Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 5

message: Should this be archived?  It seems that some of the reports aren't garnering any further attention, and several of them seem to have been resolved.--Vercalos 19:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, I'm refering to the /incedents subsection.--Vercalos 19:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? That page is archived several times a day by a bot that removes any section where there has been no discussion in two days. Essjay (Talk) 01:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be archived? 

message: I feel that the Akron Wiki article is being unfairly deleted, and that it, and the word "Akronness" should have article status.
Please tell the people involved to make changes.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiwiki1950 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 25 November 2006  (UTC)
:The discussions about this were at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akron Wiki and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akroness.  You or anyone else is quite welcome to revisit either of these at Wikipedia:Deletion review.  On the other hand, unless something significantly changes (like the website is still there in two years and has become a widely known and used regional resource) my guess is there's approximately a 0% chance that either of these articles will be restored.  -- Rick Block (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Akron Wiki 

message: Currently, ANI is archived by Essjaybot such that the archive is "filled" until the archive exceeds 300KB. The result of this is that the archive can get up to 350 or 400KB. The consequence of this is that there is a delay in loading even on newer computers with fast connections, and an even greater delay on older machines or slower connections or when opening several archives at once to find discussions from a particular time period. The typical archive size for article talk page is more around 130KB, and the typical size for administrative noticeboard archives—when the switching of their archives was not ignored—was more around 200KB and less. The reason given for having such large archives is to reduce the number of archives. This provides no great advantage—we have no shortage of numbers—but there is a practical disadvantage for having large single archives. —Centrx→talk • 11:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the size should be reduced. I don't know exactly how the bot works, but it should be an easy thing to change. Maybe reduce the 300k to 100k? --Tango 13:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Takes about 2 seconds to do; all it needs is consensus. Essjay (Talk) 13:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds great to me and my extraordinarily sketchy dial-up. Snoutwood 08:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen - do it -- Tawker 08:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, reduce the archive size; I know how hard it is to view the old large Help Desk archives. --ais523 08:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, go for it. the wub "?!" 13:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely (guess who's on a 56k on weekends?) yandman 09:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do it. Alphachimp 09:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANI archive size 

message: Hi there!
I'm not sure if this is the right place for this but I think it is. Please gently point it out to me if it's not.
At times, I am running through the new user log and I find an offensive username. Rather than put them on WP:ANI or WP:AIV, I would prefer it if I could just put a template, like , on the offending user's page. If this template added the usernames to a category, like 'Category:Offensive usernames', then admins could just run through the list and block these users indef. If this was approved I could change all the sections in policies and guidelines saying to put the template on instead of reporting the users on WP:ANI or WP:AIV.
Cheers and thanks for considering this,
Yuser31415 05:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that reporting them is better, especially reporting them to AIV because it is meant for that sort of thing and it is wiped clean rather than archived, because it is better to not create user pages or talk pages for offensive names. The user or talk page could be deleted afterwards, but it would be more work and admins might neglect to delete them. -- Kjkolb 13:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose you are right. Never mind at the moment then :) Yuser31415 18:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except .... admins already leave a message on the user's talk page, don't they? So the offensive username template could be put on the talk page ... all it would make worse would be the fact that admins would have one more place to patrol. Yuser31415 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see enough gain to justify giving admins yet another place to monitor. --Tango 13:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason to not just use WP:AIV. It's just as easy. I'm with Tango. -Patstuarttalk|edits 19:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for reporting offensive usernames? 

message: Sorry to bother this page but the mediation process advised;  "Add the text {{RFMF|Case Page Name|05:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a farcical RFM, and you should probably be blocked for WP:POINT. – Chacor 05:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if someone with more wikipedia power than you was falsely and publicly accusing you of having an "anti-american agenda" perhaps you would feel differently; and I have no point to make; I am trying to mediate the ongoing hostility Sarah expresses towards me. Canuckster 06:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: All of this because I closed the convo because it was just becoming a flame war between you and Sarah? Seriously man, get something better to do.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if someone with more wikipedia power than you was falsely and publicly accusing you of having an "anti-american agenda" perhaps you would feel differently. Canuckster 06:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the tag; the RFMF tag is intended for articles where there may be multiple parties who are interested in the subject but unaware of the mediation. It does not apply to disputes with a limited scale like this one. Essjay (Talk) 05:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Format seems to require this template here 

message: Would it be possible to transclude the individual notifications from sub pages? — Sebastian 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be done... much the same way that WP:AFD is.  However, it starts to get complicated. ---J.S  (T/C) 00:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's way too much work for each discussion.  Perhaps a better thing would be to create even more sub-noticeboards. —Mets501 (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transclusion

message: How about two new subpages, "Complaints about admins" and "Complaints about non-admins"? If you are specifically complaining about someone, you make a subpage (the name of the user being complained about, similar to ArbCom, probably) and transclude it on to the appropriate page. I'm suggesting 2 pages, as complaints about admins usually requires multiple admins to respond so we can develop a concensus, whereas a complaint about a non-admin can often be dealt with by a single admin. Once a complaint has been dealt with, it is removed from the page (perhaps archived somewhere, in any case, the subpage can hang around for eternity). This should work quite well, as complaints are generally resolved at a certain point and it's clear when it should be removed. With more general discussions there often isn't a clear end, it just gradually goes inactive. This is moving towards creating a Court of Administrators, which some people might not be happy with - personally, I have no problem with it.
The only major problem I can see with this idea is that it might end up with almost everything happening on these subpages, which defeats the object of trying to separate things. Someone with more time might want to go through the history of AN and see how much of it is complaints and how much general discussion and requests. AN/I would probably cease to exist, as almost all of that is complaints, by its very nature. The non-complaints things that are considered incidents can move to the main noticeboard. So it boils down to having one more subpage than we have now, but having them slightly more structured. --Tango 12:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like any idea that further widens the cultural gap between editors and editors who happen to have a mop.... but the idea of more sub pages might have merit. ---J.S  (T/C) 04:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BEANS ... I don't like the idea of implying that the purpose of ANI is to complain about someone.  The purpose of this page is that there is an incident that needs immediate resolution, usually though not necessarilly by an administrator.  If there is a "complaint" that doesn't require immediate action to stop it, the dispute resolution process is available for that purpose. BigDT 19:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More subpages

