -Amarkov moo! 04:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No I won't, because it's fully protected, but someone should. -Amarkov moo! 04:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me, so I've boldly tried to clarify it. No doubt, this being Wikipedia, someone will improve the wording. .. dave souza, talk 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have boldly tweaked. Bishonen | talk 21:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Nicely tweaked, thanks. .. dave souza, talk 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR debate and backlog

Hello, I'm in a debate about a 3RR case with an anon, and there's also a bit of a backlog on that page if somebody could take a look. Thanks --AW 19:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, beat me to it... Administrator attention would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks. 67.101.243.74 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How do we stop well-meaning people from coming to WP:ANI to report posting of PI?

It seems to happen from time to time that a troll/vandal/stalker posts something like "UserX's phone number is ________", and a well-meaning user reverts the vandal and then goes to WP:ANI, posts the diff there, and says that it will need to be deleted from the history. I'm sure administrators act promptly, but there could be several minutes between the well-intentioned publicising of the diff and the removal of it from the page history. I went to the page header, thinking to be bold and make the need for prudence and discretion more explicit, but found that the editing is admins only :( so I'm bringing the matter here. Where it currently says:

To request oversight, please see WP:RFO

I'd change it to:

To request permanent deletion of personal information, please see WP:RFO

as I think some people might not know what oversight is, and therefore might not realise that they're being told right there what page they want. As I think this is quite a serious issue, I'd possibly even add in bold print somewhere near the top: Please do not report the posting of another editor's personal information at this noticeboard. Instead, go to WP:RFO.

Others might disagree as to the necessity of having it spelt out twice, but since I can't edit the page anyway, there won't be an edit war! :) Also, I felt there should be a page called Wikipedia:Personal information, explaining what not to do when you see a vandal posting someone's details. And I found there is one, though it says it's inactive. Am I allowed to edit an inactive page? I'd like to change the instruction on what to do if PI is posted from:

"please notify an administrator" (which is linked to WP:ANI)

to

please request oversight {which would be linked to WP:RFO)

{I'd actually like to rewrite the whole page, but I'm not sure if such a page would give trolls and stalkers more ideas about the best ways of harassing someone, and also I'm not sure if non-admins are discouraged from starting project pages.) Comments would be appreciated. ElinorD (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea because not everyone knows what oversighting is. x42bn6 Talk 14:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My original question resulted from my realisation that I couldn't edit the ANI page header, but it would also apply to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header, which I have just discoverd. Apparently, this talk page I'm on now serves for AN, ANI, and the header for ANI, but the header for AN has its own talk page. Strange. ElinorD (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the headers per your request. However, I don't really see a point of editing an inactive page - people should see the tag and realize that the page is not accurate, and changing it would seem to give the impression that that was the revision being debated when it was tagged with {{historical}}. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that oversight always works. For example, I was a victim of Personal Information about myself and my mother being posted to a talk page, and, although that was promptly removed, I was advised to also remove other information that could be used to trace who I was by requesting oversight to get some edit histories removed from another page. I duly followed the procedure outline3d on WP:RFO by sending an email on 23rd March 2007 and as yet have had neither acknowlegement nor action. I have just resent the email, but it would be good to have some statistics about how many requests have been made, the time within which it is reasonable to expect a response, and so on, given the sensitive nature of some of the actions requested. It might even help reduce the number of well meaning people who come to WP:ANI and ask for action to be taken.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe your email has already been responded to by another person. As for the number of emails - the number of requests, as well as the response time, varies, but it's not a significant amount of requests, and I've seen obvious cases be oversighted within the same minute the email arrives. Sometimes, though, if it's not a clear-cut query, discussion will ensue before any response is made, and sometimes (although I believe this is rare) an email may slip through the cracks. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it has been, shortly after I reported my email and to this "thread". I am grateful for the action that has been taken.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Threat of suicide

Why were several comments removed from the section regarding the suicide threat? I mean there is a considerable amount missing than there was a few hours ago...edit history says it too. DragonFire1024 14:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been archived. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 20:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Is reverting vandalism not just about reverting it but also reporting repetitive vandalism and personal attacks as well? Simply south 22:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Some amount of testing is okay -- people are curious, and more often than not will edit something just to see if they really can. At some point, though, we do need to get a handle on it and ask them to stop. When they don't, we have WP:AIV and WP:AN/I, depending on the particular nature of the disruption (don't worry too much about where to post, either is fine, and you'll figure out what goes where, with time). – Luna Santin (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved threads archived sooner?

One thought, should {{resolved}} threads be archived sooner than the current threshold (24 hours at AN/I, I think)? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree. Yet that's one feature that will be incredibly difficult to implement (will have to write some actual parser of the algo= parameter). I suppose it's about time to commit what I've done so far to the pywikipedia tree and let others work on it too... Миша13 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

category

Err...why is the page showing that it is in category: sockpuppets of Arthur Ellis? I cannot seem to find the spot on the page where that is included to fix it....⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to have been fixed. Probably what happened is that someone typed [[Category:foo]] instead of [[:Category:foo]]. YechielMan 12:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I and WP:DENY

I think changes need to be made here. A key component to fighting vandals is to deny recognition, in other words to simply revert their edits and block their accounts, and making no mention of it anywhere. But often times vandals might look on WP:AN/I and might find "recognition" in the form of a notification of their vandalism on this page. --Nicholas Weiner 18:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a balance to be had. Ensuring we deal with vandalism effectively is important and that means some communication on wiki is going to be required. As far as WP:AN/I is concerned it maybe that such discussions end up in the archives, but they certainly don't have the same prominance as the pages/categories we have titled for the vandal (sometimes under a self-selected name) which then get lovingly maintained. I don't think WP:AN/I is that big a problem.--pgk 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Byte in edit history

what is the purpose of having Bytes in the edit history and is there a way of removing it from the history in personal preferences.--Lucy-marie 23:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the purpose... probably just something that some people like to know. You can stop it from displaying by editing your monobook.css file to include the line:

.history-size {display:none;}.

Sancho 23:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this the Green and red You are referring too the stuff that says bytes after it?--Lucy-marie 00:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, I thought you were talking about the byte count in the edit history for an article. Sancho 00:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That is what I am on about your answer was just slightly confusing but thanks for the clear up how do i remove them again?--Lucy-marie 00:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So if you go to the page Special:Mypage/monobook.css and add the line .history-size {display:none;} to it, that should stop the bytes from displaying. Special:Mypage/monobook.css is a special page that each user has that lets you configure the appearance of Wikipedia. Sancho 01:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section breaks on AN and AN/I

Arbitrary section breaks are a useful tool to allow section editing when an AN, AN/I or CN discussion gets long. I was wondering how useful these arbitrary breaks are in the Table of Contents? It's now possible to remove subsections from the TOC; I'm not sure if this would be a good idea for the admin's noticeboards. In favour: it would shorten the TOC and remove links that are irrelevant without the context of the debate; against: it would make it harder for people already participating in the debate to jump to the most recent section, and any less-arbitrary subsection breaks that might sneak in would be hidden. What do people think about this? --ais523 14:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be better to leave the subsections in the TOC; often, the subsections aren't arbitrary breaks, but actually reasonable ones. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with EVula, and I think they should stay. Whenever I want make an arbitrary section break in a long discussion, I try to pick a spot where the conversation shifted focus or the original poster added a follow-up of some sort. I think they should be kept in the TOC for the very "against" reason you cite. Picaroon 21:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep per EVula. 75.62.7.22 08:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. --ais523 09:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

AN/I is too long

Could it be broken up somehow into shorter pages?

Also, there is high probability of getting an edit conflict when posting, due to the extremely high frequency of edits. Perhaps the 'leave a new message' page should have the ability to automatically direct one's post to the bottom of the desired section, regardless of other edits. The way, the truth, and the light 23:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I just discovered the section editing feature, which somehow I never realised existed. I think that does what I want. The way, the truth, and the light 04:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Layout proposal: Only the initial topic post appear on the page, and the discussion be on its own page. Or else follow the AfD layout. I suggested this at the CSN deletion debate and think this is a better venue for that idea. nadav 03:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

{{discussion top}} template archiving on the noticeboards

Adding the {{discussion top}} — {{discussion bottom}} templates to a thread is referred to as "archiving" the thread, though it's not archiving the way the AN/ANI archivebots do it. Most of you will have seen these template-archived threads, which remain on the page, colored a dead grey with the text "The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section" across the top. Such archiving is out of control on ANI, in my opinion. (It seems less rampant on AN.) Anybody can do it, to any thread they would like to stop talking. Anybody can revert the action, too, but there seems to be a psychological reluctance to do that. The motive for template archiving is generally, I take it, that somebody is distressed by unkindness and anger expressed in a thread, and wants it to stop. A good motive, but misconceived, surely. The wiki way of workiing through differences isn't "Please stop talking," it's "Please talk." The shutting up, the gag —from however creditable motives — is sadly being increasingly inflicted on new and lively ANI threads. Experimentally and boldly, I have edited the headers to say Please Don't Do That. Nobody hates bloated page instructions more than I do, I'm always doggedly whittling them down, but, well, just for once, I added something. Bishonen | talk 01:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

• On a somewhat unrelated note, what do you think of removing the statement "If you want to make an open informal complaint about misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here," from the ANI header? Conduct on that page currently is leading to shutting down (or "archiving") such discussions. Is there a disparity between the practise of the noticeboard and the instructions on the header? --Iamunknown 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated, as you say, but no, I certainly wouldn't remove that. It's essential IMO that users, in particular inexperienced users, have some forum where they can report what they take to be admin abuse. Telling such users to take their grievance through the intricacies of Dispute Resolution instead, for instance to open an RFC (howl!) is quite unrealistic. If the case turns out to be one of real abuse of admin powers (indeed that's the very small minority of cases, but they're important)—that's when it would be time for the RFC, and new users are going to need some advocate to help them set that up—something they can be told about on the noticeboard. Inexperienced users are at such a disadvantage in the system that we have to at least keep this informal and manageable avenue open for them. It's the least we can do. Bishonen | talk 02:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

I agree that dispute resolution is not friendly to new users or, frankly, even experienced users (or, at least, those not experienced in dispute resolution, like me :\). I guess what I am concerned about is the repeated calls, "This is not the Wikipedia Complaints Department!" when an unsuspecting editor complains about another, oftentimes in response to that statement. I imagine that such calls are not a welcome to new users any more than dispute resolution. Maybe there is a another way? (I don't know, I'm grasping at straws here, and this is becoming increasingly off-topic :P though it is a necessary discussion.) --Iamunknown 03:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Martin

Over the past couple of days this page which is for discussion of serious problems has seen a deluge of unproductive discussion about issues related to the hounding of Kelly Martin. That isn't what this page is for, so to remind people of that I've provided a handy page that redirects to her talk page, which is a good place to discuss these matters and, as one of the most watched pages on Wikipedia, is certainly going to give any such discussion a reasonably wide circulation, and all without cluttering up this page. I've reverted one removal because I'd like to give this a change to work. --Tony Sidaway 10:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Two reverts is enough. I'll take this no further. --Tony Sidaway 10:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised you don't agree with me that this section was best archived but as you have reverted, you obviously wish for comment. I don't really think editors passing comment on Kelly's attention seeking antics is "hounding" - more passing comment on the best way of address and rectify some of the ongoing problems she causes. So I rather think the Admin's noticeboard, is exactly the place to discuss the numerous incidents that she causes especially when they lead to her blocking. Contrary to your statement many people do not watch her page with avid interest and from what I can see she deletes everything not entirely to her taste which is posted there, as I'm sure you are aware. Giano 10:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard → Wikipedia:Administrative noticeboard
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents → Wikipedia:Administrative noticeboard/Incidents
  • Suggested "Incidents noticeboard" WITHDRAWN.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR → Wikipedia:Administrative noticeboard/3RR
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement -> Wikipedia:Administrative noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement
• And any other non-archive subpages (page headers, etc) probably ought to be moved. They're not included in here, but if this goes through their moves will likely be uncontroversial.
• Archives from prior to the move should probably be retained at their original locations.

