:Sorry, but I believe that we need to change the amount of time that MiszaBotII archives this page to something like 12 hours or 24 hours (and even then, it might still be too large.) Cheers, [[User:Razorflame|<b style="color:#6cf">Raz</b><b style="color:#6cc">or</b>]][[User talk:Razorflame|<b style="color:#6c9">fl</b><b style="color:#6c6">am</b><b style="color:#6c3">e</b>]] 20:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
:Sorry, but I believe that we need to change the amount of time that MiszaBotII archives this page to something like 12 hours or 24 hours (and even then, it might still be too large.) Cheers, [[User:Razorflame|<b style="color:#6cf">Raz</b><b style="color:#6cc">or</b>]][[User talk:Razorflame|<b style="color:#6c9">fl</b><b style="color:#6c6">am</b><b style="color:#6c3">e</b>]] 20:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
== SB/Incivility ==
I am getting fed up of this user (including his false characterisations of other editors - including pedophilia and pro-pedophilia accusations towards editors who have been forced into veiling their language with unnecessary anti-molester rhetoric). He has driven too many good editors off the project, incited the blocking of too many good editors, and now resorts to characterising my friendly reply as "trolling", removing it from the talk page of someone from who he has no permission to behave in such a way - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Googie_man&diff=prev&oldid=214654729.
If any administrator really doesn't know what he has been up to, and is willing to actually ''do something'' about it, I will be more than welcome to flood this page with diffs. <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">[[User:Jovin Lambton|J*Lambton]]</span> <sup>[[User_talk:Jovin Lambton|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jovin Lambton|C]]</sub> 17:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
:An example from only a while ago - of how this editor is forcing very strongly held POV on the encyclopedia, and characterising the editors who he is supposed to be working with as pedophilia advocates:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-pedophile_activism&diff=prev&oldid=214652507 (and the following diffs). <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">[[User:Jovin Lambton|J*Lambton]]</span> <sup>[[User_talk:Jovin Lambton|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jovin Lambton|C]]</sub> 17:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
:E.g. "and/or reform of [[child pornography]] legislation, the latter in order to deliberately humiliate publicly the children they sexually abuse for the rest of the child's life (for instance child porn on the internet compounding an original abuse many millions of times)" <span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#ADDFFF;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">[[User:Jovin Lambton|J*Lambton]]</span> <sup>[[User_talk:Jovin Lambton|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jovin Lambton|C]]</sub> 17:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
"All patronising lolcats (etc) will be removed on sight" - any objections? It's funny to whoever added it, but usually whoever makes a post to AN or ANI does feel seriously about their report, and for an admin to mock it with one of the stupid LOL SRSLY I IZ REPORTING TO FBI or something along those lines is patronising towards good faith users, and has no positive benefit on the discussion. Grow up, children. Neıl☎00:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. This page is long enough, do we really want to increase the size by adding images? Probably not a good idea. - jc3700:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page gets archived, whether it contains an image or not (size doesn't and shouldn't matter in this respect). I personally see nothing wrong with it. It lightens up the mood from time to time in heated conversations. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If it were someone spamming pictures, that's disruptive. A single picture offering commentary relevant to the topic is perfectly acceptable. I'll note that we have humorous pictures on various policy pages as well, aka wikipe-tans everywhere, the trenton new jersey one on the NLT page, etc. Are those any less patronizing? Of course not, because there's nothing patronizing about any of the images in the first case.⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender00:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lightens the mood for who? Those using ANI for entertainment, or those who feel they have legitimate concerns? I don't see policy pages as a very good comparison. Pictures there aren't obviously targeted and dismissive. I don't think that there should be an outright ban on all lolcats, but the basic rules of civility should apply. --Onorem♠Dil01:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also important not to bite the newbies. But I also agree that we shouldn't completely stop using them: where they're humorous in a non-rude way, they're fine (and even desirable as a way to lighten the place up from its usual doldrums of eternal drama). Heimstern Läufer(talk)01:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lightens the mood for anyone getting heated I suppose. Don't take yourself too seriously and all that "nonsense" I think that matters. I don't like to see things turn into large disputes. Humor helps now and then. It acts as a gentle and sometimes subtle reminder. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that page size is something to discount. Editors who edit through a dialup, or other not-so-fast ways, shouldn't be penalised because someone posted an image to this page. And AFAIK, the page is archived based on date, not size. - jc3700:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting one way or the other, size considerations really seem ... moot. The admin noticeboards are already of such an obscene length that a few extra kb here or there just isn't going to matter. Vassyana (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)One of my typical mistakes as usual. But I don't think page size is something to worry about, since its always long to begin with. Dial up users can always start new sections and edit only sections per the usual. If they found that a noticeboard is too long, they can just single an admin out. Shorter conversations is a better way to save space if thats the only concern. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ANI is full of depressing things and a humorous image might lighten the mood a bit - I posted Drama-icon.svg to summarise a small drama about FU images. And really, the size argument is moot - the pages are 250kb of wikicode already. Sceptre(talk)01:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a size issue. There's assumptions being made here that a) lolcats are funny (maybe), and b) that these lolcats are funny (dubious). I would say it was funny when Gurch did it three months ago.
