Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 3

message: Protect Request
Can you explain me what is going on the page Ziabari by this abuser person: 64.229.134.234 ??
He is always flooding my page with abusing, insulting, bad and under 18 years old language? this is his website http://hasanagha.net 
I think that it will not be good for you to let this mental ill person to continue his abusing and vandaling.
its not nice to call people mentally ill Lucid 03:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree; further topics started here not actually relating to the noticeboard itself should probably be moved to WP:AN. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page... 

message: I have come to the conclusion that the noticeboard is badly broken.  It has become an unmanaged dumping ground for rants, disputes and accusations.  I am wasting a huge amount of time following irrelevant comments.  I am about a hair's-breadth away from taking this page off my watchlist.
I propose that we aggressively enforce the paragraph at the top of the page which clearly states that "these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour".  I could live with a brief notice of a dispute and a link to the in-depth discussion but anything more than a mere notice should be deleted on sight.  No archiving, no moving.  Just delete with a comment.  Any interested party can recover the dispute from the page history and create an appropriate dispute page.
Disputes over specific policies should also be moved.  The 3RR seems to be particularly controversial right now.  The proper place to be holding that dispute is at Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule, not here.  Rossami (talk) 14:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins can use Wikipedia:Policy enforcement and everyone can comment at Wikipedia talk:Policy enforcement. Just created yesterday! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
*I strongly agree with Rossami. Radiant_>|< 17:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
*Yup, I agree too. This page is only for things that require administrator attention, as opposed to matters that require the attention of well-meaning wikipedians. (not implying that the former aren't the latter, just that they're not all of them). --W(t) 23:29, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
*Would agree, but must confess I am an offender. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 07:14 (UTC)
**Is this for WP:AN/I too? The notice here says, "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so there WP:AN/I". — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrators' noticeboard is broken 

message: Alas, all, I don't think I can deal with doing the Noticeeboard archiving any more. It was taking a good chunk of my Wikipedia time, and I wasn't getting much article editing done. I just can't force myself to do it anymore. So I need to bail on doing the archiving; can someone else take it over? Thanks. Noel (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, things are all caught up now, and everything's all cleaned up as well. So, I'm going to call it a day on doing the maintainence/archiving, so I can devote more of my energy to working on articles. So, now we really do need someone to take over doing the archiving. Let me know (on my Talk: page, I won't be reading here) if you want me to write up some instructions (argh, the dreaded instruction creep :-) on how I was doing it. Noel (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Need someone to do archiving

message: Since this is a rather busy page, would it be possible to adopt the Village Pump's archiving policy, which is boot them to a backup page, and then delete them so that they only remain in page history? — Ambush Commander(Talk) 01:41, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
:In theory yes. in practice now I've taken 3RR out of the incerdetn archive archive isn't much of a problem.Geni 02:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storing in histories rather than archives 

message: moved to WP:AN; this doesn't belong on the talk page. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict with Mindspillage). I was about to suggest that. It might be better to move it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, where there's a similar thread already. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GordonWatts|GordonWatts]] 

message: I've removed the User:Willmcw thread started by User:Rangerdude from WP:AN/I after letting the following comment sit on it for some hours. Rangerdude, I realize you were probably asleep during those hours, that's why I'm posting this talkpage notice.
:W is not using any admin powers in editing Thomas Woods, so this is a pure content dispute, please take it to WP:RfC. See the instructions at the top of this page. I'll wait a few hours to see if others agree with me, but barring protests, I'm going to remove this thread. Oh [looking], I see you did take it to RfC, Rangerdude. All the more reason for not posting it here as well. Please read the instructions. Bishonen | talk 08:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Willmcw]] thread removed from WP:AN/I