People keep talking about renaming these, let's actually get a discussion moving. Random832 01:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

i might as well explain the rationale for those who haven't been paying attention. It is perennially brought up that the current name leads people to think that these pages are "for" admins, rather than the project and the community as a whole. --Random832 02:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Many regular editors assume that only admins are permitted to post here. These names are more descriptive of the purpose of the pages. My only concern is disruption due to a name change. -Will Beback · † · 03:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a very wise proposal. First of all, if this did happen, we would have to move hundreds of pages. This would lock the databases for quite a bit and have the devs coming after us with pitchforks. Second of all, there is no real "good" reason for the change: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Third, Administrators' noticeboard is used on many Wikimedia project and it is good for us to have some degree of normality amongst ourselves. There is way too much work for no apparent gain. Cbrown1023 talk 03:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't have to move any of the archives. And in any event, if you really wanted to, you could simply move them very slowly. —Centrx→talk • 17:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason the archives have to move (that would be very unwise, because they're linked _everywhere_ - we can just keep in mind (and put logic in the archive box) that archives less than 86/239 or whatever have the old style of name. --Random832 20:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

there are "administrators' noticeboards" on every single Wikimedia project. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard, Simple:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, Wikibooks:Administrators' noticeboard, and Wikisource:Administrator's noticeboard are all examples of this. If these projects can get by by stating that the boards are for notifying administrators, then that's what the name confers.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What other projects do is not a reason. Redirects can be put into place if there is confusion. And, for a counterexample, see Commons:Deletion Requests, Wiktionary:Requests for deletion, Wikiquote:Votes for deletion, and so on. And, not every wikimedia project has an "Administrators' noticeboard", see de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Notizen - yes, a cheap shot, and maybe it means the same thing, but the idea that there's a requirement for the name to be the same across projects is wrongheaded. --Random832 20:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

the current names pose a barrier for non-admins. The current names do not imply that they're for notifying administrators; they imply they're only to be used by administrators (the apostrophe is possessive). --ElKevbo 04:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: I support renaming from "Administrators'" to "Administrative". I offer no opinion on changing the Incidents page from a subpage. --ElKevbo 04:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh. Let's not have a vote before any discussion, shall we? Dmcdevit·t 05:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not my fault that WP:RM is structured as starting with a vote. I may request a change to the template to eliminate the support/oppose requirement after this is over. Anyway, this has been discussed off and on at such places as the recent CSN MFD, this is simply an attempt to centralize that --Random832 21:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

more sensical; the other one is difficult to understand anyway (administrators' is awkward). And if it's for the whole community (I wasn't sure I was supposed to post here actually at first), then it should be as the nominator says. If there are move problems, those can be fixed. The Evil Spartan 20:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

note comments above this point were made before the suggestion to change Incidents to its own page was withdrawn.

I think this renaming will reduce any confusion over whether this is an admin-only zone rather than a noticeboard to organize tasks benefitting the entire project on which editors without sysop privelages can and should have input. "Administrative noticeboard" still makes clear that the focus is on actions that involve admin tools. — Scientizzle 21:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The notice board isn't currently intended only for admins. I have commented there several times to help admins decide what to do about issues presented by other users. Od Mishehu 05:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The gain, if any, is trivial, the cost is high. If people are being scared off because they aren't admins (although to judge from thsoe posting, many are NOT being scared off) a change to the intro, making it clear just what the purpose is and who is welcome to post (pretty much everyone) is all that should be needed. DES ^(talk) 15:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No, don't do this. Confusing change for no gain. And, of, polls are evil.--Doc^g 15:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong makes good points about the benefits of cross-project standardisation and I think DES is right that the perceived problem is best solved by a note not a rename. Should have been discussed further before making the proposal at WP:RM. Oh, and I just like the present name better. WjBscribe 15:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it really is a major problem, but I cannot see the harm in such a rename, there may be some benefit. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not broke, don't fix. --- RockMFR 17:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

But is it working as well as it can & should? — Scientizzle 00:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. A name change will not improve this page (not that there are necessarily any defects right now). --- RockMFR 03:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

New users and non-admins, those not familiar with the workings of Wikipedia may be reluctant to participate here. Let's avoid biting by seclusion. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 17:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note, my edit summary conflicts with my decision... disregard the edit summary. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 17:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Do have any actual evidence that people are being scared off, or is somebody guessing that this might be happenning? If we have evidence I'd support.--Shirahadasha 18:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll readily admit that I avoided any sort of posting on AN & ANI for a long time 'cause I thought I wasn't supposed to. It's an "Administrators' noticeboard" afterall, and I wasn't... — Scientizzle 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The name "Administrators' Noticeboard" should not be construed to be exclusionary to non-admins and new users, but rather that it is for items which may require an administrator's attention. If we rename it, people may not actually know where to get the attention of an administrator. -- Renesis (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it shouldn't be construed as exclusionary. It matters if it is. And I believe it is. --ElKevbo 00:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. There's nothing wrong with the current name. Placeholder account 17:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see enough reason to move them. The fact that people other than admins use it to isn't enought to warrant a move. Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the moves would be an improvement for new users. I think it would help me/us be encouraged to use the spaces as required instead of thinking we're intruding on anything. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

why not —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to split out Incidents; it should remain as a subpage. A main reason for having it be a separate page in the first place is simply so each page is not so large. They would otherwise be fine on the very same page. —Centrx→talk • 03:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Centrx - the incidents subpage is just for a specific type of topic which, I presume, used to clog up the main noticeboard. Whether the page is moved or not, it should remain as a subpage. I'm ambivalent about the -ive renaming, so convince me. Who thinks these pages are for admins? Picaroon (Talk) 03:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I do like the new names, but the people above are right. ANI needs to stay a subpage of AN, whatever it's renamed to if it is. Also, what about all the archives. There's over 300. Are we going to move them all? --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 03:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Has adequate notice been made of this proposal? I don't see anything on either main page. -Will Beback · † · 03:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The standard way of giving notice for this sort of thing is on the talkpage. This talkpage is shared between AN and ANI, I assumed it was also for AN/3RR, but i'll make a notice there. I'll also mention this on the village pump, which seems an appropriate place. --Random832 23:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Right idea, wrong solution. The administrators' noticeboard should be moved to Wikipedia:Community noticeboard, to take over from the present community sanction noticeboard and address some of the cultural problems people perceive there.

The "Incidents" and "3RR" pages could stay where they are, with the idea that those are for items that specifically require administrator action. I've never heard of anybody who was so inhibited by the name that they failed to protest an alleged three-revert rule violation when they had the opportunity. --Michael Snow 03:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. I just want the perception that these boards belong to and should only be used by admins to be eased or eliminated. --ElKevbo 04:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually very much like Michael Snow's idea. It makes a lot of sense. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 17:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not attached to the name and won't cry if it gets moved. My instinct is to just say we should be more clear about this, but if it's a problem, I do agree that there is no reason for even the appearance of a discussion restricted to administrators. If we were to do so, though, I'm not sure how much of an improvements "Administrative noticeboard" really is. At the risk of taking the easy way out, why not Wikipedia:Noticeboard (which is currently a redirect) with the subpages following. Of course, it's not much of a real noticeboard either, but that never seems to have been much of a problem... Dmcdevit·t 05:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The village pump is a noticeboard, the RFC listings are noticeboards, the community portal is a noticeboard, etc. Using generic names to try to dissociate it from administrators is misleading. This noticeboard is for issues that require administrator attention. It is not for content issues, it is not for policy proposals, it is not for new Wikiprojects, etc. —Centrx→talk • 05:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the current name doesn't fit what the noticeboard is - and that made it take longer for me to start paying attention to it. My original thought, based on the name, was that it's for users to inform admins of problems. Once I started to really look at it, I realized that I was wrong - and I occasionally give my opinion there about things. Od Mishehu 05:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious, what costs do those opposing the move perceive? A comprehensive description of pros & cons would help us find a consensus, I believe. — Scientizzle 00:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the moves happen, renaming to keep articles seem more accessible when they truly are/should be accessible or universal (not just for Admins) is a good idea. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. This poorly planned and terrible executed attempt at a poll has been refactored into a discussion. In the future, do not begin polling before discussion has taken place, and especially before you even know what the poll will be about, and don't change the poll's question while it is in progress. Please discuss this like any other wiki process now. Dmcdevit·t 21:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said on your talk, it's the template's fault not mine, but... what exactly do you mean by "like any other wiki process (processes like this one, perhaps)"? --Random832 22:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you're getting it. You just pointed out all the crappy processes that need to be remodeled. So, did you notice how actual articles are made? No votes (unless someone's being silly). That's what I mean by other wiki processes. I mean wiki processes. (There's no reason to think about assigning blame, just fixing things.) Dmcdevit·t 22:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In this edit Dmcdevit changed the content of my comment here, by removing the significant 9and bolded) word "oppose". Similar changes were made to teh commetns of several otehr editors. I ahve reverted the change to my own comment. uI urge otehrs to do likewise if their comment was changed. Furthermore, a commetn made in the context of a poll-style discussion is soemwhat different from a comment made in another style of discussion. By removiung the framework but leavign the coments, their context is misrepresented, adn thus the intent of the editors is falsified to some degeee. if you wnated to act boldly to oppsoe the poly-styel-discussion, it eould have been much better IMO to have archived the poll and asked that discussion start afresh, not to have attempted to convert comemnts made in a poll-format to commetns made in a non-poll format. DES ^(talk) 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If you get bogged down in procedures, rather than the issue at hand, you're probably doing something wrong :-). --Kim Bruning 15:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but I tend to type in the abbreviation/shortcut rather than the entire name, so what those letters stand for doesn't matter a lot to me. Having said that, I see no strong reason to make the change. If there are valid concerns that the names are confusing some folks, why not use the text link to describe the use rather than the actual name? For example:

* WP:AN — Report or discuss administrative tasks (all users are welcome)

* WP:ANI — Report or discuss incidents requiring intervention by administrators

* Report a 3RR violation

* WP:AE — Request or discuss actions by the Arbitration Committee

This would convey the purpose of the page without having to rename them. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 22:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone point out a significant number of instances where the name of this page has discouraged users from making relevant edits? --- RockMFR 03:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the name of this page. :-P I have been -well- attacked here several times, so I tend to not initiate posts here myself. --Kim Bruning 15:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC) (I don't do unto others what I don't want others to do unto me... not that that seems to help much %-)... though hmm, it'd probably be worse if I didn't follow that policy, I guess)

About RockMFR's question, before you come to that, there's an other question: Has the name discouraged users from looking at the page, when had they looked, they may have made relevant edits? Because it did discourage me from looking here for a while. Once I started looking here, I've made several relevant edits. Od Mishehu 08:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of WP:AN

User:Ali doostzadeh seems to have reverted WP:AN page to an older version, and in the process, wiped out a bunch of threads, and restored some threads that were archived. [9] To fix this mess, I have reverted to the version prior to his edit, and then refactored the page to include subsequent comments. I believe this was a mistake by User:Ali doostzadeh, not vandalism, but if it happens again, my view will not be so cheerful. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 14:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a bug that causes pages to revert to old revisions more or less at random (it's quite hard to pin down but has happened to multiple users); that's likely what happened here. --ais523 07:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Abolition of ANI

My observation is that the sheer volume of miscellaneous complaints on ANI make some admins who watch and take action on that page, rather cranky and impulsive. I propose that ANI be abolished and replaced with seperate pages for each category of incident. This would induce those making a report to think more carefully about the facts and importance of the incident and specifically what type of incident it is. This would cut down noise considerably in my opinion. I have seen too many otherwise patient admins reduced to irrational tyrants by attempting to police the volume of incidents on this page. I hope others see the merits of my proposal.--Fahrenheit451 23:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ganging up - post closure thread moved to talk page

Following moved as post-closure thread:

Doc glasgow Did you just close this discussion? Are you trying to tell me that you not only took part in this discussion, representing a partisan point of view, but you are closing this discussion too? Where is the fairness in that? In point of fact I posed a question to you (see below) that you have not responded to. Bus stop 15:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Foolishly I did take part. But neither your question, nor any response from me, belong on this page. Take your argument elsewhere.--Doc^g 15:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, pretend I closed it. -- John Reaves (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... It's most unfortunate to see the discussion closed, especially since Bus stop's last comment is extremely misleading and presents an outright falsehood: the 'List of Christians' tag was never on the article previously, and indeed was even created from scratch by user John Carter around a week or so ago. It was added, confusingly, because the need for such a tag only applies to the List of notable converts to Judaism (because of the complex definition of Who is a Jew?, and the confusion which may arouse in such a title; for example, there can be Jewish atheists, but not Christian ones- at least, there is no comparable example). A few days after its creation and addition, it was removed by other editors, who saw its misplacement as much as I did. User John never clearly explained his purpose in including the tag, so I'm not even sure what it was all about.