message: Can we get the page semi'd? Canuckster socks repeatedly remove Sarah Ewart's comments as "uncivil", making the whole thing look very one-sided. I've been getting edit conflicts trying to remove them. Can we do something? – Chacor 02:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the entire convo to archive 158. Feel free to rollback there.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canuckster socks 

message: Can we archive WP:ANI more often or decrease the archive interval?  Right now, ANI is around 500K.  It is usually 300-350ish.  500K makes my 1.7 GHz machine scream for mercy. BigDT 19:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The time before archiving needs to be changed to 1 day, like it was before when Werdnabot archived and the page got long. —Centrx→talk • 21:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 24 hours? Seems a little quick.  It's set at 14 days now, right? If it was brought down to 7 days that might be reasonable. ---J.S  (T/C) 22:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ANI sections are currently archived after 2 days of no comments in that section. When it was archived by Werdnabot, it varied between being archived every 1 day and being archived every 2 days, because it was a setting that could be changed in the text of the page, and was changed depending on the activity of the page. These low times are reasonable because there are hundreds of people watching and discussing things here. Any time someone leaves a dated comment in a section, the "timer" for that particular section is reset. —Centrx→talk • 22:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The archiving was 1 day when EssjayBot handled it previously; when the toolserver went down, taking the bot with it, it was changed back to Werdnabot. When Essjaybot took over again, the request was to make it 2 days; if there is consensus to switch back to 1, that can be done in a matter of seconds. Essjay (Talk) 21:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sake of completeness, I should point out that there is always the middle ground ... send anything between 24 and 48 hours old to something like WP:ANI/Recent and then from there to the archive page.  Another alternative would be to be more proactive in removing closed issues.  If an issue is closed, rather than tagging it with whatever version of  is used here, just manually archive it and leave only a link to the archived version.  That way, it wouldn't need to wait 24/48 hours.  Also, issues that really belong on AIV or RFP could be removed outright and a notice left on the user's talk page. BigDT 05:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you have a bot that can do that, by all means, go for it. If EssjayBot II is going to continue to do it, you get whole-day increments. Essjay (Talk) 05:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ANI]] Archive time? 

message: IP users starting with 84.151... are continually adding linkspam to Funk, it's removed, then another similar IP comes and adds it again. I don't know what to do about this since it's different IPs each time. See the history --AW 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Requests for page protection ← This way, please. --210physicq (c) 21:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sneaky spamming at [[Funk]] 

message: At the top of ANI, the new template reads in part, "Reports about improper usernames, or requests to block those belong at WP:RFC/NAME." That may be true for debatable usernames, but I thought obviously improper ones went to AIV for faster response. Should it be changed? Newyorkbrad 17:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support mentioning both and explaining when to use each. --ais523 18:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The colors could be tweaked ... maybe the background could be lightened or else just WikiLink the page itself and not the whole description. It's kinda hard to read ... but I really like the idea. BigDT 18:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to sofixit, but I'm not much good with headers and colors, so will leave it to an expert. Please note that whatever is done on ANI should be conformed on AN as well. Newyorkbrad 18:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried my hand at it ... I think this version may be more readable ... feel free to edit mercilessly. BigDT 19:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New notice at top of page - RFC/NAME vs. AIV 

message: I hope the people who use the  and  templates will see this here...you have to put the template below the ==Section header==, otherwise the archival bot may split the top and bottom templates if it archives the lower section before the upper section. Thatcher131 19:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question for Essjay about this - does archiving the section reset the timer?  In other words, are you going off of edit dates or signature dates? BigDT 20:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can answer this--the bot looks for the most recent standard signature timestamp.  (You may see from time to time an old unsigned post that the bot has missed for this reason.) At this point, if the last sig is more than 24 hours old when the bot runs, it will archive the section. Thatcher131 22:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of archive templates 

message: There's a huge picture of a bleeding vagina or something on the home page. You might want to take it down, you know, whenever you get around to it.
:Thank you for your report.  The image in question has been removed and the person who placed it there has been blocked indefinitely. Naconkantari 00:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um, Attention Please 

message: Hi,
I was referred to you by user Jeandré and this is my first time reporting someone. I am reporting user User:ARYAN818 in regards to his unacceptablecomments on Talk:Dravidian_people . Please let me know if this is the right department to make this complaint since his comment made me feel very, very unconfortable since I am of Dravidian ancestory myself. It almost sounded like he was saying that we do not exist. I found it very shocking and disturbing. Thank you.
Wiki Raja 08:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there really is anything to be done (other then your message). We can't "punish" people for ignorance. ---J.S  (T/C) 16:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it he could be asked to be a little more civil, not a blatant violation, but not to pleasant either. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not endorsing the accuracy of his statement.  I'm simply saying It's not really disruptive and a calm response (like has been offered already) is the only real response needed. Is there any other disruption that needs to be considered?---J.S  (T/C) 22:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARYAN818's unacceptable comments on Talk:Dravidian_people. 