message: Can an admin consider placing a protected page tag up front please? Thanks. encephalon 22:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it protected?  I hope this is only a temporary measure against vandalism, rather than a permanent way to restrict the page to admins.  The page clearly states, "any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here"; that is no longer possible. Superm401 | Talk 23:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a temporary measure against vandalism. --cesarb 23:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the blocking admin should have put an explanation here on talk, or at least a protected notice on the main page. Superm401 | Talk 23:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: At risk of stating the very obvious, both AN and AN/I were/are protected because of the droves of vandalbots that keep on blanking them and causing much server load in doing so and getting reverted: several times a minute. It can be unprotected between attacks, I would hope. Trouble is, they've been more or less continuous. -Splashtalk 23:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's still protected, so I've put a notice on it. - Nunh-huh 23:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected Notice 

message: Rhobite stalks people look at his logs and you will see he follows people he disagrees with onto other topics.
:Oh noes! Rhobite 04:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I tend to do that when people who write about a "Republican agenda" accuse me of stalking. Rhobite 05:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I encourage all administrators and editors to follow the edits of /, whose recently prodigious work often has not been up to Wikipedia's standards. I encourage Grazon to read over Wikipedia:How to write a great article and other tutorials available. -Willmcw 08:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhobite stalks people 

message: Would anyone object to adding language in the first paragraph of this page to the effect of ... "Please keep your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes." · Katefan0(scribble) 20:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable. We want people's concerns to be heard. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how much good it'll do, but. Worth a shot. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody seems to mind, so I'm adding. If you take issue just pipe up. · Katefan0(scribble) 05:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diatribe prevention 

message: I often see possible sockpuppets, many of which are borderline trolling, if not all the way. Is it possible to make a new "IP check" tool for administrators. Trying to pester develpoers about this kind of stuff is slow and tedious for both parties.
If anyone is afraid of abuse, then perhaps we can have RfAs for admins who want this tool, although I personally would not see that as necessary if the current admins are trustworthy.
Any thoughts?Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 18:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most folks are concerned that the use of checkuser raises serious privacy concerns, and so therefore should be very limited.  Just within the past week or so, though, most members of the arbcom have been granted the ability to perform this check themselves, so hopefully that will help clear up some of the bottleneck. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It's at m:CheckUser... (but good idea ;) ) -Mysekurity 23:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin IP checking? 

message: As I've been trying to clean up this page, I've found the following users' sigs which contain broken HTML:
*Voice of All
**Voice of All frowns :-(...anyway, I just talked to CesarB, and he said that it was OK.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 23:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken HTML 