Anyway, since the discussion is, after all, closed, I don't want to continue where it isn't warranted. However, note Bus stop's appeal to birth religion in his illogical assumption of "If a Christian convert is not openly displaying his Christian faith, and not openly negating his old one, then he must be adhering to his old faith- never mind the other religious possibilities and the fact that this individual is very private about his personal life". Also, note that, despite my explanation of such several times, Bus stop still does not remember that the sources which we have explain his Jewish ritual involvement as "coming from a Christian perspective" and being "more cultural than religious"- the sources even state that he was involved with the Lubavitchers from a "Christian perspective". All such examples are dismissed because his involvement with these things is normal for a Jewish Christian (really, ask one of them). Keep in mind that the sources used are reliable in accordance with WP:BLP standards. Well, I suppose the discussion is done, but I wouldn't like to see a misrepresentative comment as the last one frozen in this discussion. Forgive me. --C.Logan 16:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If Bus stop wishes to report the behavior of Doc, the correct forum is WP:AN/I. However, I agree that the argument as stated really was more of a content driven one, and as such should be handled by dispute resolution, as indicated above. And, regarding the {{Christian list}}, it was created on the model of {{Jew list}} both to resolve the question of who qualifies for inclusion in such a list and to function as a replacement for the {{Christianity}} which has been placed on about 300 articles to which it is not directly relevant. I thought copying the Jewish list template Bus stop so frequently cited as a point of reference would possibly quiet some of his objections, and also be a template which could at least potentially be used on various Christian lists. I hope that answers the questions above. John Carter 18:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are two editors (C.Logan and John Carter) still posting here? I thought this discussion was closed. Isn't this a little silly? First, one administrator (Doc glasgow) argued his side of the case, against me. Then that same administrator chose to close the discussion according to his timing (without answering what I thought was a very relevant question that I posed to him). And then another administrator (John Reaves) came along to tell me to pretend that he closed this discussion. Is this not a flawed process? Does it not occur to either administrator to speak up about the additional postings after the closing of this discussion, or is it expected that I too will continue the discussion here, oblivious to the literal meaning of the words, No further edits should be made to this page.? Bus stop 12:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I was setting false statements straight. Your argument is fine and all, but when there are falsehoods in the text, they shouldn't be ignored. We've made one post each, for whatever reason. Would you not have equally refrained from commenting, save that you felt it would be a relevant contribution, and wholly necessary to note? Mind yourself first, and refrain from condemning others. Hopefully, this will be the last post in this section. --C.Logan 13:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan -- Brush up on the distinction between literal and figurative since you and John Carter both here and on the article List of notable converts to Christianity run roughshod over that distinction with regularity. Bus stop 13:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved thread ends here

Er... potentially touchy subject, I know, but...

... did anyone else blink when, during the discussion of SqueakBox impersonating admin / admin powers the following comment

* Endorse block by User:El C. Good call. Pro-pedophilia POV-pushing / filing vexatious 3RR & ANI reports / WP:SPA / censoring of talk page comments, etc, etc - Alison ☺ 18:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

was made? I thought that all POV pushing was bad and (except for BLP, of course, where it is zealously opposed) is equally discouraged. If we are expected to help apply policy/guidelines/rules then we had best give the appearance of complying with them. (This is a general observation, and not about any particular admin, regarding handling editors with viewpoints that may be considered distasteful/reprehensible by a majority). LessHeard vanU 23:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC) ps. From the discussion it appears the block was a very good call, on the basis of violation of Good Faith etc.

I don't quite see your point, LessHeard. Are you saying that pro-pedophilia POV-pushing should be viewed in the same light as, say, arguing that table tennis is more fun than mini-golf? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends on how one views NPOV. For me NPOV on pedophilia should reflect the views of modern socities on this subject and an article that gave equal weight to pedophiles and those who oppose them would not be NPOV but slanted in favour of pedophiles because neutrality in our socieites is that pedophilia is a sickness and possibly a crime and that those who defend it are an extremist minority, SqueakBox 23:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro-anything POV-pushing is a bad thing, far as I'm concerned. Are we about to have the conversation about "pedophilia is quite okay and is not the same as child molestation, etc, etc" ??? *sigh* - Alison ☺ 23:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, pro (or anti) POV pushing is what should concern us and not the subject matter. I can understand that some subjects will get a speedier response, and the determination of what is POV and what is "accepted standard" may differ in a few cases, but all types of POV pushing must be dealt with by equal consideration. It would be wise to be very careful in giving our reasons of blocking, and commenting upon the the reasons, and not mention that the blockees beliefs and interests are relevant to the decision. In the case of paedophilia it should be pointed out that the phrase is for a medical/psychological condition (which is not illegal of itself but acting upon it is). I commented at Jimbo's talkpage previously that if we hardblock self identifying paedophiles we shouldn't make the mistake of doing it for the wrong reason (i.e. we block because it is to benefit of WP that we do, not because we think that the conditon is illegal). I think Squeakbox may remember the earlier debate on this. LessHeard vanU 12:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe he's arguing that the type of POV pushing shouldn't be the important point. Should he have been blocked? Yes. Should his block be sacred-speedy-endorsed because he was a pedophile rather than, say, a console war idiot? No. --tjstrf talk 00:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Point to note; I never once referred to the guy as a pedophile, but that he was "pro-pedophilia POV-pushing" (try saying that fast). Big difference! - Alison ☺ 00:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) There's no evidence that the type of POV pushing was the important part of the endorsement. Alison simply said she supported the block, based on "Pro-pedophilia POV-pushing", not that the Pedo POV was the reason for endorsing the block. This conversation isn't necessary. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(EC reply to Slim) Depends a lot whether someone's disruptive about it. Now, granted, it would probably be a lot easier to cause a disruption by being pro-pedophilia then it would by being an ardent supporter of table tennis, and we're probably more likely to see someone who's just trolling with it. I would certainly expect someone with such a controversial viewpoint to be circumspect and not in-your-face about it, with the realization that it will disquiet people. But, first off, do remember we're dealing with a worldwide audience. Some things that are considered illegal and abhorrent behavior in the US are considered perfectly legal and ethical in others. That aside, some people disagree that some things considered illegal and abhorrent should be considered so. I'm just fine myself with adult-child sex remaining quite illegal, thank you very much, but there are people who really do disagree it should. (Now, of course, it's not acceptable for anyone to POV push, alter talk pages, or do any of the rest, whatever their personal beliefs are.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're here to promote the views of the entire world. If we did that, we'd have to add sources saying that gays are evil and women inherently inferior to men. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be on the main AN page? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably. I only found out that my comment was being discussed here by chance - Alison ☺ 00:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As a philosophy major, I find this kind of discussion intriguing…but it really has nothing to do with bettering the encyclopedia. LessHeardVanU, you picked up on an interesting point, worthy of some rumination; but when it gets down to it, pointing out what others ought to ruminate about, relying on extremely scant evidence, simply isn't productive for the task at hand. Even if Alison did allow a bias to peek through for a sec, it had no impact on the decision. If a tree falls in the forest, just go on making a better encyclopedia! -Pete 00:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I should have couched my terms more carefully; WP may indeed be disadvantaged by the appearance of any bias in its admin functions. Paedophile advocates, for example, can be very clever in manipulating legitimate discussion and could perhaps (in this particular scenario) contest the block on the basis of bias rather than the violation of guidelines, policy et all. The contest would ultimately fail, but it would cause more work for WP and would be another avenue of POV pushing. Sensitive issues require careful responses to ensure matters are dealt with appropriately (and I am also aware of the grave irony of this discussion).LessHeard vanU 12:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am anything but convinced its just the US or just the first world who endorses child sexual abuse as an abhorrent crime. Even in the third world we support this viewpoint pretty much everywhere, SqueakBox 01:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Judging by the general public and official feeling about paedophilia, it seems to me that paedophilia is one subject where we must forget NPOV and let articles condemn paedophilia. Anthony Appleyard 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. That sets a bad precedent for basing articles off of public opinion. The encyclopedia needs to be about facts, not feelings. --Hemlock Martinis 05:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, articles shouldn't condemn pedophilia, and for an excellent reason - there's no damn need to. A neutral, balanced article on pedophilia will get readers to condemn it on their own. That said, deleting inflamatory userboxes is probably a good idea - they're rarely the product of anything but an editor with an agenda. If you looked over my edits to articles and could correctly deduce how I vote, for instance, that'd be a poor reflection on me as an editor. WilyD 12:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Continuing this discussion would seem to indicate a belief that it is productive, and that it's happening in the appropriate place. If you still believe those things, even after what's been said, please explain. -Pete 08:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

DOcg again

Resolved

 – The admin noticeboard (much less the talk page for it) is not a step in dispute resolution. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

On his talk page he refers to the people who have commented and opposed his actions recently as english racists I think thgis is highly offencive and something needs to be done about it.the offending section can be found here[10]--Lucy-marie 18:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You could have asked him about it. He might explain himself to you. Ever think of that? Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The individual in question seems to want to brand people as racists then engaging in discussion with someone with these kind of preformed views would be unproductive. I have tried to talk to the individual on one occasion in the past, my fisrt comment got a weird response with no clarity and my second comment was ignored. The fact remains though he did brand some users as racists which is an attack.--Lucy-marie 18:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but as I read it his post was merely humourous ... in poor taste, but not meant to call anyone an actual "racist". --Iamunknown 18:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I am afriad It has been interpreted as not a joke in my opinion, I think poor taste is an understatement. The calling of anyone a racist either as a "joke" or otherwise is wholey unacceptable. I would like further action taken.--Lucy-marie 18:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please talk to Doc first, he may even retract his statement. --Iamunknown 18:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, glad I stumbled on this. Please read my remarks in context. I was replying to Bishonen's protecting my talk page against IP vandalism which I strongly suspect is racially motivated. I was not referring to any logged-in user (well, maybe one who has a link to a racist blog on his talk page - but that's another story). Try assuming good faith. However, I don't think I need to assume good faith on the part of stuff like this [11] --Doc^g 19:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is this here? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no idea. I nominated a bunch of articles to afd. People agreed, and most were deleted, I'm not popular with Lucy-marie for that.--Doc^g 20:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

purpose of this board?