message: moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
As I mentioned above, I am on dial-up, and it took forever for this page to load. Could someone please archive the page? It is currently at 490 kb. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 22:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is archived daily. The Last archiving took place 5 hours ago and archived anything section that didn't have a new comment in the last 48 hours.  If you have a better idea how to archive faster without archiving active conversations, feel free to suggest it on the talk page of WP:AN... there is some talk about this already. ---J.S  (T/C) 23:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I am on a rather fast ADSL connection, and it is slow for me. I would recommend halving the archive age of sections. It is 2 days now I believe, if something has had no comments for a full day chances are it is done with. And if it is not done with it can be moved back no problem. This page is too long mostly due to many small discussions that are not continued. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand right the bot runs once a day (it already ran today) and archives anything 2 days old or older... switching to 1 day might help a bit. But part of the issue is that 50% of the page is taken up by 4-5 of the 80 threads. ---J.S  (T/C) 23:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for that is these threads just get dragged on and on by everyone who visits the page and adds his two cents; sometimes the original people who started the thread are long gone. Any important discussion can easily be renewed by opening a new section, with a link to the old discussion in the archive (This is also conducive to a brief summary, where the person who opens the new section explains the context; few people are going to read these long discussions and join them anew). —Centrx→talk • 23:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Taking into account the discussion above, the discussion here, and previous practice, I'm dropping the timeframe to 1 day, and setting the bot to run more frequently (which will liklely help just as much as reducing the archive time). Essjay (Talk) 03:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Endorse 1-day timeframe. Thatcher131 15:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's consider this an experiment - if the outcome is in some way unfavorable, go back to 2 days and consider alternatives. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's really not something the bot is intended to do; it just archives posts. This is really something for a human to do, and shouldn't be too time consuming for someone to pick up. Essjay (Talk) 04:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've picked it up myself, as well as updating the navbox templates when needed. I mistakenly asumed the bot included the navbox, but going over the history of the Admin and 3RR notice boards archives (which are archived by Werdnabot), I see it's included there manually as well. Edokter 13:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! Thank you for doing so! Essjay (Talk) 23:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: I have asked user ARYAN818 to show more civility, but he continues to show intolerance for other people’s ethnicity and heritage. Furthermore, he has posted one of his messages in between of couple of older messages on my talk page, which I find disruptive. I have responded to all his messages diplomatically. Below, is my last response to his latest message summing up his previous messages:
----
To ARYAN818 :
*Posted on User talk:Wiki Raja:
:"Well anything can be an ethnic group....But Indians are not Dravidian....Nobody calls themself Dravidian...And some probably dont even know what it means....And again....Why do u keep telling me about the word India?....I never disputed who coined the name India....BUt I dont understand why u keep telling me about India......And I have been very civil what are u talking about?......Bottom line....THere is an Aryan heriatge....but not a Dravidian heritage...." ARYAN818 07:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cant believe there are still people who think there are people who call themselves Dravidian.....THe term Dravidian is a racist term made up by Euorpeans....In India nooooobody calls themself Dravidian.....I live in America and ive never met one person from south India who says there Dravidian.....I dont know anyone that takes pride in saying there Dravidian......And a big chunk of people dont even know what a Dravidian means!......Dont u people get it by now!....Its 2006!.....The Aryan invasion theory is a joke.....ANd the label of Dravidian is a joke to!.....Brrrrrrrruah Punjab India! ARYAN818 22:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "U asked me if I consider the Punjabis & Tamils the same group of people.....today no.....In the bigger picture....yes...they  are the same." ARYAN818 23:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARYAN818's unacceptable comments on [[Talk:Dravidian_people]] and on my talk page [[User talk:Wiki Raja]] 

message: — Sebastian 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it to the archive box at the top. If someone forgets to update the box when they create an archive, you can use the all pages listing to find it. -- JLaTondre 21:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool, thanks! — Sebastian 21:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the archive for the first half of December? 

message: Oh, bother. I was reverting an accidental revert of someone else's and some of the unicode characters were changed by an uncompatible browser ("Links", in console mode). By the time I realized that, about 4 edits had been made and it was impossible to revert with a compatible browser. I apologize greatly and hope this doesn't offend anyone. Yuser31415 22:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messed up on the noticeboard 

message: Hi, I've had my attention drawn to this diff. 
Despite the edit summary, I can't find the deleted section anywhere in the archives. Looks like it was removed rather than archived. This isn't a good thing, since this discussion prompted various other actions. Shouldn't it be archive it in the suitable place? --Barberio 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it in ANI archive 174. It was created by Yrgh who was incoherently trolling and it was then repeatedly attacked by Cplot socks who were also trolling.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section from AN/I deleted instead of being archived. 

message: I did a statcheck using an off-wiki tool to determine the following facts – 
Stats for the AN page –
*The page has been edited over 37463 times, of which 4195 or 11.2% of the edits are minor edits.
*This page was created by Ta bu shi da yu on 12/10/2004 at 05:35 hrs. 
*27829 edits come within this year and 3021 number of edits within last month.
*There were 3187 unique number of editors of which 561 were IP addresses.
*The average number of edits per user is 11.8.
*The number with the highest number of edits on this page, unsurprisingly is Tony Sidaway (578), follwed by Jnc (469), JzG (424), Zoe (372), Geni (323), Ta bu shi da yu (311) and Radiant (300). 
Stats for ANI –
*The page has been edited over 80478 times, of which 8677 or 10.8% of the edits are minor edits.
*This page was created by Jayjg on 01/04/2003 at 00:11 hrs. 
*64203 edits come within this year and 7360 number of edits within last month.
*There were 5711 unique number of editors of which 1197 were IP addresses.
*The average number of edits per user is 14.1.
*The user with the highest number of edits on this page, unsurprisingly again is Tony Sidaway (989), follwed by SlimVirgin (827), Zoe (762), Netscott (743), El C (716) and Thatcher131 (688).
Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick  {C} {L} 16:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  — Nearly Headless Nick  {C} {L} 16:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good grief. I'd like to apologize for inflicting myself on you these many months.  In the immortal words of Homer Simpson, "Lord help me, I'm just not that bright." Thatcher131 21:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised that WP:AN/I was founded before WP:AN; wouldn't you expect sub-pages to come afterwards? Or am I just missing something? Picaroon 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, really. However, you can check this site – . — Nearly Headless Nick 11:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there is database corruption regarding Jayjg's earliest edits  .His user page says "I joined Wikipedia on June 15, 2004" Thincat 12:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His timestamp gives Jan 2003, but the page edits surrounding his are from March 10 2005 . Looks like the issue happened at the time of posting, in March 2005. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the database is corrupted regarding those two edits. Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have provided the link above. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cause I'm spammy: http://vs.aka-online.de/wppagehiststat/ ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 00:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting stats 

message: Nick, this is a fascinating study, what off-wiki tool did you use? Just H 02:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have provided the link above. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cause I'm spammy: http://vs.aka-online.de/wppagehiststat/ ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 00:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fascinating

message: Now that WP:PAIN is no longer, I have a problem where should I report violations of WP:NPA. Of course, I could start WP:DR procedure and go for mediation but honestly I don't have time to deal with the amount of bureaucracy involved in that too often. I prefer to write articles, not essays on behaviour of another editor. As the current WP:PAIN notes that WP:AN is one of the places personal attacks can be reported, I wonder what's our procedure for dealing with them? Can and will we issue warnings or block? Or will we refer people to DR and if they have no time or will for it, tell them to grow a 'thicker skin'?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the de facto policy is to ignore them. Then if neccessary we block people who ignore the policy. Tom Harrison Talk 20:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, I'm puzzled by those two sentences. They seem to say we should block the victims of personal attacks for reacting to them -- because they ignored the policy to ignore the attacks. That seems so unfair that I know I've misunderstood your meaning. But what did you mean?  -- Ben 23:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, educated them, if they are already educated warn them, if they know the policy and have been warned and choose to ignore the policy/warning, I do not hesitate to block. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they've been warned and continue to violate WP:NPA, report them here (that was, I understand, what proponents of removing PAIN were arguing was an option).  But for lesser things (like accusations of being a "vandal"), the best approach is probably to ignore them.  John Broughton  |  ♫ 03:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe ANI would be better? ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 00:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to deal with personal attacks now? 