message: The Admin Noticeboard (and incidents page) have a tendency to get too long and not be archived often enough. That is also because the order sections appear in does not indicate which sections are still pertinent and which are not, making archiving somewhat arduous.
I've discussed it at the bots page, and it is very feasible to create a bot that would automatically archive any section that has not been edited for a week, judging by the signature timestamps present in the section. Of course the "one week" bit is an arbitrary selection. Does anyone else think this is a good idea? Radiant_>|< 16:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea, in my opinion. --Syrthiss 16:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it can truly be done, I'd say clean this mother up! --LV (Dark Mark) 16:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say go for it too. Titoxd(?!?) 17:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds good, so long as a week is a fair representation of a dead topic here. --Blackcap | talk 17:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think this a great idea, with the assumption that this bot would be in addition to manual archiving, not in place of it. For example, sections (usually large ones) often have a stray comment made a few days after the topic has "died". This would sometimes lead to the bot letting too many dead sections clutter the page. Other than that minor issue, I don't see any reason not to implement this bot. Carbonite | Talk 17:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. Blackcap | talk 17:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that it would be crazy to make an entirely new archive page every day.  I haven't looked at the WP:AN archives at all yet; how would you like me to handle it?  The simplest way would be either to start a new archive every X amount of days, or start a new archive whenever the current one exceeds Y size (in wikitext). —Cryptic (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be possible to accumulate all the archived messages in a temp location at a subpage, and when the size of the subpage exceeds a certain size (I don't know how large exactly is the size in Kb of a page that would need to be archived) or number of messages/subheadings (probably around 75-100) to send a message to this page that the temp needs to be moved to a new archive? That way, old messages would be continuously removed from this page and placed at the temp location, and when the temp gets to the point where it can be placed into a new archive page, a user could manually review it and then move it to the next archive page. Would that be possible? Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Size in Kb or number of subheadings would be trivial.  (Number of messages would be harder; I'd rather not have to parse the section contents for a count.)  Is there a reason not to put it directly into the archive pages, though? —Cryptic (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I'm not seeing the distinction either... Unless Flcelloguy means have a 'Recent Archives' page where the recently moved topics goes to, and when that gets big gets dumped into 'Archive NN'.  Still I am not sure what that would achieve instead of dumping it directly to 'Archive NN'. --Syrthiss 22:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I must have misunderstood the initial comment. So you're saying that the bot will continuously archive, so that archive X gets bigger until it hits a certain point, when the bot will then dump to archive X+1? That sounds fine to me. But how are you going to determine when to start a new archive? What I'm saying is that using the number of  ==TITLE==  and setting an arbitrary cut-off point would work, though I'm sure using Kb would also work. What would be easier? Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was my plan.  As for when to go on to the next archive, I'm pretty flexible; let me know how you want it handled, and I'll do it.  It's just as easy to go by Kb or by number of level-2 section headers (I'll be treating each ==section== and all of its ===subsections===, ====subsubsections====, etc. as a single indivisible unit).  Picking some actual numbers would be helpful; the size of the last few archive pages ranges all the way from 70K to 241K.  (By the way, I can also make it update Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox and Template:Administrators' noticeboard navbox all appropriately, though Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident index obviously would still need a human to maintain it.) —Cryptic (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm thinking to set 100 sections as the arbitrary cut-off point; I've archived a few times and if I remember correctly each time was around 100 sections. Thoughts? Also, would it be possible to program the bot to take care of the help desk and Wikipedia:General complaints? Both those pages need constant archiving and are prone to get extremely long. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The glib answer is that it won't be fooled, since you left out a comma between your 24s.  The real answer is that it'll assume that anything that looks like a timestamp is valid, unless it's in the future. —Cryptic (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be useful.  The section headers tend to have a decent correlation with the content :).  In addition, I think we should not be in a hurry to archive- not everyone is on 24/7; two weeks sounds better to me. --Maru  (talk) Contribs 21:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Two weeks is a bit too much, especially for WP:AN/I; the high volume of posts we get there necessitates a quicker archival. Since we all seem to be in consensus here, can we get the bot running if it has been programmed? If it's already been programmed, perhaps we can test it for a week (I believe that WP:BOT requires that bots be tested first, anyways). Thoughts at getting this off the ground? Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's get it running. We can always adjust the exact time limit later on if one week turns out to be too little or too much. Radiant_>|< 23:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Core functionality (ie, figuring out what needs to be archived) is done, but figuring out which page to archive to is not; nor is maintenance of the two index templates.  (Radiant posted here immediately after I said it was feasible over on Wikipedia:Bot requests.)  WP:BOT requires a waiting period of a week between proposal and testing, in any case. —Cryptic (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AN&ANI ArchiveBot 

message: As suggested above, my bot's been updating this page for the last month.  Now that we have something concrete there, does anyone actually, truly, use it (as opposed to just "I think it might be useful")?  I'd just as soon kill it off.  It's not scaling well, and I'm getting tired of fixing it when the formatting breaks because someone used a template in a section header (which isn't easy to fix automatically). —Cryptic (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident index]]

message: Why is this page protected?  The log entry on Special:Log/protect wasn't very enlightening. -- SCZenz 01:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 20:20, November 28, 2005 Titoxd protected Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (move-protecting to prevent it from being moved to something abusive) - I am going to hazard a guess and say it was under a page-move vandal attack. Raul654 01:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I removed full protection and just move-protected it, since it was under a shock-image-vandalism attack. Titoxd(?!?) 01:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, at the time I wrote the above the current protection was 00:06, 29 November 2005 Flcelloguy protected Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (Unprotecting to do full protection), whose comment I think must have been an autocomplete typo or something.  Anyway, thanks for answering. -- SCZenz 01:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the AN was under a vandalbot attack that replaced the page with an obscene image at the time so I protected it. Brief periods of protection have proven effective in the past; it's unprotected now.  Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  AN Protected? 

