Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:


Lowercase sigmabot III[edit]

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lowercase sigmabot III — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Archival Parameters[edit]

Frequently threads have had to be moved back to WP:ANI from its archives that were archived before discussion was finished, or when discussion was finished but without formal closure. In looking at the parameters for archival, it appears that the bot is set to archive any thread that has had no additions in 36 hours. That is a very short period of time in which to archive a thread. While it is true that WP:ANI is large, it isn't so large that it causes real paging problems. Could the archival parameter be set to either 48 hours or 60 hours so that fewer discussions get archived and then restored? Archival and restoration of discussions of disruptive editors is itself disruptive of the process of dealing with disruptive editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's set for 192 hrs. or 8 days. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
In that case, I misread the parameters, but something sometimes threads to be archived in much less than eight days. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe Robert McClenon is correct. The archive settings on WP:ANI are 36 hours (the settings on this page are 8 days).
I agree a longer setting would be helpful. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Then I did read it correctly after all, and Mlpearc was referring to WP:AN. I can see the confusion, because WP:AN and WP:ANI share a talk page due to the peculiar way that subpages work, but archival often happens too soon, before the topic is truly stale. The parameter of 36 hours is absurdly short, in particular for threads involving real disruptive editing that only affect a segment of the community, so that not everyone piles on at the same time, and many threads that have not either been resolved or really become stale get archived. Archival and restoration of threads is disruptive and confusing. Is there a really compelling reason why the archival time has to be 36 hours rather than 48 or 60, so that the disruption of premature archival really is worth the price, or is this something that can be fixed? Do we need an RFC to change the archival parameters? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter if it has been officially closed before archival, people can close archived discussions officially regardless of what page it is on and thinking otherwise is just BUREAU. Archives are "protected" in a way that all editing is prohibited, they are protected in a way that suggests no further discussion should be had (and closure isn't discussion, it is summation). This page does sometimes get too large even with archival set at 36 hours to a point where it causes issues on smaller devices and I would object to increasing the sizetime unless the community could agree upon a bot that would monitor the size of each section/discussion and if it hit a certain size threshold move that discussion to a sub-page and update all links to the discussion leaving a {{Moved to}} on the main page in the discussion's space. Those sub-pages would never need archival and it would keep the size more manageable on the main page. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • An RfC sound like the way to go, IMHO. I would certainly appreciate a longer time period, but I can sympathise with the size problem. Some of us may be following several open discussions, may go away for a couple of days, etc. Searching for an open discussion that has been moved is a right pain. Archiving it may technically not close it, but that would be the first "not-an-archive-yet-honestly" archive that I ever met - if any suggestion is open to charges of bureaucratic fiddling, it is surely that. I do like the idea of a sub-page for every discussion though: ANI itself could then just list the un-archived discussions. This would also allow us to watch selected discussions without watching the whole page, something that I for one would find very useful. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Sort of relevantly, I notice these edits in incident archive 873 to a discussion about, ahem, myself. I'm a little surprised not to see any instruction ({{aan}}?) at the top of that page not to make any change of this kind (cf the very top of Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 18). The edits therefore seem legitimate -- but they go against the notion of an archive as I (mis?) understand it. That impersonal point aside, as the person being freshly complained about in that thread, I'd be happy if it were moved back on to WP:AN/I, for anyone wishing to vent to be free to vent (with diffs but concisely), and then for an admin to resolve this matter (or non-matter) in some decisive-looking way before rearchiving. -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
You aren't supposed to be continuing the discussion into the archives. If it is still a fresh issue, move it out to the main page. KonveyorBelt 00:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that somebody other than me should decide if it should be moved; and, if it should be, should then move it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I've removed it and explained to Catflap how to unarchive the thread if he really wants to add that comment to the discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

About comments in Talk pages[edit]

Hello, Just a question. Does a user have a right to delete another user's comments (although there is no personal attack or insult in that comment) in an ongoing discussion just claiming that it is off-topic. If no, please see this and this. Just I don't want to be involved in an edit war. Thanks in advance, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

3RRN report[edit]

There's a 3RR violation report that needs attention: [1]. I don't want to make a big deal about it, hence posting here rather than on the main AN page -- but I do think it needs attention beyond the usual cadre of admins that usually deal with reports there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It needs to be closed. AtsmeConsult 02:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I closed it yesterday.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)