message: I've made some changes to the notice templates at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader, which are transcluded onto AN and AN/I, respectively. The main thing is that I noted that blatantly inappropriate usernames and persistent spammers can go to WP:AIV - I've definitely reported a blatantly inappropriate username there (, IIRC), and I've most likely reported spammers past  also. I assume there are no objections, seeing as all I did was put standard process into writing. Picaroon 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to header 

message: Since attack pages are referenced on the noticeboard fairly commonly, people may have useful input for Wikipedia talk:Attack page#Request for Comment: Namespace And Definition? Шизомби 03:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack Page talk page input 

message: Hey - why is Essjaybot archiving threads only 1 day old? Are those discussions "over?" Rama's arrow (3:16) 18:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page was getting far too long with longer archive times. I doubt there are many active discussions that go more than 24 hours without added to. --Tango 11:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  archiving frequency 

message: Should the language at the top of this page (AN and ANI) also contain the suggestion/requirement that if the user is posting to address an action by a particular administrator, that person should be advised of the posting? Newyorkbrad 20:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support that idea, although it appears that most guidelines at the top of AN[I] are ignored 90% of the time :(. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - good idea, but will probably be ignored anyway. I think other readers inform people when they are mentioned, anyway. --Tango 11:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea; I'll go ahead and be bold in doing this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to header? 

message: A question: is there a reason that requests for oversight aren't listed as a link in the "Are you sure that this is the page you are looking for?" section?  I realize that they aren't all too common, and when brought up as a post usually get taken care of with a good amount of speed.  However, something simple that would circumvent some public postings references to "there is personal information here" (particularly with minors or any other sensitive information) might be worth the line that they'd take up, no? Bitnine 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am guessing WP:BEANS. Just pointing a page may be enough to have people checking the history for addresses, phone numbers or anything personal. -- ReyBrujo 20:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing it was simply forgotten. We can't hide the whole of oversight on BEANS grounds. --Tango 11:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Bitnine may be misunderstanding the nature of requests for oversight; the page details that such requests are done via email because of their confidential nature and the possibility that people would check the history, etc., that you pointed out. I don't have a problem with pointing people to RfO, and I'll go ahead, be bold, and add that in in a moment. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, apparently less than completely clear, as per usual. ;)  I was actually referencing how such items currently get posted now and again to the noticeboard directly, usually with a note such as "I'm not sure where to bring this, but..." and that a link to the page might better steer people towards the email instead of public posting in this manner.  Is all good, though. Bitnine 00:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference - Oversight 

message: We need a location for reporting False Accusations of Vandalism --Frank Lofaro Jr. 22:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are made in good faith ignore them, if they are made in bad faith treat them as vandalism. No need for another place. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) You need to discuss issues you are having with article edits on the talk page of the article, not constantly reverting. The addition you are trying to add is unsourced (see WP:V, WP:CITE) and conroversial - discuss it on the article talk page. Thanks/wangi 22:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the level headed comment; that does far more to advance our common aims than the accusations spread about. I am discussing it on the talk page and have made a strong concession on my last edit. Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss this particular case so we should probably take any discussion back over there. --Frank Lofaro Jr. 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Accusations of Vandalism 

message: As per this thread and This helpful comment at the top of WP:ANI it is clearly stated that "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here". However when I did that, the reponse of several, very established and respected, editors what that I had bought up the complaint in the wrong place. If this is the case I would propose removal of the line and an alternative appropriate place, if such a thing is needed. Please note that the text states informal complaints and therefore WP:RFC does not seem to be the place.Pedro1999a |  Talk   11:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well. Guess it's going to stay. Feel free to archive this someone. Pedro |  Talk   20:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open informal complaint over the behaviour of an Administrator 

message: Will someone please tell me why his SSP's are blocked instantly.  I have seen a few of his Contribs, but they aren't bad, unless I looked at the wrong user. Zbl 22:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Administrators tend to block WoW-style usernames immediately because of his nature. PTO 01:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WOW was a major bot-style pagemove vandal back in the days... back before it was easy to fix. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 23:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: When you say "his" you sort of lose me, he was one of the early pagemove vandals, banned from the site a long time since. These days Willy On Wheels is a synonym for pagemove vandal (Much the same way that some trademarks become generic and lose their trademark status) --pgk 23:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Willy on Wheels 

message: In the past few days, I have encounted the odd situation that I want to edit ANI, I click on "edit" for the relevant section, and the edit window opens with the text of a different section. Has anyone else experienced this problem? Thanks for any info. Newyorkbrad 21:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That happens when someone breaks up a section.  The edit link contains the section ID of the section you are trying to edit ... #1, #2, #3, etc.  Well, if you add a section break to section #2, then what was section #3 becomes section #4.  So if you have been sitting there reading ANI (or any other page) since before the section break was made, your links are all going to be off.  In short, that's normal behavior, not a problem. ;) --BigDT 21:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd problem editing ANI 

message: I posted Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive200#Possible sock puppetry at Jung Myung Seok this incident on the noticeboard two days ago; it was archived without any response being posted to the section, or (as far as I can tell) any action by any admin.
The instructions to the page say If no comment, or no further comment, has been made after a 48-hour period, your post and any responses will be automatically archived.  So I understand what happened, in, in some sense, why.  Obviously I'm a bit frustrated as well.  Should I just repost the incident and hope that someone says that they will either look into it, or why looking into it would be pointless?  Or should I just assume that this is considered such a minor problem that I'd just be bothering everyone (and wasting my time) if I were to repost?  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 00:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The noticeboard is archived automatically, so all it means is that either no one noticed the report or no one wanted to get involved. You can re-post it. You could also post it at Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets; there is a long backlog there, but it won't be archived automatically if no one responds immediately. —Centrx→talk • 17:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section archived with no response or action - what next? 