My impression is that WP:AN/I is for serious and time critical issues. This WP:AN board is for less critical issues. Is there another board of even less urgency? Yesterday, I posted comments about possible plagerism (which has since been addressed, fixed, citations added, etc.). Would it have been more appropriately placed in a different board (is there an WP:AN-lite ?)VK35 19:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I view this board as a board for administrator attention, and AN as a board for administrators to discuss already-taken actions. --Golbez 20:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring

Why do posts often get ignored? Are they far too numerous to be handled? --PaxEquilibrium 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Admins aren't required to do anything - we ignore posts if we don't feel there's anything for us to do, typically. There are some other reasons too... WilyD 23:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• The threads may have been read but not responded to. Admins and non-admins both are encouraged to use the {{resolved}} tag to mark threads that they have read and that no longer require attention. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving H thread without consensus

Ryulong, I see no reason to believe that your archiving of the thread regarding Wikipedia's willful enabling of harassment against H enjoys consensus. Please seek it here before proceeding to edit-war on the noticeboard.Proabivouac 09:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already made whatever statements are necessary on my own talk page in this situation.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 10:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There is also no such thing as "consensus" when archiving.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 10:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There isn't the first time, but if others revert you, there certainly is.Proabivouac 10:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Grammatical change to header

See Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header#User talk:Whoever/User talk:Whomever. Chick Bowen 03:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

advised/requirement

Why is it only an advisement for editors to inform another editor they are making a post about them here? shouldn't that be upgraded to a requirement? --Fredrick day 16:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Imagine notifying every blatant vandal that has a thread here that they've been reported? People's complaints normally get little consideration if they've not notified the user, if it is possible that the user might have something constructive to say. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 16:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing AFD comments

Is this enough for an instanblock given the editor's COI evident from their contributions? Many contributions all consist of adding references to AFD author's book to other pages. WLU 11:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, I don't. I think your strongly worded warning should be sufficient. Let's wait to see whether the transgression is repeated. DrKiernan 11:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

KP Botany

Good relations with newbies and other editors are always what we should strive for. The complaint on AN/I was against KP Botany.

Should matters like this be on WP:AN as AN/I is more suited for urgent matters?

I have seen people revert complaints like this. Is this inappropriate, particularly if it is not re-listed on WP:AN? VK35 18:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What?

I placed a complaint on the project board, but it doesn't show. FOA 08:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Procedural question

Why don't archived threads get moved to the archive rather than put in a box like this or this? Anynobody 05:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The boxes are used to essentially cut off debate prematurely (before threads get archived by a bot). Reasons to prematurely cut off the thread may range from preventing further trolling to throwing cold water on an inflamed dispute to moving to a more suitable venue (talk pages, for example) to signaling that the dispute has ended and needs no further comment to kindle it again, among other reasons. —Kurykh 06:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, I appreciate your time. I'm sorry but I must've been unclear since I understand the idea, to diffuse unnecessary arguing, provide guidance, and ultimately cut down on the clutter out there. My question is why not simply move such threads to the archive early rather than wait for the bot? Anynobody 06:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I see two problems with that approach:

• Minor issue: The discussion may not be archived in the correct date sequence, which may make it harder to locate.
• Deleting active discussions and moving them to archives is likely to inflame emotions rather than calm tempers (I have seen this on several talk pages where this is a sure-fire strategy to start an edit war). Using the archive box instead send the message that the discussion has gone on too long, but being easy to revert, is not usually interpreted as a unilateral and draconian step.

Abecedare 06:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Better titles for Archive pages

To make it easier for what we're searching for, it would be nice if pages with tables could be made which listed the Archive # and the date valid for that archive and actually this would be solved automatically if we used the date or period of the archive in the Page title in addition to the archive number. So for example, this

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive268

would become:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive268 7/8/2007-7/10/2007

Any comments? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe creating/maintaining an index would be easier? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yes that would be nice. If the bot can automatically put the date range while creating the archive page, that would be very helpful in finding what we're looking for. I've left a message at the Bot owner's page. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

But the bots don't simply create pages, they also add to them so having a date range would be really hard. An index of the first and last date in each archive might be the best option if something needs to be done. Vegaswikian 19:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Each archive should be for a week long worth of material. Bot should be archiving at the same pace. -- Cat ^chi? 20:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion gets by without having archives in the conventional sense. All contributions are entered on dated pages. Once you have made a comment on a dated page, for instance Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 18, your comment will be reachable via that page name forever. If you take a look at the table of contents at WP:TFD you'll notice that it puts emphasis on only the last week or so of pages, but all the others are still there, completely accessible. Something like this could certainly be done for the administrative noticeboards. Note that AfDs are also 'immortal', in that a name, once entered, always works. No AfD pointer ever needs to be updated due to archiving. EdJohnston 21:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be nice, here, too. I hate searching for the archived discussion when a link pointed me to a now non-existent section.. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is so long, I hope this helps

I noticed that when cycling through the diffs on this page to catch up with a conversation it is really slow due to the large volume of this page. If you add "&diffonly=1" to a diff url, it only shows the diff and not the whole page. I created a little javascript function that adds "Diff only" buttons next to the "Older edit" and "Newer edit" buttons on a diff page.

Using these buttons, your browser only receives the diff, not the whole page. Cycling through changes on a huge page is very fast. This script should do nothing at all on non diff pages.

This has been tested on the latest version of Firefox and nothing else, so please tell me if it is buggy in other browsers and I will do what I can.

To comply with GFDL licensing, please include the url "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Until%281_%3D%3D_2%29/monobook.js&oldid=146047045" in your edit summary to give future editors a link to its original edit history. Just add this to the bottom of your custom javascript page. Enjoy. Until(1 == 2) 02:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

function diff_only_buttons()
  {
  handle_diff('differences-prevlink');
  handle_diff('differences-nextlink');
 
  function handle_diff(diff_id)
    {
    var link = document.getElementById(diff_id);
    if (link == null)
      {
      return false;
      }
    var diff_only = document.createElement('a');
    diff_only.id = diff_id;
    diff_only.href = link.href + '&diffonly=1';
    diff_only.appendChild(document.createTextNode(' - (Diff only)'));
    link.parentNode.appendChild(diff_only);
    return true;
    }
  }
addOnloadHook(diff_only_buttons)
 

That's very useful, thanks a lot! Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

RFA discussion

moved to WT:RFA#Reinstatement_of_Admin_Rights_After_Their_Right_to_Vanish [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbachmann (talk • contribs) 25 July 2007.

Censorship is bad

Re: [13]. Archive it if there is consensus for it, but just deleting it is plain wrong.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ignorantly drawing attention the outing of a Wikipedians personal information is bad. If it has anything to do with building an encyclopedia, perhaps, but there is not even a reliable source for this "rumor", just a bunch of bloggers. It has no place here. Until(1 == 2) 13:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Censorship is very bad where it degrades mainspace. Censorship is good where it protects our volunteer contributors, including you.Proabivouac 13:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. ElinorD (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The rightful thing to do is having this archived in due time. This is a very important discussion about how Wikipedians should proceed in such situations, and whatever your views are, deleting the discussion is the worst thing one can do. Suppression never works, and deletions in such manner is just abuse of the system. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We are not a news organization, it is not our job to inform the world about these things. It is just rumors on blogs and it is not censorship to remove it, it is simply not on-topic for this website. You can discuss it on a forum or blog. Until(1 == 2) 14:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

But once again, having a discussion about what to do in these situations is one thing. It is quite another to be bringing up and drawing attention to specific editors. It feeds the trolls. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Dolores Umbridge would probably approve of the censorship clique on this one... and look where that got her! *Dan T.* 14:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wake up people, this is even a Signpost story. Please listen, deleting discussions is the very wrong way to proceed. The best one can do is let these threads die on their own, suppressing things is like adding fuel to the fire. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There must be 50 forums and blogs you can discuss this on. But a rumor with no reliable sources does not belong on Wikipedia, especially when the privacy of a Wikipedian is at stake. Until(1 == 2) 15:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is pointless meta-discussion, or meta-meta-discussion. Best to drop it, or at least take it off the wiki, and move on. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, take it off wiki. Until(1 == 2) 15:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And then go and write a few articles. ElinorD (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, writing articles comes first. And I do agree the conversation is pointless to some extent, that is why I won't continue the discussion (it achieved its aim anyway, to see what people think).

What is not pointless, and what is almost as important as writing articles is the assurance to the community of editors that things are happening in the open and that there is no cabal. A culture of deleting discussions and suppressing information is not healthy for Wikipedia. Such actions should not be taken lightly. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Suppressing discussion like this is very much shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. It is all very well deleting discussion that is an attempt to out an editor, but if this info is correct then SV is well and truly outed already, and there is nothing we on wikipedia can do about it. Discussions on what to do with this situation is how the community works - yet time and time again, we come across controversial situations whose magnitude is exponentially increased because someone thought it best to try and force a closure of discussion. It doesn't help the encyclopedia to operate like that and it certainly will certainly reflect incredibly badly on us, in the off chance that these conspiracy theories are correct. Viridae^Talk 04:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's more of a "clique" than a "cabal"... there's a tight-knit group of good-buddies who back one another up and exert a lot of power in the process, but they're not as all-controlling as a true cabal would be. They're pretty annoying, still. *Dan T.* 04:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"If the info is correct", this is just some unproven speculation some guy posted on his blog that got copied all over, it is a blog rumor. Until(1 == 2) 04:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not about the rumor per se, I am tired of repeating that. There was a post on WP:AN/I stating that SlimVirgin's talk page got protected. That post got deleted.

Rumors are bad. Deleting any trace of anything even remotely related to a rumor is total information control. That is worse than rumors. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ya, it could be big brother controlling every little thing, hiding a vast conspiracy, or perhaps it is off topic and endangers the privacy of a volunteer. Which do you think is more likely? Until(1 == 2) 04:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs unfounded rumors about its volunteers about as much as it needs them about article subjects. Applying a little common sense and removing such material isn't "censorship" any more than removing uncited material from articles. Grandmasterka 05:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Total information control?" There's a whole web out there which Wikipedia doesn't control, and that's a good thing. Nothing we do here stops anyone from speculating about the identities of our pseudonymous volunteer contributors elsewhere on the web. If you want to learn what's being said, go out and find it. That's what I do.Proabivouac 05:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In the words of OK Go, get get get get get over it. --bainer (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That there is an entire web out there is no reason to have tight control on Wikipedia information. And "that rumor endangers the privacy of our editor" is a very lame excuse, as the article in question had nothing new or substantial, the topic was discussed on the Wikipedia mailing list, and it was noted on the Signpost. What you guys wanted to suppress is not the news, it is the discussion.