message: Changed comments of mine on a user talk page (User_talk:207.255.133.142), deleted content on my user page, and deleted the warning on his talk page within five minutes of warning. Daviddec 00:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your user page consisted of "vandalism" repeated about 6 million times. Get over it and do something constructive. Jgritz 00:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There doesn't seem to be any basis to the charge that  changed any comments at User_talk:207.255.133.142.  User:Daviddec is a page full of the word "VANDALISM", which has been recreated after being deleted.  Jkelly 00:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently all started with a deletion of a vanity article. See also User talk:Steven Rollins, unsure if they're the same person (CheckUser anyone?) NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that Jeffrey O. Gustafson has done absolutely nothing wrong here. Whereas Daviddec is skirting very close to a block for disruptive editing. David | Talk 01:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Steven Rollins and Daviddec are not the same person.  Davidec has been repeatedly adding a vanity article on his nn band, which I had deleted, repeatedly.  Steven Rollins is an unrelated case of someone making legal threats and personal attacks, who I banned.  Deviddec is a continuing problem, though.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Daviddec has recreated his "vandalised" user page - which I have re-deleted. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 08:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The BIG V - So you have deleted my user page. Why? I have been told that I can put any content on my user page if I wish. I wrote what I wrote for an art project. You said that I wrote the word vandilism over and over. Not true. Each word was different and had different meanings, without and within the surrounding words. Please feel free to warn me next time- sort of like you are supposed to do before deleting content on a user page. If you could send me an email of the original content that would be great. Daviddec 09:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm bored with this nonsense - which is now at an end. Any more postings from you will be ignored and deleted. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 10:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look Daviddec, this blatant trolling has got to stop - make a reasonable userpage and we can all move on. If you keep on nagging here, you are simply trolling and wasting everyone's time. Izehar (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin is vandalising (Not really says someone) 

message: So you have deleted my user page. Why? I have been told that I can put any content on my user page if I wish. I wrote what I wrote for an art project. You said that I wrote the word vandilism over and over. Not true. Each word was different and had different meanings, without and within the surrounding words. Please feel free to warn me next time- sort of like you are supposed to do before deleting content on a user page. If you could send me an email of the original content that would be great. Daviddec 09:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm bored with this nonsense - which is now at an end. Any more postings from you will be ignored and deleted. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 10:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look Daviddec, this blatant trolling has got to stop - make a reasonable userpage and we can all move on. If you keep on nagging here, you are simply trolling and wasting everyone's time. Izehar (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The BIG V

message: I'm here because nothing else works.Admins "resolve' disputes without ever talking to me.
I want to know who is the head admin. The leader, the man in charge.
I have an ignorant, biased skeptic who keeps reverting the Bigfoot page so it says
Bigfoot has SMALL eyes, and a SMALL head. Over and over. DreamGuy . And despite Wiki article on 
First Aid, Biological Warfare and UFOs, where public is directed to report contacts and problems, this guy, a total J***, keeps saying Wiki cannot provide info sites to report 
contacts . 
WHO-IS-IN-CHARGE?
beckjordBeckjord 09:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't do content disputes on this page. And in most senses there is no "head admin" (although some would argue that our god-king Jimbo Wales has that role. Admins have no more authority with respect to article content than anyone else. If Wikipedia rules are being violated (incivility, excessive reversion, inappropriate sockpuppetry, vandalism), we are able to protect pages and block users. If there is consensus to delete a page, we're the ones who can carry out that consensus, and we also can perform some trickier page moves than others. That's about it. It doesn't sound like any of that is at issue here. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nobody running this show