But it's not about whether they are funny or not. It's about whether someone raising an issue in good faith deserves to have some smart-alec experienced user mock him. It's childish, patronising, unproductive and insulting to do so, and it does not reflect well on the person who adds it (and then re-adds it - yes, you, Swatjester). I noticed that Swatjester has assembled a whole array of these "hilarious" lolcats on Commons, so no doubt they will be crowbarred into anything he considers unworthy of his valuable time from now on. Neıl☎09:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neil, I count 3 times now that you've removed MY edits from either this page, or AN/I, because you did not like the content. In what reality do you think that is a) not disruptive and b) within your prerogative to do? ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender09:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RPA. A user receives a death threat, which clearly he takes seriously - even if you don't - and your response is to mock it. That's insulting to the user. I believe you're carrying on like this about the threat purely to make a point that you don't like the WP:TOV essay. Neıl☎09:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be wrong then. I don't care about TOV as an essay, so long as it's being properly represented as an essay and nothing more. As for personal attacks, I'm not attacking anybody personally. Which user is named in any of the images, hmm?⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender09:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By that argument, I could put a big flashing GIF that said "GREAT BIG IDIOT" at the top of a thread, but it would be okay because it didn't NAME the person who started the thread. Neıl☎09:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I agree with Neil on this, and would add it's hard to trust the judgement of any admin who pisses about with stupid images and comments. DuncanHill (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)You got me with little to no coffee. Thats "mock", an image thanking you for bringing it to ANI's attention, and "you guys" = Neil and Swat. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the translations. I am done with edit-warring on the images - I have made my views known, I think it's unhelpful and childish to mock good faith complaints with lolcats (I notice someone on AN has now created one to mock the Arab-Israeli conflict), and someone else will, sooner or later, put an end to it. Neıl☎10:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lolcat to which you refer is not mocking the the Arab-Israeli conflict. Why on earth would you assert that it is when it so clearly is not? How much is your argument undermined by so doing? --Tagishsimon(talk)19:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lolcats are just humor, the main problem is WP:TOV being pushed out of proportion to the level of involving government agencies on obvious pranks, seriously this week somebody contacted the FBI when someone posted a dialogue line used in a movie, TOV should be used when viable such as in threats to schools or something plausible, calling the FBI on a Michigan "terrorist" was just paranoid. - Caribbean~H.Q.20:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that size is a major issue with both the AN and AN/I pages, and while I know that there have been discussions before that have no reached any form of consensus, the size of these pages is a major problem: I'm on broadband and even trying to edit the page as a whole locks up my browser for up to 30 seconds at a time. So I make a proposal:
How about we do like the RfA pages, and make each AN and AN/I topic a separate page, with a bot automatically transcluding each onto the main AN and AN/I page? Anonymous users would have a setup like how the AN and AN/I pages are now, with users (or bots) creating the new pages for these anonymous users. That way, it would be much easier to avoid edit conflicts, solve page size issues, edit separate sections, etc. What say you? — scetoaux(T|C)03:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this has been beaten to death a bunch of times. See above and the archives for past discussion. Basically, if it was set up that way, no one would be able to use their watchlists to see when individual edits are made to sections. One would have to watchlist each subpage and manually add each subpage to their watchlist each time a new section is made. As you can see that really wouldnt work. I do agree though that the size of this page is annoying, maybe quicker archiving? « Gonzo fan2007(talk ♦ contribs) @ 06:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One potential solution would be further subpages of AN. Pretty much from its very inception it has been three pages -- WP:AN, WP:ANI and WP:AN3. I don't know what divisions I would choose, but if there is a way to make the subpages more specific, it might well help the ameliorate this problem. Sam Korn(smoddy)10:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, that actually sounds like a good idea. What would you suggest as the alternate noticeboards? I figure it would have to be things that are most commonly place on ANI or AN. One could be for purported threats, as I see this alot. Legal and other. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be OK but my experience is that editors post to whichever board they're aware of, regardless of topic. And whereas we can try to educate (i.e "This would be better reported at WP:AIV in future"), I don't see that issue going away. An alternative is to move off-topic posts to appropriate boards, but that would mean leaving a "moved" message in case the editor later checks up on progress; in these (simple) cases, it's easier just to deal with the report by blocking, protecting or whatever. Some editors do not read the instructions at the top of the page. However, in principle, not a bad idea. We already have a WP:3RR board which seems to function well, for example. --Rodhullandemu16:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can still move it to the right one, leaving a message on their talk pages. We shouldn't need to leave a moved message on the board we removed it from, the edit summary is there for that purpose. But this is just all my opinion. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like this idea. "Incidents" in itself is far too broad and I don't know what drives the name of this to warrant content disputes. I think content disputes should be more forcefully shown to WP:DP rather than drag it on and on before someone closes the thread 50kb later.