I perfectly agree there is no need for that rumor on Wikipedia pages, we have better things to do. Again, what is worrisome is having a band of people wiping out discussions. We don't need a "truth squad" in here. Discussions must be archived not deleted. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As Piotrus' first link above shows, the discussion is still available to anybody, and has not been deleted. It has been archived in a way that makes the discussion inaccessible to search engine bots. We use this technique (blanking / archiving to history) also on AFDs and talk pages in order to avoid doing harm by our high Google PageRank. This is part of our responsibility as a site that shows up very high in search engines. Kusma (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The diff was placed later. The original intention of the people who deleted that post was to cut off discussion and suppress information, and I doubt posting a diff was on their mind. Also, the discussion had no harm whatsoever, again, simply because the link to the story shows up already in many places, including the signpost and the wikipedia mailing list (and the story has nothing new or substantial to start with). The issue is still the same, unjustified cernsorship and information removal. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kusma, I have to disagree. When people read talk (or any...) pages, they almost never look at history, they just look at the text. Imagine some future researcher studying ANI: he will go over the archives, note the threads - but he will almost certainly not spend A TON of extra time looking for a few deleted threats. If you want to archive the thread w/out making it available to the search engines, you can delete it, leave a heading (refactored, if needed), linking to a diff with your deletion and further archive it to show that the discussion has been closed. This allows people to learn about easily, if they want. But a deleted discussion, even with diffs in history, is almost perfectly censored and forgotten. With all respect for privacy, censorship is evil, and I don't believe we have even a single policy supporting such censorship-like deletions - it is contrary to Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages and I believe it is in fact even more secret then Wikipedia:Oversight procedures (!) as one can research oversight through Special:Oversight, but such deletion censorship is nearly a 'perfect crime'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It takes more than one person to carry on a discussion, I for one am done here, lets see if we can get this discussion down to one person or less. Until(1 == 2) 03:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You're wondering when I'll stop ranting, don't you? :) This has been a silly discussion, no doubt about this, but don't forget the main point, which is very serious, systematic deletion of discussions and information suppression is a bad idea. This case was not so serious, but if it happens again in the future it will be bad for Wikipedia's reputation (not that its reputation is too great now). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oleg Alexandrov, I can't deny that you've a very strong point - I certainly don't want to be part of any "truth squad" - but there is a policy now which, by its most straightforward reading, forbids us from linking to material which presumes to out the identity of a Wikipedia contributor against his/her will. IIRC a number of editors objected to this for this very reason, it suppresses interesting information - which I can only agree that it does. Similarly, I hope you understand that no one here aims to cover up potential truths, we're just considering that the benefits of openness and transparency are outweighed in this instance by thee goal of sparing our contributors from unwanted real-world attention - I would guess that you'd at least agree that this is a worthy goal, even if you don't agree that it merits blanking. Perhaps someone else will help me find the links to the relevant discussions. If I've done something wrong, I'd like to know about it so I don't repeat it.Proabivouac 03:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the policy banning links to attack sites. I agree editors should not be harassed and that anonymity is important. However, I think in this case people went too far in deleting links to a worthless story and more importantly, suppressing even every discussion even remotely related to that. Yes, I am exaggerating the actual seriousness of things in this case, but if mass blankings become the norm in touchy situations that'll be bad. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. Also, such censorship adds legitimacy to the claim being censored - I am sure many editors are now thinking "if they went to such an effort to quash it, maybe there was something real about this claim after all and maybe there is a conspiracy"... This is exactly how cabal-allegations are born.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Another "conspiracy" to promote censorship? Let's move on. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"I am tired of repeating that." Then stop it. What do you want, agreement? the last word? or just to keep talking about your inalienable right to keep talking? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If a person must have the last word, it is often best to stop responding. Until(1 == 2) 20:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for the AN/I board

If you are here to report a violation(s) of civility or no personal attacks policies please consider posting instead to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

When I was new I thought this board was the right place to report violations of WP:CIVIL and/or WP:NPA issues. Later I came to understand that there are other venues for that. I've noticed that many editors seem to have the same perception I did. I think some confusion could be addressed. (I also know that no matter what one writes there will be people who ignore it.) Anynobody 02:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

edited in. Navou ^banter 12:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting the idea,
I actually had intended it to go on the Incidents page, where people are more likely to post complaints about NPA, CIVIL etc. I'm sorry I haven't replied or commented sooner, since it didn't show up on the Incidents board I thought it was respectfully declined. Anynobody 07:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Rules on deleting, closing or whatever complaints

If you look at the two green sections in my edit at [14] and also at this [15] you can see that things are patched up between Amoruso and myself.

I'm not happy to have the title of my post sitting on a page which a lot of users visit as it perpetuates the original allegation. What as an ordinary editor am I allowed to do to remove it? My request at the top of the complaint has how been sitting there for a while and I don't know how to expedite things further.--Peter cohen 14:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Improper use of the WP:ANI forum

While it is explained that this venue if for the reporting and discussion of incidents that possibly require administrative intervention, this page has recently been attracting threads that are of no relation to the page's actual purpose. An example exists in this thread and this thread. Perhaps the purpose of this page, in relation to what it is supposed to discuss and resolve, should somehow be made more transperant, because this page, which already receives numerous posts a day, is becoming clogged with these improper threads. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite the intro at the top of the page to be more clear about what this is, and is not; that is, what kind of disputes it can help you with, and cannot. --Haemo 08:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It is already pretty clear. I'm not sure I would be the best one to rewrite it, but I think something really has to be done about this. Often it becomes difficult to see the really, most attention worthy posts when the forum is clogged up with these improper postings - not good. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to make it more BOLD? I don't really see any other way to do it. --Haemo 08:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We will always have a certain amount of misplaced requests (Wikipedia is a far too confusing place for beginners to figure out the correct place for a specific request). If the board becomes too clogged with those, perhaps we should remove those threads and explain patiently on the user's own talk what the correct place is. Kusma (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree, Removal of innapropriate threads is the best solution. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a new venue? Wikipedia:Miscellaneous requests? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How about removing the threads and perhaps a new, non-bity template suggesting that ANI is the incorrect forum and that {{helpme}} is a way to get an appropriate response. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How about moving the threads to their correct forum and leaving a link at their talk page? --Masamage ♫ 03:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree, moving threads and linking them would be better. I certainly am willing to follow a trail of bread crumbs (the link to my now moved thread) to get to the right place. Navou ^banter 04:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I like FlyGuys template idea. I volunteer to make it, if people think its a good idea. Thoughts? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Template made - {{uw-ani}}. Thoughts? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As I seem to be getting into edit conflicts on the main article page:

Blocked library systems

I use two different library systems, the IPs of both of which are blocked regularly due to vandalism of various sorts. There are, I deduce from the "useful change" of being able to proceed to edit on logging in, other examples of such IPs split between "useful/harmless persons" and "nuisances": is there any way of narrowing down where the problems occur and dealing with the persons involved? In most cases it is a slight inconveniece to sign in to correct typos etc, but there is a theoretical case of organisations so affected creating problems (though I am not certain what legal principles would be involved). Jackiespeel 17:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Inform editors when their actions result in a complaint here

I would like to make it mandatory that any editor who initiates a discussion here (a "complainant") be required to notify the party (the editor) whose action resulted in the complaint. That gives the editor a chance to participate in the discussion and frankly, only seems fair. If the complainant has some reason not to notify the editor being complained of, then in the first line(s) of the new discussion, the complainant should state why ("I didn't notify User:X because I feared for my life" or even, "I didn't notify User:Y because I'm just too upset to want to deal with that editor."). Then no discussion would take place after the original posting until the next editor who wanted to participate in the discussion could inform everyone (before making any other comment on the matter) that the editor had been informed.

Actions are taken here, with the authority of administrators, that overrule other editors. It seems like basic decency to at least inform the editor that the storm clouds are building before deciding to throw the thunderbolts.

Is it too much to ask? Noroton 18:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's unnecessary instruction creep. Making it mandatory will just make the process bureaucratic, and result in legitimate complaints being attacked because of a procedural error. It's certainly a good idea, but if you feel someone needs to be notified, it's best to just take the initiative --Eyrian 18:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Why say "unnecessary"? This is a page for bureaucrats, so being a little bureaucratic isn't too onerous, I think. You could say "instruction creep" about any good or bad proposal, couldn't you? I say it's one little requirement (how many are there to post a complaint here?), and being fair to editors is really more important. We have all sorts of procedures in the dispute-resolution process. The fact is that editors are not notified. You suggest that I notify all of the editors who are complained about? But you just said that editors doing it once would find it onerous. Not a serious suggestion, I think. Noroton 19:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

When dealing with established editors, such should be done, yes. However, when the actions of regular hit-or-miss trolls, vandals, and socks are discussed, they do not and should not have the privilege of such notification. —Kurykh 18:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you bring up vandals. We routinely notify them with warning templates. It wouldn't be hard to put a template at the top of this page that we could cut and paste onto an editor's talk page. It's no different from the procedures we use for AfDs, or listing at AFD subject pages. Noroton 19:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

We warn them with warning templates, yes, but adding ANI into it is just like saying "oh, when you have time, vandalize ANI too." Same with trolls, etc. —Kurykh 19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, then it becomes a question of whether it's worth the trouble in many cases where you wouldn't get a discussion out of the accused party. I tried looking down the page to see which topics were like that and to get a sense of how many were, say, differences of opinion rather than a cut-and-dried case. I didn't have the stomach to read through too many, but I got the impression that it's at least a substantial minority. I think that's enough to make it worthwhile. Noroton 21:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's always a good idea to inform involved parties of a WP:ANI report, but making it "mandatory" is going to create more headaches than it will solve.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why it would make for more headaches. Noroton 19:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your right that its important, especially in a case where someone may want to defend themselves, but there are situations where it is not appropriate and so to make it mandatory would be excessively beauracratic and detremintal to the running of the wiki in some cases. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 18:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for recognizing it's important. Is there a better method to insure that more people will get the chance to defend themselves? I can't think of a simpler, more effective way of doing it.Noroton 19:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Another point about that: Won't the editor who's complained about have an important perspective to add to the discussion if that editor wants to? It seems to me that would often be the case. That would be extremely valuable, I think. Noroton 19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is important, but making it mandatory is not necessary. Often, if an editor simply forgets to notify another editor, a separate editor will notify him or her, and then all is well. --Iamunknown 18:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Not from what I've seen. Noroton 19:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• In light of discussions about courtesy reminders or notices about being discussed on the Admin noticeboards, I have created a template called {{ANI-notice}} which can be used for such occasions. Anybody feel free to tweak as they wish.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's great, Persian Poet Gal! I hope it gets used. If it were mandatory, it would.Noroton 20:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. It would probably be a good idea from an Admin point of view to, as a good practice, check and see if reported parties have been notified and if they have not been (and it is appropriate to do so based on the report) notify them of the discussion.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent, and ec x2) It's good to have a template, as I think it will make people more likely to notify the users concerned, but this part bothers me a little: "regarding your recent edits, a particular dispute you were involved in, or about your present conduct"... I'm afraid it's likely to strike people as "you've been bad and we're talking about you". Maybe it could be a little more generic? What does everyone else think? Pinball22 20:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't stay on too long but I'll leave this one last comment. The text can be modified with the "reason" parameter to anything that the sender wishes to put. As I said above though, no harm done in tweaking the wording or template however you all feel is best. Edit: Yeah I see the point about the civil/npa links, go ahead and change it around if it strikes as a tad offensive.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto for the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA links; might imply (to defensive editors) that you expect them to misbehave, and are warning them ahead of time. Perhaps tho, instead of removing all that, just make it clear it's a generic template, to lessen the possibility of offence? --barneca (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec)It's a good idea, but I agree that it's unnecessary instruction creep to put a "do it or die" stamp on it. If you want it done in every case... feel free to do it. Also, I don't see a any kind of consequence for non-compliance in your proposal. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, noncompliance. Good point. That might be where the onerous part sneaks in, because it would require policing. How do you block people from either creating a new topic or contributing to it until after some notice has been put on the editor's talk page? Without some admin policing it, I guess that would be a software fix: It gets posted, perhaps, after you check off that you've notified the editor, or (better), it automatically puts a note on the editor's talk page. Of course, if we had that kind of software fix, it would cease to be onerous to actually do the notifying, wouldn't it? By the way, in cases of multiple editors being complained about, I think it should be optional to inform more than one. But maybe even that wouldn't be too onerous if you just type in the User:Names into boxes as part of the initiation of the discussion. Noroton 21:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need a template for that? Whatever happened to not templating the regulars? Tex20:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats neither policy nor guideline? WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 20:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That may be, but it doesn't mean you won't piss certain people off even more by slapping a template on their talk page. Why is it so hard for people to take 30 seconds to write "I've brought our issue to AN/I"? Tex21:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it depends on a case by case basis I guess, theres certainly nothing wrong with the pesonal touch. But if an issue involves 5 or more editors it could become tedious to write specific messages. The great thing about having templates is there is no mandatory requirement for us to use them, but they are there if we want to make our lives easier. Just my thoughts. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 21:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Could the p/o problem be rectified just by making the template language diplomatic, short and bland? I don't think it's the fact of the template so much as what the template sometimes says that ticks people off. That and the colors. My next proposal is to ban primary colors for templates ... Noroton 21:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) The template merely provides an option. If you wish to use it, it's there. If you prefer notifying by hand, well do that. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I didn't mean to come across as if I were against a template. I was just reading this page and this is the second time someone brought up an issue and someone went and made a template for it. And I know there are people on this site who would not take a template very well. I really don't care either way. Tex21:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Archival