message: 65.241.54.155, 206.170.106.240, and 66.77.127.68 have vandalized the Mandy Moore page almost everyday. I have been one of the few users who updates the article, and for that the page has been blanked and i have been labled a perdophile. I believe all these users are the same person.  I ask you all to atleast ban one of these users.  They have clearly abused the site.
Parys
:Firstly, why is this here? Secondly I had a quick look the the contributions of the above three IP's and i didn't see any simple vandalism. It is of course perfectly possible that i didn't look deeply enough. When was the page blanked? When were you labelled a pediophile? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  About why here, it was me who suggested that to the user (well, more exactly I suggested WP:AN/I, because he kept on asking at Wikipedia:Administrators which was surely not the right place. This is better than that, but not sure if the perfect place. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mandy Moore]] uber-vandals 

message: The current wording for the example directions for  leads to some confusion. I have made minor changes to the presentation, but the text is particularly un-user-friendly. For example, what does "Use diffs, not versions, and the "compare versions" button!" refer to? The original example, as presented at the 3RR Header, does not include such instructions, and I can find no such "button." Perhaps one of the authors of this version of the instructions would care to clarify? —LeFlyman 17:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewording 3RR "Report new violation" example text

message: What's going on with the Table of Contents on the WP:AN page?  Why isn't it boxed?  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I fixed it by inserting a line break, which is highly weird. -Splashtalk 23:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you did, fixed it.  :)  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TOC

message: (moved to WP:ANI.  The talk page is only for discussions about the noticeboard.) —Cryptic (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harrassment and Threats 

message: Anyway we can split the violations into "enforced" and "new"?--Tznkai 04:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation Split 

message: I've been thinking that the current report template is not adequate. Look at the following paragraphs from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule to see why:
*Reverting in this context means undoing the work of another editor. It does not necessarily mean going back into the page history to revert to a previous version. The passage you keep adding or deleting may be as little as a few words, or in some cases, just one word.
*This policy does apply to repeatedly moving, renaming, deleting, undeleting, or recreating a page. All of these, if done excessively, are forms of edit warring.
*Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that undo a previous edit, in whole or in part, or that add something new. Use common sense.
What I am getting at is that to violate the 3RR, one does not have to revert to the same version of the page. A revert (quote from the policy): may include edits that undo a previous edit, in whole or in part. The current template does not enable users with how have been revert warring over only part of an article to be reported.
Example:
#I remove a word from an article
#User:A reinserts it
#I remove the word again and correct a mistake
#User:A reinserts the word again
#I remove the word again and correct a different mistake
#User:B reinserts the word
#I remove the word and add a picture to the article
#User:C reinserts the word
#I remove the word and add a table and graph to the article
Assuming the above happened within the same 24 hour period, I will have violated the 3RR according to the policy, but the current template doesn't provide for such violations to be reported. Many "gaming the system" 3RR violations are also performed in this manner, but are not reported because the template seems to indicate that you have to have reverted to the same version in order to violate the rule, but that's clearly not the case. Izehar 20:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The report template is not adequate 

message: There's a lot of greyed-out text.
It might be someone's sig running amok again, I can't tell.
Is this supposed to be there, or should I seek & destroy re-format?
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grey text 

message: Is the ANI archival bot still active? I noticed these pages getting extremely long lately. Radiant_>|< 22:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I've accelerated it all the way up to a 3-day period (which is about the minimum lagtime that it can reasonably go to).  We really are going through this much material; the last few 150k archives only cover three or four days each. —Cryptic (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival bot? 

message: I just noticed that there's a new link to post a new incident at the very top of this page, and I couldn't find any discussion about it. It's slightly redundant, as there's the exact same link in the third line of the header; in addition, by placing the link at the very top, it discourages people from reading the instructions first. Thoughts on this? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since no one has replied, I'm removing the link. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Post a new message link?