message: I have added WerdnaBot code to the page to archive comments older than 1 day.  Regards, Navou banter / contribs 14:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: note: For the incidents page anyway.  If my coding is not reverted, I or someone else will do the same to the pther noticeboards.  Werdnabot has been doing fine with the community notice board. Navou banter / contribs 14:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, archiving ANI manually is not much fun... However, it seems that a new bot is also being worked on to replace EssjayBot II. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#MiszaBot_II. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  archive the page 

message: I fixed several headings that had "== =...= ==" - i changed them to ";..." because that seemed like a better fit for the intent (have it appear under the top-level heading) than breaking it out into a top-level of its own - is there some archiving issue I'm not aware of here? --Random832 19:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Misza13, do you perhaps have any insight to offer here? Based on looking at the history it looks like your bot's doing it (but you're doing a good job fixing it - i don't mean any offense or anything) so i'm really asking more as to what technical problems are causing it specifically --Random832 21:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, please see User_talk:Misza13#MiszaBot_and_third-level_section_headings. Misza13's new bots MiszaBot II and MiszaBot III are replacements for EssjayBot II and EssjayBot III. --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's going on with subheadings 

message: Per WP:Username: Usernames that promote a company: Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies and groups are discouraged and may be blocked as a violation of Wikipedia policy against spamming and advertisement.
Sounddogs has only edited the article Sounddogs, and based on the precedent of AudioSparx, should have the name banned. Autocracy 18:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user has already been blocked; for future reference, note that these notices should probably go on the the Administrators' noticeboard itself, not on its talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Username promoting company -- self-edited article 

message: I just "fixed" several sections that had the archive box header above the section header. Can someone clarify whether this was necessary or if the bot can deal with these? (particularly as one of them was unsubsted and discussion had continued after it) --Random832 20:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive boxes 

message: Can a user be banned from editing a single page?  Does our software allow this? - Peregrine Fisher 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, no. Blocks have to be used to enforce violations of page bans. Trebor 00:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a policy matter it can be done by the Arbitration Committee, by the community after a discussion on the noticeboard (note that this is relatively new and sometimes controversial), or by agreement as a condition of an unblock. However, the software can't be programmed to enforce it at this time. I believe there was once a suggestion to implement that but I don't know if it's been pursued. Newyorkbrad 00:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  AFAIK, the database backend is there, only that no one has bothered to code the interface. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Users can be banned (different from blocked) from editing a specific page, or pages on a specific topic, or anything else the community or the arbcomm decides.  Enforcement of such bans is done by humans, not by software.  Regards, Ben Aveling 00:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Newyorkbrad beat me to an explaination, in clearer words than I might have chosen. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 00:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can a user be banned from editing a single page? 

message: May I suggest as possibly helpful: add userchecks below the headers of sections on problematic users, because this gives a one-line linklist to available subpages -- and where there are no such subpages, to the reporting and/or summary pages. Format:    -- Ben TALK/HIST 01:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using [[Template:Usercheck]] 

message: Could someone please write a small comment under Using this page about what happens when the message is archived. Is that it - issue solved / too hard so it's ignored / keep posting till someone answers? see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive217#not_simple_vandalism.3F - Ctbolt 12:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happens after the message is archived? 

message: (Apologies if this has already been discussed and shot down!)
Over at Wikipedia talk:Community noticeboard, it has been proposed that this board be renamed to "Administrative noticeboard."  The discussion is being held in the larger context of a proposal to delete the Community noticeboard altogether but renaming this board seems to be a separate issue.  It's also been received favorably by those participating in the discussion.  Before someone boldly steps on a potential land mine, it might be helpful to gather additional input from those who may not monitor the Community noticeboard.
The proposed change is to change the names of this page, AN/3RR, and AN/I from "Administrators' __" to "Administrative __."  Thoughts?  --ElKevbo 15:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally support this move. Netscott 18:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be cool with the move, but we might want to get a bot to move all the archives and update the ten thousand links to this page. ---J.smith 20:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point? Just leave the archives as they are, at the name they had when the archives and the comments in them were made, and leave a redirect, which is the purpose of redirects. Talk page comments and archives should absolutely not be changed; the only links that would need changing are so few and particular that a bot would not be much help and would be liable to error. —Centrx→talk • 19:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please rename it to Admin noticeboard.  Its easier on the eyes when I view my watchlist too.  Just throwing this in.  Sarvagnya 21:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That introduces the same ambiguity (or outright falsehood) that the present name engenders, though.  The noticeboard isn't (just) for administrators, it's for anything that requires administrative action or notice.  I very much support this (as long as it won't cause any server problems).  —Bbatsell 22:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not ambiguity, but separation.  As it is, this board is for administrators (not meaning that only administrators can participate, just that it is for administrator action).  I would only support this move if we are deleting the Community Noticeboard (which we should).  Then this board could support both concepts, under the umbrella of the "Administrative" name. -- Renesis (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing any ambiguity.  The noticeboard where you put things for the attention of administrators is logically the administrators' noticeboard.  The name "administrative noticeboard" has the opposite connotation of somewhere the administrators put messages related to administration for the rest of us.  Chriscf 00:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I am for the change, or for not changing, both are fine. I always use WP:AN anyways. HighInBC 00:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Historically this board is for communication with and between administrators.  I'm not sure that the name change would keep that clarity. --Tony Sidaway 15:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that pages should not be named for historical accuracy, but for current accuracy. I'm in favor of changing the name.  Eli Falk 15:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, if the purpose has changed updating the name is a good idea.  Has it changed? --Tony Sidaway 15:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say so, yes. See my comment on Radiant's talk page: "WP:AN has started as a noticeboard for the admins, but by now it's the "everything important goes here"-noticeboard. Arbcom decisions, community bans (before WP:CN was created), big, wikipedia wide scandals. None of these are for the admins, but for the community that cares deeply about Wikipedia (which, of course, consists mostly of admins)." --Conti|✉ 15:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, Conti's explanation sounds rather descriptive. I know that when I first started posting on the "Administrators' noticeboard" back when I was newbie-ish I was a bit hesitant to do so. It really felt like a different and reserved area. My thinking at the time was along the line, "Hmmm... well I'm not an administrator.. maybe I shouldn't be posting here." Given Conti's logic here I particular don't see the need for the name as it is now. Netscott 15:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your thoughts echo my own, Netscott.  The apostrophe in the board's present name clearly indicates possession of this board by the administrators and that's clearly not the case.  Either the board's name needs to be changed to truly reflect its purpose or it needs to be protected so non-administrators can't post to the administrators' noticeboard.  This wacky middle ground is confusing, off-putting, and completely unnecessary.  --ElKevbo 15:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change title to "Administrative noticeboard" 