At least one editor has mentioned that recent archiving has been happening too aggressively. When a discussion is on-going, when is it appropriate to archive the discussion using the "discussion top" and "discussion bottom" templates? Sancho 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If the discussion is ongoing and you have to ask yourself whether it's appropriate to archive it then it probably isn't appropriate. Discussions should only be prematurely archived if they're descending into really bad attacks and suchlike. But most people who post here should know better. 81.153.125.209 21:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Name of header for debate

<debate> |- | style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived discussion of an incident reported to administrators. Please do not modify it. |}

Their main purpose would be to reduce clutter from very log, but resolved, discussions before they are archived. Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 22:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have them stripped out of the discussion before they are archived? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify? I'm not sure I know what you mean. Happy editing, Arky ^¡Hablar! 00:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The current implementation will completely screw up the archivebots; they'll archive the 'top' template in the previous section and the 'bottom' template in the section it's meant to be in, leading to unreadable archives. (J.smith is mentioning that these templates should probably not appear at all after the page is archived.) Also, they screw up section editing at the moment as it is. --ais523 17:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Do we need them, to begin with? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Titoxd, it is my opinion that we should have them, but we don't need them. AN/I has been functioning fine without the template, but it would be very helpful if we had it because it would reduce the amount of non-collapsed text on the page, which, even with 24 hour archivals, is massive. Secondly, ais523, I apologize for implementing the templates incorrectly. The actual format to use would be to place the template under a discussion header, and not above it, to maintain section editing. Thirdly, J.smith, I am working on having the template not appear in the incident archives, but it does not yet have that functionality. Happy editing to all, Arky ^¡Hablar! 21:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, the new syntax with all the features requested is:

== Header name here ==

{{User:Arknascar44/Ani-top|Header name here|Any additional comments (optional)}}
<debate>
{{User:Arknascar44/Ani-bottom}}

This will only appear on ANI, and not in its archives, or on any other page. Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 16:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment added later (2 January 2008) when doing manual archiving

Arknascar's proposal may not have been archived in full by the bot. If any of the Wiki markup is not right, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=160357810 to look at the original comment in the edit history. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Note (may be reverted/removed)

The talk page of ANI is being redirected to the AN talk page. Therefore, there is just one talk page for both. If this is intended, no action is needed. On the other hand, there are two separate boards, AN and ANI, not just one. Archtrain 19:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is deliberate; the redirect's been in place at least since 2005, anyway. --ais523 17:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Thafadi Adahabou

Today User:Thafadi Adahabou treatened to kill some people. He also vandalised some other articles. All his bad-edits have been reverted, and je is indefenitly blocked. But shouldn't you admins bann his IP-adress forever asswell? -The Bold Guy- 15:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No, because other people might also use that address. --Carnildo 21:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Broken shortcuts?

The shortcuts that help redirect to specific sections of the project page appear to be out of order. Now, when I click on the link from edit summaries, I am only taken to the top of the page.

Any idea why this is happening? --Aarktica 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Er, what exactly do you mean? Can you give an example of one of the edit summaries you're having this problem with? EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

An example of this issue is present in "Hoaxer User:Woofe705" — a current issue at at ANI. Unlike "Indef blocks vis a vis Proxy", the former simply points to the top of the page. --Aarktica 22:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the history logs for AN, Wknight94 made posts back-to-back to both sections (21:40:28 and 21:34:01.) --Aarktica 23:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Check it out

I'm mad about user-conduct RfCs. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Let's get rid of the user conduct RfCs because they're inefficient stupid wastes of time. Please tell me what you think. ScienceApologist 19:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Name of header for debate

<debate> |- | style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived discussion of an incident reported to administrators. Please do not modify it. |}

</nowiki>

which would look like:

Name of header for debate
The following is an archived discussion of an incident reported to administrators. Please do not modify it.
One suggestion: we should call it a discussion or thread rather than a debate. Sancho 17:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Persian Interwiki Please someone who could, add the Persian interwiki for the same page as [[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:تابلوی اعلانات مدیران]] Many thanks in advance... --Kaaveh 01:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC) You could have done this yourself by editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header which is only semi-protected. However I've added the link. Graham87 06:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Name of header for debate <debate>
The above is an archived discussion of an incident reported to administrators. Please do not modify it.

</nowiki>

or this, if the second parameter was left blank:

{{User:Arknascar44/ANI top|Name of header for debate}}
{{User:Arknascar44/ANI bottom}}

When the Conflict of interest Noticeboard recently switched over to bot archiving it stopped using the show/hide closing boxes, which were implemented using {{coit}} and {{coib}}. I'm not sure why you mentioned the {{resolved}} template in this discussion because that template allows placing a verdict on top of the thread *without* boxing it up. The WP:WQA noticeboard has been using those for quite some time, and they seem to work. They also make it easy to revert or modify a verdict if it doesn't have universal support.

The show/hide boxes are not a good fit with a bot archiving system in my opinion. They also make it harder to search through an archive file for a string of words since the text is hidden in the boxes. EdJohnston 21:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thread deletion template

We could replace distracting threads with something like the reference desk has for medical advice type questions: {{Template:RD-deleted}}. Sancho 16:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That template is highly controversial, though. A.Z. 02:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How so? Sancho 17:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree this is a great idea. Some time ago I archived a discussion that was an classic content dispute spilling over to ANI, and the editors simply argued between in the archived templates. Thise would make for an actual to get rid of unwarranted threads before they ridiculously out of hands here. Circeus 18:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Make things clearer.

There really should be an easier way to find this page. I wanted to request a block for an IP address It took me about 20 minutes to settle on this page (Incidents), and I'm still not sure that this is the right one (my edit is here. There should be a simple explanation, such as "this is where to request a block." In the spirit of a Wiki, all users should be able to request a block, not only ones who already know how. Most people would just give up.

The first paragraph currently reads: "Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks. Any user of Wikipedia may post here." At the very least, if this is the right page, the "such as" should say "such as requesting a block or...." Am I wrong? Twilight Realm 21:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've a couple of times recently explained that reporting vandals is best on WP:AIV - maybe there needs to be a big note at the top of the page with a link there, because obviously people aren't seeing any notices that are existent now. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

At the start you just can't know where everything is, IMO big writing won't help because there is simply a learning curve needed to learn everything, getting used to all the policies and request for admin intervention pages. On the commons for example it's much simpler, but there are a lot less edits, and vandalism there seems to be very low. Even after like a year or something I'm still a way from knowing everything. If you use firefox, I would suggest twinkle, it really helps. Jackaranga 22:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Size of ANI

Random comment. On the back of the metaphorical envelope, I estimated that uncompressed the revision history of ANI now runs 30-50 gigabytes. Dragons flight 17:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea it was so huge. It almost makes me think that important issues like community-based sanctions should have their own noticeboard so that they don't get lost in the shuffle. Raymond Arritt 18:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Zing.-Andrew c ^[talk] 18:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How about giving each discussion its own name, and making it a subpage of AN, not AN/I. So we'd have AN/UglyTroll as the discussion page for UglyTroll's proposed ban, which would remain there permanently. These subpages could be transcluded into AN in a separate section with it's own heading. I recommend we call this section, "The Plank" as in walk the plank. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If I knew anything about barnstars, I'd find a big one for Raymond.  :)

I don't remember who first suggested the subpage idea at the CSN MfD, but it was the best solution proposed there and if the idea that the community has the authority to discuss & impose bans is going to continue, that should probably be implemented sooner rather than later. Dumping this function on ANI is ludicrous (and no offence intended to the the closer of the MFD; I understand they were trying to implement a solution based on the suggestions at the MFD)--Isotope23 ^talk 19:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

LoL. Wasn't aiming to hit a raw nerve. Dragons flight 19:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that, although it says "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department" people treat it like it is. A large number of editors treat ANI like it's the proverbial teacher, reporting people for "personal attacks", "assuming bad faith", "incivility", "POV-pushing", and "edit-warring". Sure, there are situations when these kind of reports are good, but most of them are just a lame substitute for dispute resolution. I mean, a large number of ANI reports I just look at and say "so what?" because they're just childish editing disputes that get a little bit heated, and then users run to the admins. We're not the police, but people treat the noticeboard like it's a policebox. --Haemo 19:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe creation of a real "complaints" department, with special subpages, might be the best way to go. If the complaints there merit being moved, they could be transcluded to this page. If not, they could be transcluded to whatever page would be appropriate, if any, or simply removed from the pages completely with a response to the poster that the complaint did not meet actionable standards. John Carter 19:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We have dispute resolution processes which most people simply don't want to use. So-called "forum-shopping" is another factor; people think that by bringing up material on ANI they can get a more "sympathetic" hearing without having to do all the leg-work that actually resolving a dispute maturely would entail. In addition, it gives them an open venue to vent about the person who annoyed them with only minimal fear of consequences. --Haemo 19:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We see way too much of that stuff on ANI. But it's human nature that people are going to vent, so we need to make some sort of allowance for that. I don't know what the answer is, other than perhaps giving admins the discretion to remove (or move) threads that don't belong there. Raymond Arritt 19:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Then we'd need to have a page where people could complain about that abusive admin who removed his complaint. ;) Chaz ^Beckett 19:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think the subpages approach might be the best way to go for a general complaints department. The subpage could request a list DR methods already tried, and then the complaint could be transcluded into the page of the "lowest" level of DR or RfC or whatever not yet tried. But, if as noted people don't seem to want to use DR, it seems to me to make sense to acknowledge that and maybe create a complaints department where many/most of the complaints would be sent to DR pages anyway, as the "next appropriate step" not yet taken. If people seemingly are intent on not following an establish procedure, it makes sense not to act like they "should" and then get annoyed when they don't. John Carter 19:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• We need a clearer dispute resolution process for bad behavior. Discussing on the user's talk page is clear, but what next? ANI isn't for complaints apparently, but RfC needs two people having tried to resolve the dispute. So where do I go next if not ANI? Also, we need to get rid of this mentality that we should just merge everything into ANI for better oversight; all that does is create a huge mess. -Amarkov moo! 23:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm honestly leaning towards a "Threats and harassment" noticeboard. We get a lot of these complaints on ANI, and they can be dealt with on their own board. --Haemo 23:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a "threats and harassment" noticeboard. It was called WP:PAIN. Then it was historicallized because we wanted to merge everything to ANI. -Amarkov moo! 00:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, and the mentality to date of "let's merge it to ANI" hasn't gotten the results we who want, then what kinds of "sub"-boards would be most useful and efficient? John Carter 00:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• PAIN and CSN had their fair share of problems but as Amarkov said above, dumping everything on ANI for visibility isn't working out too well either. The more that gets dumped there, the more that slips through the cracks.--Isotope23 ^talk 12:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  Perhaps an answer to that is being a bit more strict about using the sub-pages. If it's on WP:AN, and should be on WP:AN/I, any admin can and should move the thread (leaving a note on the talk page of the thread starter, not at the board it was removed from, else it defeats the purpose). Same goes for the other sub-pages. If done consistantly, this should do two things: keep the pages shorter and clearer, and motivate people to watch more of the sub-pages. - jc37 22:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This push to get everything to ANI is misguided, it is already and dumping more stuff into will only make it worse. Specialty boards that draw people with skills in that area is a better way to go. Rlevse 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Too long...

The Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page needs to be archived more frequently or perhaps broken into segments listed perhaps by the week that they were added, 4 per month. This page is very long and is very difficult to navigate through due to the loading time, and I'm using DSL. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a large part to due to the long long threads that appear there. For example, right now, all of AN/I is about 546 KB in length. If you take out the first (105 KB), second (49 KB), and third (130 KB) threads, you've cut the thing in half. The problem I see if there's a ton of "take it to RFC, take it to AIV, take it somewhere" threads but then people still argue at AN/I hoping to find the right admins who will give them the blocks they want. Maybe those should be settled as resolved and closed immediately (perhaps a signal to User:MiszaBot II to take it away now?). Second, maybe we should consider removing the hundreds of lines of text that people always post during their simple edit wars (maybe a link to the old AN/I version instead?). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think so. It's turned into a "ask the other parent" sort of situation where users continue until they get the results they want, opposed to taking it somewhere else for further discussion. That page wasn't meant for that sort of long long discussion. I would suggest closing the largest topics and archiving them, notifying editors to perhaps take it to RFC or Arbitration if no solution can be found quickly. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You've seen what happens once that starts. At that point, you have the other editors commenting on why they think RFC or Arbitration doesn't work and the damn thing gets completely side-tracked. Actually, look above. Maybe (and I know I'm going to get it for suggesting this) but we should consider blocking users who abuse and waste time at AN/I as well; make it clear that if people point them somewhere, that's where they should go. I know, I'll hear about WP:BITE all day for that (especially once the "new" users come out of the woodwork with like two edits but knowing how to get to AN/I and write full detailed complaint with diffs, etc. to complain). I wonder how long until comments like this or this comes back to bite me. At least the bot's removed a bit of the page (I might consider archiving it myself if editors keep playing in some of the longer threads). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is a case of ask the other parent, simply archive the thread. Viridae^Talk 09:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

please do. --Jack Merridew 09:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

CSN gone, redirected to wrong place?

The community sanction noticeboard has been closed and instructions request submission to WP:ANI. Is there a better way?

The discussions on CSN are not as fast paced as ANI. Perhaps, WP:AN is better.

Also consider whether only administrators should decide on CSN issues. I think this is not the case. However, ANI is mainly frequented by administrators only (and non-administrators with a complaint). Therefore, CSN decisions on ANI would be directed away from the mainspace editors, which is the heart and soul of wikipedia.

Is Village Pump a better way? Village Pump is a place for all users, not just administrators. Any other suggestions? Archtransit 17:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

THis push to get everything to ANI is misguided, it is already and dumping more stuff into will only make it worse. Specialty boards that draw people with skills in that area is a better way to go. Rlevse 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few people who regularly participate on CSN and AN/I do not use village pump. I personally despise it. Redirecting it there would be a terrible idea. Village pump already gets too much random stuff as it is, and CSN is something that requires Administrator input (i.e. people who need to unblock and/or block). ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

resolved templates

Do the {{resolved}} templates do anything? I mean, do the bots that archive this page read them, and archive accordingly? Or are they just there to be pretty notices to other readers? Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, they just serve as quick visual references for readers. The archive bot works based off of the thread's last post. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. I just didn't know if the resolved template over-rid the date requirement in the section. Thanks. --Ali'i 20:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the top item in this diff, which was made by archiving at WP:COIN, you'll see that the bot *does* seem to use the timestamp on the {{resolved}} template. The timeout is 10 days at COIN, and this item, Alexander Ferocia, was resolved on 11 October and archived on 21 October. The last signed comment in the discussion was on 5 October. So resolving things does reset the archiving timer to zero. You could always resolve without signing :-). EdJohnston 01:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI emergency template?

proposed here. simple and hopefully helpful? ~Eliz81^(C) 23:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Useful. I just hope it would be rarely used. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bloated board

Yes, this board is too large and issues are often dealt with in a shoot-from-the-hip manner. I suggest editing the header to say:

• This page is only for incidents that require immediate administrator intervention. It is not the Wikipedia complaint department.
• If you have complaints or suspicions, but don't have clear evidence that administrator action is needed, please select the relevant Noticeboard to discuss your concerns.
• To propose community sanctions, please use the administrators noticeboard instead.

If somebody comes to WP:ANI without succinct evidence to support a block, they should be sent elsewhere and the thread should be closed. WP:AN is a better place to discuss community sanctions because it has less traffic and is slower moving. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Perhaps threads that do not belong, should be removed, as well? SQL^{(Query Me!)} 00:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with moving to WP:AN. Part of the reasons for closing the CSN were to increase visibility. lots more people look at the WP:ANI. We need to come with a better way to manage the case load (such as subpages similar to how RfA and Afd works). --Rocksanddirt 18:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yay, now we don't vote on community bans.

Since CSN has been deleted, bans are soberly discussed! There is no voting, and no bolded Endorses! Truly, this has made banning much fairer!

Too bad these people haven't gotten the memo that ANI is inherently fairer than CSN because there is no voting. Maybe someone should loudly insist that voting is evil; after all, that's always worked before! -Amarkov moo! 22:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly; if that worked, you won't have to shout it again. —Kurykh 23:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, it seems that changing the forum doesn't alter human nature. If you want to slap all of them with a trout, be my guest. But how do we discuss a proposed ban without saying "I support this" or "I oppose this"? It's very natural to state an opinion. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. Apparently I didn't do very good sarcasm here... -Amarkov moo! 00:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

We use a similar system at AfD and it works. When it comes to banning problematic users, the simpliest way to deal w/ it is to give less consideration to views of involved parties participating at such discussions. It is just not easy to ban someone who got 20 sympathizers (POV pushers). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov, your sarcasm is good, but my deadpan is better. :D - Jehochman ^Talk 03:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how this is a problem. The bolded portions only serve as a summary of one's position, with ensuing rationales afterward, or concurrence with a previous opinion. Now if the only thing there is "support" or "oppose," then those should be discounted, but otherwise, I don't see a problem. —Kurykh 02:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Bah. now we just have lingering an/i things like the ones on prestorjohn and palestine remembered that get refactored to a subpage and forgotten by the uninvolved. Not a better solution than CSN was, in my opinion. --Rocksanddirt 18:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • But at least a larger section of the community is seeing them. However when they start getting very large... it might be best to either have an admin "close" the discussion (requires some balls) or move it to a subpage, and wait for a second problem (if they are that problematic) they will be back on ANI shortly. Another thought would be to move it to WP:AN, which seems to deal better with "slower" topics. (by that I mean topics that take a while). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 10:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• [16] This is a MfD discussion related to the movement of a "watch and wait" situation on ANI. Kyaa the Catlord 10:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI is a high traffic noticeboard

This is a good thing, however a suggestion, anything with the {{resolved}} template on it should be archived rapidly. I'm seeing quite a few topics sit resolved taking up space on the board. Perhaps the bot that does the archiving can be programmed to check hourly to remove {{resolved}} templates. This would reduce the overall size of the board. (However I would have the bot make sure that the last signature from on the section with the {{resolved}} template is over say... 2 hours old. This will prevent spurious additions of resolved to be disruptive, and allow editors and watchers to remove the template if they feel the situation is not resolved.) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this something you could program? It certainly sounds like a good idea. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I should note that this would allow 12 of the current topics on ANI to be archived, and 6 of the current topics on AN to be archived. And yes I could program this given access to the source code of the current archiving bot. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

not sure about that - it will encourage people adding the resolved tag to make things go away when they shouldnt - and I personally don't ussually read a thread with resolved on it at all - or just skim it. We would have to actually read the thread to make sure it actually was resolved or it will be gone very quickly, meaning it outmodes the usefulness of tagging it as resolved in the first place. Viridae^Talk 01:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, which is the reason for the two hour delay. If someone ads the tag disruptively, then they should be looking at a block, or at minimum a warning. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I should also note, we can tweak the two hours to 4 hours or whatever, just some time thats smaller then the normal archival time, this will reduce overall bloat and allow ANI to be a bit more efficient, while remaining as high trafficked as it is. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have long said that a bot should do this. I think 2 hours is plenty of time,since that page is very well watched. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested. I think the 2/4 hour barrier will act as a good safety net for disruptive tagging. It's certainly worth a try. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

We should run this as a trial I think, and see how things go, if its bad we can simply turn it off ;) this is a wiki after all. What I see as the ideal situation though is the admin, after looking at the situation and doing things (blocking, protecting, saying this should not go here/whatever) should add the resolved template. Any other usage of it is disruptive. (If you add it to make the section on you go away for example). Being disruptive is being blockable. Who currently operates the archivebot? (I think its Miszra... not sure...). If the discussion after the admin deals with it is not resolved, then the admin can not add the resolved template. (For things that require extended discussion), which would just default back to how things on the board are dealt with now. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I should also note, that doing this will allow us to remove a full 20% of the topics on the page as things stand at the time I post. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we take it out to 4-5 hours to give time for enough eyes to see it and make sure it is resolved? Viridae^Talk 02:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No reason it can't be. The main point is it allows archival of things like Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Reign_of_Terror. An admin can check that (protect or not protect) and mark as resolved. That is the primary use of this that I'm seeing right now. The main point of this is that things are archived faster then the standard archival time (24 hours), so 4 hours is an improvement, and will allow a reduction in volume of the board, while maintaining the traffic it receives. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 02:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A question. I sometimes address problems that don't really need admin attention myself, and have occasionally added a resolved tag. You mention "the admin dealing with the situation" above; would this mean a non-admin shouldn't mark anything as resolved? Also, my 2 cents would be 4 hours, just to double the likelihood that someone would notice a bad-faith tagging. --barneca (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Its a wiki, if you resolved the situation, mark it as such. Just don't resolve things that are actively being discussed, unless you provided the answer. (Say you blocked the user), or you fixed whatever it was that needed fixing. (If a non admin is able to resolve something, that person should note to the poster that ANI was really not the place for whatever "It" was). —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 02:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it sounds like a great idea to keep down clutter. Non-admins are just as welcome to resolve problems so long as they are done correctly. James086^{Talk | Email} 11:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe as an idea to reduce the risk of abusive resolution-tagging: use a tag that is automatically signed (as opposed to optionally as with the current template)? Maybe even using a template that requires the user to add an comment as to how and why the issue was resolved? That way, if the incident is tagged by anybody questionable (i.e. the incidentee -- does that word exist?) or for odd reasons, it will immediately set off some alarm bells.