Sub-categorising WP:AN would help a lot. Basically, merge WP:AN and WP:ANI and link newcomers to a front page for help, with categories which act as noticeboards. I've a few categories in mind...
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Sanction feedback (shortcuts: WP:AN/SF, WP:ANSF) - Sanctioning feedback, for the usual "I've blocked user A for blah blah blah" or "I've placed user B under WP:ARBPIA for blah blah blah". Could be better than the above, as the above seems to be rather random and sparse in its occurrences.
This isn't exhaustive and there's likely to be far too many categories here but if we could just get one or two more subcategories it could easily shave the size of the pages down by quite a bit. The drawback, of course, is that there's more pages to watch. x42bn6TalkMess17:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Waaay too many sub-pages. Let's just pick a few, and leave AN as the misc/other page.
I think making the redirects could be non-controversial, and could be changed/reverted should new pages become wanted/necessary.
I think the easiest way would be to leave AN for review/discussion by admins (and others). So "admin review", and other such things would be fine. A lot of the other proposed pages sound like a "request for admin action". There doesn't need to be an "incident" for someone to request help from one or more admins. And I think that just adding that single page should cut down on the size of AN. See below for a suggestion to sub-compartmentalise AN/I. - jc3721:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another possible solution
Sorry for the subheading, but this is rather long, and separate from Sam Korn's idea above.
I was one of the people who proposed subpages before: Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 6#Proposal No. 58379 to change WP:ANI. I really think the advantages of having a separate page for each topic outweigh the disadvantages (see link for a list of advantages and disadvantages, as I see them anyway). However, it seemed to me that the main reason it wasn't done is the desire to have one page watchlisted to see all the activity on all the subjects.
A couple of weeks ago, I had an idea: Why not have a bot watch all the subpages in the ANI space, and post a null edit to WP:ANI with the author, their edit summary, and which page it was? I asked a bot person if this was feasible, but haven't heard back, so I'll throw it open to everyone else, and see if they think it's feasible. Here is how I described it to them; if a bot can do this, I really think this solves most of the problems. It isn't perfect, but nothing is, and I think it addresses the major objections to separate subpages. --barneca (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might recall our discussion a few months ago about changing the way ANI works: converting it to an RfA-like or AfD-like transcluded list. It seems to me it failed mostly because people wanted to be able to watchlist one page, and see all the changes that were made to all the threads. I’ve been thinking, and I think we could actually solve that objection. Not only that, I think we can also improve on the current situation, where long threads are shunted off to subpages, which no longer show up on the watchlist. Seems win-win to me, but I’d like a bot person’s opinion.
How hard would it be to have a bot post a null edit on the new, improved ANI (I know, not really a null edit, but adding a harmless space) every time someone made an edit to any of the active subpages?
For example, EditorA posts a new thread at the bottom of ANI. ANIBot-I notices this, and creates a subpage with an appropriate header, moves the text to the subpage, and replaces the text on ANI with a transclusion of the new subpage. EditorB clicks on the [edit] button on ANI (just like now), but this takes him to the subpage, where he makes his edit (just like RfA and AfD currently). ANIBot-II notices this, and makes a null edit in the appropriate section of the main ANI page, with the edit summary “EditorB: (insert their edit summary here)”. EditorsC thru M do the same thing, and ANIBot-II does the same thing. EditorN, who watchlists ANI and not the subpage, notices all the action, leading her to go to that section to see what the fuss is about (just like now). She can see the thread on ANI (just like now). She can edit the thread by clicking [edit] (just like now). Everyone is happy.