message: What is the current policy on users removing warnings (vandalism, NPA, failure to AGF, spam, etc.) from their own talk pages? I remember at one time using a set of templates but they appear to have been removed or renamed, and they are no longer in WP:WARN. I see a lot of non-policy discussion pages on the subject, including Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll (marked historical), and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings and its talk page, but nothing that says exactly what the status quo is. Are blocks still issued for removing warnings? Should wholesale unarchived deletion of talk page warnings and discussion be reverted as a matter of course? (I'm not interested in debating the policy here, of course; I'd just like to know what it is.) Thanks, --MCB 05:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the former  template you are talking about was removed, but it looks as though the uw-tpv (as in , , etc) can be used instead.  I am not sure of regarding the consensus on whether blocks are issued for removing warnings, however, levels 3 and 4 seem to indicate that it is seen as vandalism and is blockable. Leuko 05:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you can't force users to keep warnings as they become a badge of shame. If they delete the warning at least you know they have read them.  Anyway, they stay in the page history so they can be linked to from the diff if you need to show that a warning was issued. In other words, users are allowed to remove anything they like from their own user and talk pages.  There is clear consensus on this at AN and AN/I as this has been discussed many many times. --Spartaz Humbug! 07:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that those warnings for talk page vandalism are meant to be used where an editor is removing content from other talk pages – article talk, Wikipedia talk, other editors' talk pages – and not from their own page, which they are free to maintain as they see fit.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the only time it's a problem is when a user removes a warning right after it's placed to 'cover it up', then ignores the warning and goes ahead in doing whatever he was doing wrongly. Otherwise, warnings are just like other talk page sections. Besides, they're all recorded in the page history anyway. --`/aksha 10:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they do that, then they can be blocked for whatever disruption they're doing.  No need to edit war over the warning template. --Carnildo 22:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, looks like there is no policy on this right now (see Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space). —Pilotguy (go around) 12:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll echo what's been said above.  Edit warring over a warning template is neither supported by policy nor helpful to the encyclopedia.  If the template was well-deserved, then at least you know the recipient read it.  If the template was erroneous (or placed to harrass) then there's no need to leave it as a scarlet letter.  Just make sure you leave a clear edit summary when you leave the warning. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not policy right now, as there if there should be or not, that is a matter of opinion. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: et al were designed for people who were blanking article Talk pages, if I remember; I don't think they're supposed to be used on userpages (de facto policy, which is all the policy at Wikipedia, at the moment seems to be to delete templates that duplicate  via TfD as soon as they're noticed). I agree that the template's usage instructions could be clearer. --ais523 17:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, alright. Agreed. --Kim Bruning 18:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current policy on removing warnings from user talk pages 

message: That text currently appears on WP:AN/I and similar text appears on WP:AN directing users to AN/I.  I wanted to make an open informal complaint over the behavior of an admin, did so, and was told in no uncertain terms that I should not have done so on AN/I.  Fair enough, and the informal complaint was withdrawn and archived, but perhaps the text of the page can be conformed to whatever the unwritten rule is, so as not to trip up people trying to adhere to Wikipedia procedures.  (Separately, I am further bothered that an admin threatened me with a permanent ban over this instead of assuming good faith.  If new users can't learn how to use Wikipedia appropriately from reading what's written on Wikipedia pages, how can they?) -- TedFrank 03:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the unwritten rule is entirely arbitrary, random, and differs depending on the phase of the moon. Seriously, there is zero consistency with how to handle complaints against admins. -Amarkov moo! 04:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Having said that, the wording is definitely not intended to mean that any behavior by an admin should be raised there; only complaints about use of the admin tools. I'll go change that. -Amarkov moo! 04:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No I won't, because it's fully protected, but someone should. -Amarkov moo! 04:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems reasonable to me, so I've boldly tried to clarify it. No doubt, this being Wikipedia, someone will improve the wording. .. dave souza, talk 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have boldly tweaked. Bishonen | talk 21:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely tweaked, thanks. .. dave souza, talk 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here." 

message: Hello, I'm in a debate about a 3RR case with an anon, and there's also a bit of a backlog on that page if somebody could take a look. Thanks --AW 19:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, beat me to it...  Administrator attention would be sincerely appreciated.  Thanks. 67.101.243.74 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR debate and backlog 

