Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

New Article: Michael Laitman

As the article I want to create was created some time ago and deleted, I need your assistance to create it properly, so that it stay. Now, I completed many steps and read many pages, and still I cannot create an article. Subject: Michael Laitman. Kindly create the page for me, so that I start to contribute. Yuri Kozharov —Preceding undated comment added 17:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC).

People have responded on his talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

requests for closure subpage

Wondering if someone familiar with archive bots would care to set that up for the request for closure subpage, it is routinely cluttered with stale requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Never knew that page was there. Added it to the box on the top of this page and will look at adding auto archive. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the bot doesn't seem to be doing it's thing at the main AN page either, there's stuff there that hasn't been edited for days, it's actually not nearly as busy as it looks. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If you feel there are some stale requests at WP:ANRFC, than feel free to close one/some of them. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 23:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

My point was that discussions are left listed long after they are closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The server, nightshade MiszaBot runs off is down -- the bot owner has periodically run the bot manually when he's had a chance. Agree it's annoying... Nobody Ent 02:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot how could a bot decide if a request was closed or not? Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 06:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Autoarchiving on the fritz?

Resolved: ClueBot III (finally) put AN archive on right page all by itself Nobody Ent 03:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else noticed this? Several people have had to manually archive in recent days and on a high traffic board like this we don't want stale material hanging round. I have no idea how archiving bots work, can someone look under the bonnet/hood? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The server, nightshade MiszaBot runs off is down -- the bot owner has periodically run the bot manually when he's had a chance. Nobody Ent 13:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. this talk page is archived by ClueBot III, maybe we should use that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Updated AN to (hopefully) use ClueBotIII Nobody Ent 21:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I know Cluebot was tried previously on ANI, and it had to be reverted for some reason (wasn't working correctly) - Happysailor ^(Talk) 21:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Cluebot III is working but puts a space in the archive name -- I've queried the bot operator page to see it that can be helped. Nobody Ent 12:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Finally got the ClueBot III syntax down recorrectly -- AN archived correctly this morning. Just updated ANI to use ClueBot, so that should auto archive tomorrow. Nobody Ent 12:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Not quite resolved yet ... still need a successful fully automatic ClueBot III ANI archiving event. Nobody Ent 11:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Closing non-discussion threads at AN

I don't think it's really necessary to "close" threads that are merely requests to clear a backlog. {{resolved}} is perfectly sufficient to mark the issue as being.... resolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not like we have a coherent policy on thread closure, as previously discussed. Personally once I learn the syntax of one of a set of functionally equivalent templates -- what is the difference between "archive top" and "discussion top," anyway? -- I tend to keep using it. Nobody Ent 12:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend to use different ways of dealing with endings - and concentrate more on ANI than AN. I think the two boards need a slightly different approach. Some threads are so short, easily dealt with and non-controversial that I leave them alone in order not to reset the archive clock to 24 more hours. Sometimes I might use the {{resolved}} template just to indicate to anyone skimming the list that it's dealt with. TBH in those cases I wish it were possible for (a) archiving to happen more quickly or (b) for the person who deals with the issue simply to delete it from the board.

Where action has not been swift, uncontroversial and obvious, but a discussion has obviously run its course I tend to use {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} so that people scrolling through walls of text can tell that this issue has been resolved by the blue background it imposes. I think these are worth leaving for the full 24 hours after closure before archiving, so that people coming back to the board can see how an issue turned out.

Of course dividing reports between the two outcomes above and deciding which template to use (if any) is going to be a metter of judgement and we won't all agree on which need the minimal 'resolved' tick, and which need something more. I don't think we're likely to get a definitive policy about how to close - unless one evolves from experience of the most efficient ways of doing so, just by us trying to keep on top of this! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need a formal policy, and it is really not that big of a deal, it just seems a bit silly to do a formal closing on a thread that consisted of nothing more that "RPP is backlogged". It kind of cheapens the idea of using formal closes if we use it for issues that clearly do not require them. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Self-contradictory. If there's not a formal policy, a closing can't be formal. Regardless I'll refrain from surrounding cleared RPP backlogs in pairs of template tags. Nobody Ent 03:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, underline exclamation point. "Formal" is only descriptive not prescriptive (barring a very few WMF cases). Where's the "formal" policy on closing RfC's, for example? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

here Nobody Ent 23:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Dude, that's just a page. It's not policy, or even guideline. Just a page like this is a page. Is that your definition of "formal", that it's written outside of Talk: namespace? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed at the discussion that has gone into this simple matter. This section puts it best: "Discussions are usually closed in situations where someone, usually an administrator, decides that the discussion is irrelevant or disruptive ... there are no rules in place governing [closure]..." It goes on to say that closing can create more conflict than there was to begin with. Basically, we don't (and shouldn't) bother closing anything unless there's a good reason. What's the problem with this principle? Swarm ^X 17:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)