message: Newbie admin seeks experienced admin as mentor (pref. a Brit, for time-zone reasons).  Why dioes this remind me of the small ads in Private Eye?  Thanks - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 09:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not British, nor really "experienced", but I'm going to suggest Francs2000 (who is a bcrat!), since he's British and definitely experienced. NSLE (T+C) 09:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll volunteer :). Do you need any help with something specific or would you just like me to "keep an eye on you" per se? Feel free to use my talk page if you want (as I side note I really wanted to do this when I become an admin months ago but instead tryed talking to various admins on their pages which didn't  seem to work out that well.... you really have to find "the right one" I guess :)) WhiteNight T | @ | C 09:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Whitenight, helpful so far :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 16:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentor wanted 

message: Despite the good work of the archival bot, AN and especially ANI have grown impractically large (ANI was 450 kb yesterday). It is becoming impractical for some users to read and edit them (indeed, I find myself using a history diff rather than read the board as a whole, so that I can get the relevant info in the top few lines). Note that we already have a new noticeboard for sockcheck requests (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser).
Therefore. Quick straw poll. What would you like done with the noticeboards...
===Keep as they are now===
#A subpage for comments about admins is a bad idea indeed — it will turn into repeated impromptu RfCs, without the kind of frivolity-protection RfC currently affords. Subpages per day will make it hard to just follow running conversations, unless you meticulously watchlist every single day's subpage. It's useful to be able to just see what's afoot without having to remember to watchlist every single thing. I recognize that they get long, but the current proposal isn't the right solution. I'm not sure what is, though. -Splashtalk 23:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shape and size of AN/ANI 

message: #A subpage for comments about admins is a bad idea indeed — it will turn into repeated impromptu RfCs, without the kind of frivolity-protection RfC currently affords. Subpages per day will make it hard to just follow running conversations, unless you meticulously watchlist every single day's subpage. It's useful to be able to just see what's afoot without having to remember to watchlist every single thing. I recognize that they get long, but the current proposal isn't the right solution. I'm not sure what is, though. -Splashtalk 23:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep as they are now

message: (possibly combining AN and ANI since the distinction is somewhat hazy; this leaves a daily Wikipedia:Admin noticeboard/2006 april 31 etc, and a bot should have WP:AN point to the most recent one)
# Nah this is a bad idea. We'd have to keep an eye on multiple pages to keep up with discussion. enochlau (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split into subpages per day

message: Thus keep all notifications for admins on ANI, and make a new page for complaints about, and evaluations of, admin actions.
#Increases admin accountability Support. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 23:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Make a new page for "comments ''about'' admins"

message: #Divide up by what the matter is, not by date, which will lead to sections being unconnected and harder to watchlist.  I suggest "blocks", "deletions", "protections" and "miscellaneous", perhaps "vandalism" as well.  We must then be far more vigourous in deleting comments that don't need admins' comments, and which should instead be on the village pump.  Sam Korn 23:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split by subject matter

message: # An idea: why don't we put all new discussions in a subpage, and link (not transclude) to that subpage, so we can quickly scan the titles for topics that interest us? enochlau (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other, please specify or create a new section

message: #Keep the 3RR page separate. Comments about an editor would be on the regular AN pages. The next time that editor has a problem, they get discussed on the second level page. Most of the long comments are from second and third requests about specific users, but the majority of sections are new subject areas. I think this might be an adequate split. Just throwing out ideas. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate page solely for "repeat offenders"

message: Can I float a germ of an idea, which I recognise will need refinement? - encourage people to use AN/I as a page to report incidents, not to discuss them.  It could be argued that the proper place for two-thirds of AN/I discussions is somewhere else (a user's talk page, an article's talk page, a policy page or discussion, WP:VIP or 3RR).  Users should be encouraged to submit a brief notification summarising the incident, with diffs and links to the correct place for discussion, but replies on AN/I should be discouraged (unless it is to update admins about escalations, or tell everyone the incident has been dealt with).  All admins watching the page should still get an idea of what's going on, interested admins will follow up, and individual incidents will be less likely to get lost in the morass.  --RobertG ♬ talk 11:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discourage ''replies'' on AN/I