message: It seems to happen from time to time that a troll/vandal/stalker posts something like "UserX's phone number is ________", and a well-meaning user reverts the vandal and then goes to WP:ANI, posts the diff there, and says that it will need to be deleted from the history. I'm sure administrators act promptly, but there could be several minutes between the well-intentioned publicising of the diff and the removal of it from the page history. I went to the page header, thinking to be bold and make the need for prudence and discretion more explicit, but found that the editing is admins only :( so I'm bringing the matter here. Where it currently says:
::To request oversight, please see WP:RFO
I'd change it to:
::To request permanent deletion of personal information, please see WP:RFO
as I think some people might not know what oversight is, and therefore might not realise that they're being told right there what page they want.
As I think this is quite a serious issue, I'd possibly even add in bold print somewhere near the top:
Please do not report the posting of another editor's personal information at this noticeboard. Instead, go to WP:RFO.
Others might disagree as to the necessity of having it spelt out twice, but since I can't edit the page anyway, there won't be an edit war! :) Also, I felt there should be a page called Wikipedia:Personal information, explaining what not to do when you see a vandal posting someone's details. And I found there is one, though it says it's inactive. Am I allowed to edit an inactive page? I'd like to change the instruction on what to do if PI is posted from:
::"please notify an administrator" (which is linked to WP:ANI)
to
::please request oversight {which would be linked to WP:RFO)
{I'd actually like to rewrite the whole page, but I'm not sure if such a page would give trolls and stalkers more ideas about the best ways of harassing someone, and also I'm not sure if non-admins are discouraged from starting project pages.) Comments would be appreciated. ElinorD (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this idea because not everyone knows what oversighting is.  x42bn6 Talk 14:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have updated the headers per your request. However, I don't really see a point of editing an inactive page - people should see the tag and realize that the page is not accurate, and changing it would seem to give the impression that that was the revision being debated when it was tagged with . Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that oversight always works. For example, I was a victim of Personal Information about myself and my mother being posted to a talk page, and, although that was promptly removed, I was advised to also remove other information that could be used to trace who I was by requesting oversight to get some edit histories removed from another page. I duly followed the procedure outline3d on WP:RFO by sending an email on 23rd March 2007 and as yet have had neither acknowlegement nor action. I have just resent the email, but it would be good to have some statistics about how many requests have been made, the time within which it is reasonable to expect a response, and so on, given the sensitive nature of some of the actions requested. It might even help reduce the number of well meaning people who come to WP:ANI and ask for action to be taken.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe your email has already been responded to by another person. As for the number of emails - the number of requests, as well as the response time, varies, but it's not a significant amount of requests, and I've seen obvious cases be oversighted within the same minute the email arrives. Sometimes, though, if it's not a clear-cut query, discussion will ensue before any response is made, and sometimes (although I believe this is rare) an email may slip through the cracks. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it has been, shortly after I reported my email and to this "thread". I am grateful for the action that has been taken.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do we stop well-meaning people from coming to WP:ANI to report posting of PI? 

message: Why were several comments removed from the section regarding the suicide threat? I mean there is a considerable amount missing than there was a few hours ago...edit history says it too. DragonFire1024 14:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been archived. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 20:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threat of suicide 

message: Is reverting vandalism not just about reverting it but also reporting repetitive vandalism and personal attacks as well? Simply south 22:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some amount of testing is okay -- people are curious, and more often than not will edit something just to see if they really can. At some point, though, we do need to get a handle on it and ask them to stop. When they don't, we have WP:AIV and WP:AN/I, depending on the particular nature of the disruption (don't worry too much about where to post, either is fine, and you'll figure out what goes where, with time). – Luna Santin (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting vandalism 

message: One thought, should  threads be archived sooner than the current threshold (24 hours at AN/I, I think)? – Luna Santin (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I fully agree. Yet that's one feature that will be incredibly difficult to implement (will have to write some actual parser of the algo= parameter). I suppose it's about time to commit what I've done so far to the pywikipedia tree and let others work on it too... Миша13 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolved threads archived sooner? 

message: Err...why is the page showing that it is in category: sockpuppets of Arthur Ellis? I cannot seem to find the spot on the page where that is included to fix it....⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 03:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem seems to have been fixed.  Probably what happened is that someone typed Category:foo instead of :Category:foo. YechielMan 12:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  category 

message: I think changes need to be made here.  A key component to fighting vandals is to deny recognition, in other words to simply revert their edits and block their accounts, and making no mention of it anywhere.  But often times vandals might look on WP:AN/I and might find "recognition" in the form of a notification of their vandalism on this page.  --Nicholas Weiner 18:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a balance to be had. Ensuring we deal with vandalism effectively is important and that means some communication on wiki is going to be required. As far as WP:AN/I is concerned it maybe that such discussions end up in the archives, but they certainly don't have the same prominance as the pages/categories we have titled for the vandal (sometimes under a self-selected name) which then get lovingly maintained. I don't think WP:AN/I is that big a problem.--pgk 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:AN/I]] and [[WP:DENY]] 

message: Arbitrary section breaks are a useful tool to allow section editing when an AN, AN/I or CN discussion gets long. I was wondering how useful these arbitrary breaks are in the Table of Contents? It's now possible to remove subsections from the TOC; I'm not sure if this would be a good idea for the admin's noticeboards. In favour: it would shorten the TOC and remove links that are irrelevant without the context of the debate; against: it would make it harder for people already participating in the debate to jump to the most recent section, and any less-arbitrary subsection breaks that might sneak in would be hidden. What do people think about this? --ais523 14:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better to leave the subsections in the TOC; often, the subsections aren't arbitrary breaks, but actually reasonable ones. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with EVula, and I think they should stay. Whenever I want make an arbitrary section break in a long discussion, I try to pick a spot where the conversation shifted focus or the original poster added a follow-up of some sort. I think they should be kept in the TOC for the very "against" reason you cite. Picaroon 21:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep per EVula. 75.62.7.22 08:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. --ais523 09:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary section breaks on AN and AN/I 

message: Could it be broken up somehow into shorter pages? 
Also, there is high probability of getting an edit conflict when posting, due to the extremely high frequency of edits. Perhaps the 'leave a new message' page should have the ability to automatically direct one's post to the bottom of the desired section, regardless of other edits. The way, the truth, and the light 23:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just discovered the section editing feature, which somehow I never realised existed. I think that does what I want. The way, the truth, and the light 04:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AN/I is too long 

message: Adding  the  —  templates to a thread is referred to as "archiving" the thread, though it's not archiving the way the AN/ANI archivebots do it. Most of you will have seen these template-archived threads, which remain on the page, colored a dead grey with the text "The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section" across the top.  Such archiving is out of control on ANI, in my opinion. (It seems less rampant on AN.) Anybody can do it, to any thread they would like to stop talking. Anybody can revert the action, too, but there seems to be a psychological reluctance to do that. The motive for template archiving is generally, I take it, that somebody is distressed by unkindness and anger expressed in a thread, and wants it to stop. A good motive, but misconceived, surely. The wiki way of workiing through differences isn't "Please stop talking," it's "Please talk." The shutting up, the gag —from however creditable motives — is sadly being increasingly inflicted on new and lively ANI threads. Experimentally and boldly, I have edited the headers to say Please Don't Do That. Nobody hates bloated page instructions more than I do, I'm always doggedly whittling them down, but, well, just for once, I added something. Bishonen | talk 01:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unrelated, as you say, but no, I certainly wouldn't remove that. It's essential IMO that users, in particular inexperienced users, have some forum where they can report what they take to be admin abuse. Telling such users to take their grievance through the intricacies of Dispute Resolution instead, for instance to open an RFC (howl!) is quite unrealistic. If the case turns out to be one of real abuse of admin powers (indeed that's the very small minority of cases, but they're important)—that's when it would be time for the RFC, and new users are going to need some advocate to help them set that up—something they can be told about on the noticeboard. Inexperienced users are at such a disadvantage in the system that we have to at least keep this informal and manageable avenue open for them. It's the least we can do. Bishonen | talk 02:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that dispute resolution is not friendly to new users or, frankly, even experienced users (or, at least, those not experienced in dispute resolution, like me :\).  I guess what I am concerned about is the repeated calls, "This is not the Wikipedia Complaints Department!" when an unsuspecting editor complains about another, oftentimes in response to that statement.  I imagine that such calls are not a welcome to new users any more than dispute resolution.  Maybe there is a another way?  (I don't know, I'm grasping at straws here, and this is becoming increasingly off-topic :P though it is a necessary discussion.)  --Iamunknown 03:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{discussion top}}</nowiki> template archiving on the noticeboards 