Now, say the thread gets so long, it’s starting to make ANI difficult to load. ANIBot-III notices this, and when a subpage gets to be a certain size, it doesn’t transclude it on ANI anymore, it just replaces it with a pointer to the subpage (just like now). However, ANIBot-II still does its thing on the ANI page, so people watchlisting ANI still get their notice that there is activity on the subpage (which is one of the main reasons people disagree about the current subpage setup; the lack of notice on the main page that a subpage is active). Everyone is happy.
Meanwhile, EditorO links to the discussion on a talk page or edit summary somewhere. He links to the subpage, so the link will never break. If he makes a mistake and links to WP:ANI#2008-04-23 Admin abuse, then a year from now when EditorP runs across the link, there’s no searching through the archives looking for the thread; it’s always going to be at WP:ANI/2008-04-23 Admin abuse. Just replace the # with a /. Everyone is happy.
Once a day, or twice a day, or continuously, when ANIBot-IV notices that there has not been an edit made to a subpage in X hours, it removes the transclusion on WP:ANI, and adds a link to WP:ANI/Archive/2008-04. That’s it, no copy-paste archiving. History remains with the discussion. No one needs to know what day an article was archived to find it. No links are broken. If we want, the bot could also add archive tags to the discussion, to prevent further edits. Or, depending on what people want, it could leave the subpage unarchived, and just relist a subpage on ANI if further discussion ever occurred; i.e. threads never truly close. Or, if people want, it’s much easier to manually archive a thread early; add the archive tags to the page, remove the transclusion, and you’re done. Everyone is happy.
The only remaining weakness I see is the rather heavy reliance on bots (although you probably think of this as a plus ;) ). But if the bot goes down, ANI doesn’t seize up or anything. Discussion still goes on in the subpages, and experienced people can move new topics to subpages themselves. The only critical thing you lose when the bots go down is the update to the main ANI page. Life would go on.
Much of this is just a consolidation of stuff you’ve already worked on, or stuff that’s already been discussed. The only thing that's new (and I don’t know how feasible it is), is the ANIBot-II and ANIBot-III work. In particular, how feasible would it be for the bot to watch not only all “active” subpages, but “all” subpages, so that edits to dormant subpages can be dealt with?
What do you think? I have to run, but am very interested in what you think about the feasibility of a watchlist bot. I'll check in later. --barneca (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you given a thought to just how many subpages this is going to lead to? At the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CorenANIBot and the corresponding WP:AN discussion, someone made the astute point that this would lead to the creation of over ten thousand subpages per year just for WP:AN. Doing the same thing to ANI and/or 3RR, both of which take far more traffic than AN, would push that number over 50,000. That strikes me as a rather dubious solution to a problem which is not crippling. What we do need to do is gently prod Misza until he finishes rewriting the archivebot to take the {{resolved}} template. That way, old discussions are rapidly cleared out of the way to leave room for new ones. Happy‑melon18:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD creates over 100 subpages a day - a minimum of 36,500 subpages per year - and it hasn't broken anything yet. A simple naming scheme like WP:ANI/2008-05-08/Thread title would make the subpage space easy to organize/navigate. If watching that many subpages was too much for a bot, it could always only watch the couple of dozen pages currently transcluded on ANI. And this proposal solves (again, IMHO) more than just the size of the page. --barneca (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I vote yes for barneca's system. Barneca is the man. As long as a bot notifies me of changes, I'm fine (I'm in the camp of I wanna see the whole picture, not just what I watchlist (like afd)). Otherwise, a (possibly simpler solution) noted above is a faster archiving to keep the size down of ANI (if that's the main complaint of a large thread). I know edit conflicts are also a complaint and it wouldn't solve that necessarily. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer19:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I didn't want to get too involved in this topic last month, as I didn't want to rehash what had been previously discussed. However, for the record, I would very much like to see sub pages, assuming it isn't worse than the current system. Barneca's suggestions seem very good. Also, I think the AfD procedure is far superior than RfA... anything to make it closer to that I would definitely favor. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs19:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)No, I don't think so. If we can come to an agreement as to the method and standardize it, I'm sure there will be more agreement. This way, or either way, we can just watchlist the noticeboards we want and not just one or two which has gets heavy traffic. I'm only suggesting we get more people into the idea. I'm under the impression that not many editors are watching this talk page. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then let me rephrase. No one pays attention. This and the above thread proposes to change the way we use ANI-AN. You'd think everyone who posts to these boards would be interested. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with barneca's proposal, and I think this should be put into WP:CENT for increased visibility. If no-one objects I'll do it myself. — scetoaux(T|C)20:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are serious about implementing this, then I suggest someone contacts Coren: his bot was designed to do precisely what you've been discussing. Happy‑melon20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ive got a simi-working version of miszabot that archives using timestamps and templates. the only issue I have is that it cannot parse the config misza bot has. βcommand 221:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This "sounds" interesting, but I think it may make it more difficult for non-experienced users to post/comment. - jc3721:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a similar bot proposal here. Another approach I've been toying with (that could be made to work either with one massive page or with sub-pages) is a newsreader approach. This would be an on-the-side system that monitors certain pages, characterizing every edit by the "threads" (that is, sections) it affects. Editors who choose to do so may read the page via this system, thread-by-thread, viewing only changes since their last visit. They can then kill or promote threads for future visits, or come back to Wikipedia to add a comment. Bovlb (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barneca's suggestion sounds reasonable... as long as people can watch edits to AN/ANI without watching a thousand subpages, it should be fine. AletaSing21:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simple temporary solution
Make more use of the ((Resolved}} tenmplate, and have a bot remove resolved issues to a page such as AN/Resolved. Would cut the current page down by 30 or more percent. --Tagishsimon(talk)00:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about just have the bot archive anything marked "resolved", after 24 (36? 48?) hours? - jc37
Another alternative solution
Right, I've been thinking about this and another solution came to me when I saw a page being moved on my watchlist. When a page on a watchlist is moved, both the original location (now a redirect) and the new location are automatically on the watchlist. If, therefore, once a day, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard was moved by a bot to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008-05-09 and the bot then included the last few days' pages to the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, that would fix the size problem while not creating issues with watchlists.
The only difficulty is with discussions that continue for a long time -- perhaps there could be a page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/On-going discussions that would be included above the dated ones. Discussions that were still active when the archiving bot moved the page could be moved to there and then merged back into the dated page when the discussion was finished.
My only remaining concern is the possible divorce between diffs and the page content.
There would be no problem with diffs and oldids: the link will still take you to the addition of the material, even if the page has been moved (try picking a random oldid, then changing the oldid number by one (keeping the page title the same). You'll end up somewhere completley different). I'm not sure how this would affect the size of the AN page though. Happy‑melon19:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As has been mentioned in previous debates, splitting the noticeboard into subpages can make it very difficult to effectively monitor the goings-on of the site as a whole, which is one key purpose of this central noticeboard. We can find useful alternatives without breaking down the board, though; what about another page linking currently active threads, sorted by useful characteristics like topic or users mentioned? By that method, we could achieve the sort of topical breakdown x42bn6 mentioned without significantly changing the current operation of the noticeboards themselves. – Luna Santin (talk)00:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate idea
I've also noticed that when a page is moved, both the target and the original stay on my watchlist.
Some of the higher volume pages are moved by a bot on a (semi-)daily basis. (WP:SAND, for example.)
This page could be switched that plan.
It would be simple enough to have a bot move this page daily. That, and it would be an automatic archive, and the page history would then remain with those commenting.
No loss on the watchlist, and no loss of page history, and by moving, the page acts as the archive. (So no more needing to scan the archives looking for some thread for linking.)
Sounds like a "winner" to me.
Just prior to implementation, (for historical reasons), I would suggest moving this page to maintain it's long history, and once the ongoing discussions on the page have finished, treating it as an archive index page, with the archive box remaining. That way the page hostory stays intact, and a link to all the "old" archive pages stays intact. - jc3719:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A problem - many discussions last longer than a day. Sometimes longer than a week. This idea would fragment discussions and make the page much harder to use. GRBerry18:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the noticeboard is at 416KB. HappyMelon has tried to help in the past by early archiving and splitting threads, but it seems like this page is constantly above the 256KB goal. Maybe a more aggressive archiving or splitting system (say once a thread reaches 25KB it's shunted to a Holding Pen or something similar) is needed. MBisanztalk04:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check above. There was already discussion on this. I still feel something needs to be implemented, but this just hasn't gotten enough notice to be changed yet. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I believe that we need to change the amount of time that MiszaBotII archives this page to something like 12 hours or 24 hours (and even then, it might still be too large.) Cheers, Razorflame20:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry. FunPika 17:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
