Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

This is not the page to report problems to administrators, or discuss administrative issues.

This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard page itself. Report incidents such as block evasion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Report violations of the three-revert rule at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Discuss general issues at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Report posting of personal information by following instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.

POV Acupuncturist

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV Acupuncturist

User:Mccready - endless, disruptive, repetitive edit warring

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mccready - endless, disruptive, repetitive edit warring

Missed the close of Connolley/Giano flap, due to edit conflict.

Moved to [1]

WP:BEANS ?

The bit where it says:

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

— Alan^✉ 06:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Individual discussion subpages?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copied from my post at your talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Role of AN?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And "general issues" would get everything : )

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

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

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

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

How about /Not incidents? : )

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

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

Two issues, both need action

OK, so there are two distinct issues here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Increase archive kb limit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts

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

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

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

Archive boxes and comment removal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To quote from the creation of AN

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

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

Another example

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

Violation of TTN's Restriction?

I'm relatively inexperienced in matters of Arbcom, but this [2] would appear to be in violation of TTN's restrictions, especially considering the similarity to this situation which resulted in a one week block. I realize that his restriction expires within the week, but if its a violation then its a violation.75.93.9.235 (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)