message: Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and need help changing a redirect. The word Microfinance currently redirects to Microcredit. That is incorrect, it's an old use of the word, but the terms are not synonymous anymore, microcredit is a narrow definition (involves only credit) and microfinance is a broader terms, that involves all types of financial services (credit, insurance, savings, loans etc.) for the poor. 
Can you please get rid of the redirect? Alternatively, you can keep the text for Microcredit, and I can create a new entry for Microfinance.
Thanks!
:Follow this link to edit microcredit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microfinance&action=edit .  If you want to edit a redirect,  you can click on the microfinance link below the Microcredit title "(Redirected from Microfinance)".  This will "turn off" the redirect and allow you to edit the page if you need it.   --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help with a redirect for Microfinance 

message: This may sound a little stupid, but if editors are blocked from editing, how can they edit this page if they are blocked?  I guess that doesn't apply to this page or something.  Wikipedia really is interesting! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 15:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They can't (edit this page) (I think) (I dunno, I've never been blocked before). — Ambush Commander(Talk) 01:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only page blocked users can edit are their talk pages. The block message encourages the user to email the blocking admin or email the mailing list. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If their username is blocked, I believe their IP is blocked as well, but only for a certain period of time. They could then write anonymously here after the IP block is lifted. enochlau (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP is blocked as well; if you attempt to edit from the IP, the autoblocker blocks for 24 hours. However, if you try and edit from the IP again after the autoblock has expired, it still blocks you. In other words, if you're blocked, you shouldn't be able to edit. (There are some exceptions to this, like AOL users.) The message encourages the blocked user to email the admin or post to the list. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question...

message: Hello! I am being blocked again unnecessarily. This time my IP address is 165.21.154.117. I believe I am experiencing an autoblock again. I hope you can solve this problem soon.One with Her 05:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But.. you're editing? So you aren't blocked? --Golbez 05:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And indeed, there doesn't seem to be any block in the entire 165.21.154.* range.  Alai 05:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocked Agian! 

message: WMC raises the very valid point that the 3RR only explicitly authorises blocks up to 24 hours.  But practice seems to be that longer blocks are sometimes in order (typically after a number of 24 hour such), and there seems to be some explicit, and much tacit, support for this.  If this is indeed the case, it should probably be made explicit on the policy page.  Or, we could stop doing so, though I doubt they'd the arbcom'd be pleased if we start filtering all such cases to them for further sanction.  Alai 21:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Repeated or aggravated 3RR" > 24 hour blocks 

message: * I am unsure where to ask a question about allowing a new wikipage type. I would appreciate if someone could point me to the correct page. Thank you, Pattersonc(Talk) 9:42 PM, Sunday; January 29 2006 (EST)
**Ummm...probably WP:VPT. -Splashtalk 02:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Page Type for Wikipedia

message: From 3RR page
A vote passed to give further enforcement power to this rule:
If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally.
On Aryan Invasion Theory page I did not violate 3RR in a 24 hour window yet I was blocked.  I made 2 edits and two reverts. William M. Connolley is the admin in qustion.
First edit
First revert
Second edit. Added my comments to the version saved by 70.187.218.135
Second revert
Shivraj Singh 04:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:3RR does not mean that you are "entitled" to three reverts per 24 hour period, that's simply the hard limit.  If there is a history of ignoring consensus or refusing to discuss issues on an article's talk page, then you will likely be blocked.  I don't know exactly know what happened in this instance, as I'm not well-versed in its subject matter, I'm simply commenting on your interpretation of "the law". --bbatsell « give me a ring » 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Admin breaks wiki law

message: Hello. I and other editors have had lots of problems with Rajputs page and have recently had an arbcom decision on there to ban some abusive and propogandists users. It appears that there are now sock puppets appearing on this page after it is being advanced who regressing it and reverting all edits. Dab said you guys can help? --Raja 16:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sock puppets on Rajput page