In a similar vein, I've also experienced incidentees changing the title of an incident so that it appears innocuous and thus attracts less attention. Any way this could be avoided? Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 25.10.2007 11:17

There is a principle that says that when users are forced to leave a comment when doing something, the comments will very often be vague or otherwise not informative. This shows up on WP - many people, including me, use very short edit summaries for talk page comments. We can find out who place a tag using the page history whether or not they sign or leave a long comment; if we leave the comment optional, we're more likely to get useful comments in the cases we need them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if you're looking for that information, you will find it. My point, however, is that this information should be visible without having to go through the history. Makes life easier and you don't have to assume bad faith ;) pedro gonnet - talk - 25.10.2007 12:38

← A signature can be included in a template using <includeonly></includeonly> and <noinclude></noinclude> tags. James086^{Talk | Email} 12:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I'm afraid I'll have to leave those changes to you... Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 25.10.2007 14:05

There could be a new version of {{resolved}} that includes the signature because it may not be desirable to have a forced signature in all situations. Thoughts? For example if someone wanted to leave comments aswell. Also I'm not a great template coder, I would probably cause havok were I to change the template myself so I'll leave it to someone else again :) James086^{Talk | Email} 14:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd really prefer to avoid ambiguity and make all such templates signed... If there is a signed and a non-signed version, then it makes the whole idea irrelevant. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 25.10.2007 14:20

It will be useful to have at the minimum the *date* in the template, (or in a commented out section of the template), so the bot can compare dates, and know when the template has been there longer then 4 hours. Signature sure, somebody will figure out how to make it work. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 14:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As noted, a pure "archive quickly on the basis of resolved tag" could encourage sections to be archived a little too early, or indeed before others can confirm the resolution is a good one. What about a bot to add a collapsible section around resolved matters, so they'd still be in place and archived correctly as usual, but once resolved automatically get shrunk to one line? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Could we make the "resolved"-tag itself set-up the collapsible section automagically? pedro gonnet - talk - 25.10.2007 16:19

Probably not; we'd need a top tag and a bottom tag. Collapsing the section does nothing for page loading times; as the full content still has to be loaded. It may even create a marginal burden from the added html for the collapse/expand feature. There is some benefit from collapsing - but it is entirely in the "after page load" portion of the process when humans are reading the loaded page. GRBerry 16:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I really like the idea, of using collapsible tags. It'd sure make ANI a lot more readable! S_QL^{Query me!} 04:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

FT2, yes this is open to some abuse, but do remember we rely on the good faith of contributors. If someone is closing things disruptively... well thats why admins have a button labeled "block". Collapsing them helps... sorta, saves screen space, but does not reduce the overal size of the page. At this point, I think it would be most useful to test this, see how it is (ab)used. If it can't be controlled through good sense, and nobody prevents archival of resolved discussions as they still stay up 4 hours after tagging, we can always change the behavior. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a great idea here. Maybe 4-5 hours intitially with a view toward a shorter period after testing. Would there be a one line tag pointing to the archived discussion? JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 13:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sub pages

Along with being high traffic, those that watch the board should get into the habit of putting things over 75 Kb or more into subpages. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sadi Carnot, where I shrunk the size of ANI from 580KB or so something to about 470 or so, thats a 20% improvement as far as loading the page. A suggestion though is that as the topic in the subpage evolves that those involved make a note or a mark on the ANI page to keep it "alive" and not archived, and allow others to see if there is progress. On the one I did, I suggested that every new section be noted on ANI. This allows outsiders to see that there is activity. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 02:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, definitely best to leave a note or else it might get completely lost. But what about archiving? If it's in a subpage does it ever come back and get archived? I think that ought to happen and the sub-pages get cleared out and deleted. Otherwise, the archive search function won't work and the old discussion just ends up kind of stranded, as a link within an archive.Wikidemo 22:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What do people think of a bot that detects when a thread exceeds a certain length, and then moves it to a subpage(whose name is based on the thread name and the time stamp of the earliest signature) and leaves a clear explanation and link in its stead? 1 != 2 05:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Groovy. How about using the name of the thread as the title, but check first if the page already exists, and if so, append " 2", " 3" and so on until you find an available name. This avoids gobbledegook page names with long timestamps in the names. These subpages, I presume, will just sit there forever, or at least until we build a bot to recycle the really old ones.- Jehochman ^Talk 05:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Premature archival of a notice like this can be avoided by signing with ~~~... I'm not too sure about Eagle 101's search engine, it's always been broken in my experience. east.718 at 01:31, 11/1/2007.

Queries etc

Can something be done on the links from "my contributions" to take "persons raising queries and complaints" to their posting - otherwise difficult/timeconsuming etc to find whether there was a response. Jackiespeel 13:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Block review board

The incident board seems to be a broad mish-mash of miscellaneous issues. Some of these would probably best be handled on their own boards, which I am guessing is why the Fringe theories and Reliable sources boards were created.

On many occasions I've seen admins post requests for reviews of blocks they have imposed. In order to make it easier for admins who want to both review and have their blocks reviewed by other admins I'm suggesting Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Block review board. (It could even use WP:BRB for a shortcut.) Anynobody 07:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Top/Bottom links

There was been some experimentation with absolutely positioned links. In general absolutely positioned things are bad, and I try to ignore them when possible, but these are particularly bad [17]. It is not safe to assume that the #content div is as wide as the browser window. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, what skin is that. In theory, the links should be positioned at the far right within the #content div. — Edokter • Talk • 14:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the simple skin, with #content set to a fixed width. The monobook skin does not suffer from this problem; the divs do align relative to #content if I switch my skin to monobook, even with #content set to a fixed width. I have meant to investigate this before but never looked into it enough to understand what is going on. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As of last night, when using the Classic skin and the Opera browser, the "top" and "bottom" links would sit there blocking part of the page. --Carnildo 22:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean overlapping with other parts of the page? I also saw that in the monobook skin this morning when I tested it out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Frequent abuse of AN for personal vendetta

People are coming here often for frivolous issues that do not require admin interaction by any stretch of the imagination. [18] [19] With all due AGF, it seems obvious to me that these are not primarily motivated by a care for Wikipedia, but by personal vendetta.

I, for one, feel cheated of the time I spent reading through these frivolous mountains made of a molehill, especially when they are posted by what appears to be experienced users, who should know better. Any ideas what to do about this? — Sebastian 23:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

People are going to want to post that kind of stuff somewhere. It need not be on ANI, but there's really nothing that can be done to stop it. -Amarkov moo! 23:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a point; it is always good to look at the need behind people's actions. However, posts on AN are very disruptive and distract from serious issues. I would much rather point people to WP:DR. That policy already addresses the need to contact others, especially with the advice to post on policy or project related talk pages. But maybe, realistically, impatient people need a sooner step? — Sebastian 23:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We can wrap frivolous complaints in collapsible boxes so nobody needs to look at they unless they really want to. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Frivolous complaint. - Try dispute resolution instead.
The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. - Jehochman Talk 23:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, as Sebastian says, people are impatient. You can say "Don't use ANI for this" all you want, but people need a place to make an informal complaint about another user. It would be nice if people were all willing to provide all the evidence that our DR system wants before complaining, but they aren't. -Amarkov moo! 23:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We have a page called Editor assistance requests where people can go with a problem that they don't know how to handle. Sometimes I refer people there, and it seems to work for them. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, that answers my question below. It sounds like a good solution to advertize that page more and to provide some catchy redirects, such as WP:911. — Sebastian 00:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Maybe the problem is that our complaint system is so complicated. (On a related note, I also believe that our header needs improvement.) What if we had just one unified emergency page, something like WP:911 (with redirects from other similar names)? That page would be looked at by everyone (just like AN now), but only the serious issues would make it to AN. — Sebastian 00:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Triage is a good idea. Experienced editors can go straight to the appropriate place with their complaints. Those who don't really know where to go or how to present a complaint with proper evidence can get preliminary assistance. Perhaps Editor assistance requests would be a good place for sorting the trivial from the serious cases. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Triage would be easier if we had individual cases (or tickets) on individual pages like [[ISSUE/<date>_<name>]] or so. We have such a system for MedCab and it works great. (Note to self: look at [20] again.) — Sebastian 00:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) I like this idea, not that that gives much weight. =) However, I think that only good can come from this, and the WP:911 redirect would make it catchy to newbies. And without being quite as complicated as WP:DR, it will be more likely to be used once it gets going and we start referring editors there. нмŵוτнτ 00:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem lies at our own door, and the solution is in our hands. Abuse of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and other pages should be dealt with simply by removing the inappropriate threads and asking the posters to try Dispute resolution. And we really shouldn't listen to any excuses until the complainant can demonstrate a history of mediation or conduct RFC on the matter, unless the case clearly requires immediate administrator intervention. --Tony Sidaway 00:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I felt the same way until Amarkov reminded me that we can't efficiently stop people from fiddling with the system if the system doesn't fulfill their needs. I think we need a two pronged approach: (1) Give people another outlet and (2) prevent AN abuse with a clear header and by removing inappropriate threads. For the "other outlet", WP:EAR may be a good page, especially with tthat a nice acronym! However, I'm not sure if people currently maintaining that page would appreciate the increased traffic. Today, they had 41 changes in 24 hours; maybe they would be overwhelmed by more. Should we ask on their talk page, or is it too soon for that? — Sebastian 01:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems of having only one or two boards is that the pages tend to get extremely long, leading to lag and frustration when trying to view the boards. While our noticeboards can do some revamping, I believe it is not in our best interests to over-consolidate. —Kurykh 05:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. I just moved the Durova thread to a subpage. The board shrunk by nearly 100k. We should do that more often when people want to use the board as a chat room. There's no substitute for proactive management: telling people to post concise evidence, state what they want, and then stop discussion once nothing further can be done. AN/I is not part of the Dispute resolution process. If there's no agreement on what to do, the case has to go some place else. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree - we should use subpages more often! (That's what I meant above when I talked of "tickets" "on individual pages".) With you setting the example, I will start doing that too. However, I would first like to talk about a naming convention. Since we're talking about moving cases from and to WP:AN and other related pages, I think we need names that are independent of where they happen to have started. My proposal is [[ISSUE/<date>_<name>]]; at least, that has worked well for MedCab for over 520 cases. — Sebastian 06:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What we've been doing on ANI is to create a subpage named after the thread, and then append a number if the name already existed. Those pages don't actually move. They just sit there forever. We leave a link in the main page, which eventually gets archived. No matter where a case starts, we can move the link from one board to another without having to move the file. The links are all root relative so they'll still work. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and sorry about my ambiguous wording - I didn't mean to say that the pages move. I guess you have a point that it's not a problem what name the pages have; maybe my desire to standardize it is not actually necessary. I just like it when things are neatly named. — Sebastian 06:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I frankly think Sebastian’s idea of a WP:911 “problem triage” page is superb! I’m actually surprised that it’s not been proposed – and acted on – before now. We have to be careful about assuming what even “experienced” editors know. I’ve been here a year and a half and not only are there aspects of Wikipedia’s policies and processes with which I am not really familiar, but I continue to discover things I didn’t know about. The first time any editor encounters a problem they feel they need to deal with, the one thing they don’t have is a single source – a FAQ, if you will – to go to where they can learn what the proper venue is for dealing with it. Instead, their first step is to try and find out, partly on their own and partly asking others (who may themselves be unclear about the proper venue and just send them somewhere they think people will be able to help). I have little doubt that’s a major reason for inappropriate postings on places like AN and AN/I. Bad or unclear information is what leads to – unfortunately, very common – experiences like one recently posted on the DR talk page: “I was told to go to MedCab and then waited ten weeks for a verdict before someone finally told me that MedCab isn't for disputes like that, so I just wasted ten weeks.”

I would strongly recommend a FAQ-like “WP:911” page where editors can go to learn where to go to get help resolving problems, including editor misbehavior, content disputes, vandalism, copyright violations, etc. (Perhaps a page like WP:Reliable sources/Examples could be used for a template.) I like the name “WP:911” since it is very easy for the majority of editors to remember and clear as to what it is about, and I would also recommend adding it to the skin. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:911 would work best as an centralized emergency switch-board where anyone can place a call for help and someone who knows which page to place it on moves it and notifies the user where his call for help has been moved. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be labor intensive, but I like this idea. --barneca (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't call it 911 - we are not all in the USA, you know. Carcharoth (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

yes indeed, calling it that would encourage the bias that already exists and needs countering in the project. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:911 just be a redirect? If so, we can also make a WP:999 and WP:112, and any other emergency numbers I'm forgetting. Natalie (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we'll make all emergency numbers, although when people use shortcuts in discussions, though they shouldn't (at least I'm guilty), some people might be confused by all of the random #s. For one, I'd have no idea what WP:999 and WP:112 would mean. A count of something? I'm sure they feel the same way about 911, as well. However, I still support the idea... just mentioning some possible problems that could arise. нмŵוτнτ 16:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

999 and 112 mean the same thing as 911. They are the emergency numbers for the UK and EU respectively. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)