message: Over the past couple of days this page which is for discussion of serious problems has seen a deluge of unproductive discussion about issues related to the hounding of Kelly Martin.  That isn't what this page is for, so to remind people of that I've provided a handy page that redirects to her talk page, which is a good place to discuss these matters and, as one of the most watched pages on Wikipedia, is certainly going to give any such discussion a reasonably wide circulation, and all without cluttering up this page. I've reverted one removal because I'd like to give this a change to work. --Tony Sidaway 10:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two reverts is enough.  I'll take this no further. --Tony Sidaway 10:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am surprised you don't agree with me that this section was best archived but as you have reverted, you obviously wish for comment. I don't really think editors passing comment on Kelly's attention seeking antics is "hounding" - more passing comment on the best way of address and rectify some of the ongoing problems she causes.  So I rather think the Admin's noticeboard,  is exactly the place to discuss the numerous incidents that she causes especially when they lead to her blocking. Contrary to your statement many people do not watch her page with avid interest and from what I can see she deletes everything not entirely to her taste which is posted there, as I'm sure you are aware. Giano 10:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kelly Martin 

message: User:Ali doostzadeh seems to have reverted WP:AN page to an older version, and in the process, wiped out a bunch of threads, and restored some threads that were archived.  To fix this mess, I have reverted to the version prior to his edit, and then refactored the page to include subsequent comments.  I believe this was a mistake by User:Ali doostzadeh, not vandalism, but if it happens again, my view will not be so cheerful.  Jehochman (talk/contrib) 14:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a bug that causes pages to revert to old revisions more or less at random (it's quite hard to pin down but has happened to multiple users); that's likely what happened here. --ais523 07:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of [[WP:AN]] 

message: My observation is that the sheer volume of miscellaneous complaints on ANI make some admins who watch and take action on that page, rather cranky and impulsive.  I propose that ANI be abolished and replaced with seperate pages for each category of incident.  This would induce those making a report to think more carefully about the facts and importance of the incident and specifically what type of incident it is.  This would cut down noise considerably in my opinion.  I have seen too many otherwise patient admins reduced to irrational tyrants by attempting to police the volume of incidents on this page.  I hope others see the merits of my proposal.--Fahrenheit451 23:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abolition of ANI 

message: ... did anyone else blink when, during the discussion of SqueakBox impersonating admin / admin powers the following comment* Endorse block by User:El C. Good call. Pro-pedophilia POV-pushing / filing vexatious 3RR & ANI reports / WP:SPA / censoring of talk page comments, etc, etc - Alison ☺ 18:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite see your point, LessHeard. Are you saying that pro-pedophilia POV-pushing should be viewed in the same light as, say, arguing that table tennis is more fun than mini-golf? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it depends on how one views NPOV. For me NPOV on pedophilia should reflect the views of modern socities on this subject and an article that gave equal weight to pedophiles and those who oppose them would not be NPOV but slanted in favour of pedophiles because neutrality in our socieites is that pedophilia is a sickness and possibly a crime and that those who defend it are an extremist minority, SqueakBox 23:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Pro-anything POV-pushing is a bad thing, far as I'm concerned. Are we about to have the conversation about "pedophilia is quite okay and is not the same as child molestation, etc, etc" ??? *sigh* - Alison ☺ 23:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, pro (or anti) POV pushing is what should concern us and not the subject matter. I can understand that some subjects will get a speedier response, and the determination of what is POV and what is "accepted standard" may differ in a few cases, but all types of POV pushing must be dealt with by equal consideration. It would be wise to be very careful in giving our reasons of blocking, and commenting upon the the reasons, and not mention that the blockees beliefs and interests are relevant to the decision. In the case of paedophilia it should be pointed out that the phrase is for a medical/psychological condition (which is not illegal of itself but acting upon it is). I commented at Jimbo's talkpage previously that if we hardblock self identifying paedophiles we shouldn't make the mistake of doing it for the wrong reason (i.e. we block because it is to benefit of WP that we do, not because we think that the conditon is illegal). I think Squeakbox may remember the earlier debate on this. LessHeard vanU 12:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Point to note; I never once referred to the guy as a pedophile, but that he was "pro-pedophilia POV-pushing" (try saying that fast). Big difference! - Alison ☺ 00:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) There's no evidence that the type of POV pushing was the important part of the endorsement. Alison simply said she supported the block, based on "Pro-pedophilia POV-pushing", not that the Pedo POV was the reason for endorsing the block. This conversation isn't necessary. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (EC reply to Slim) Depends a lot whether someone's disruptive about it. Now, granted, it would probably be a lot easier to cause a disruption by being pro-pedophilia then it would by being an ardent supporter of table tennis, and we're probably more likely to see someone who's just trolling with it. I would certainly expect someone with such a controversial viewpoint to be circumspect and not in-your-face about it, with the realization that it will disquiet people. But, first off, do remember we're dealing with a worldwide audience. Some things that are considered illegal and abhorrent behavior in the US are considered perfectly legal and ethical in others. That aside, some people disagree that some things considered illegal and abhorrent should be considered so. I'm just fine myself with adult-child sex remaining quite illegal, thank you very much, but there are people who really do disagree it should. (Now, of course, it's not acceptable for anyone to POV push, alter talk pages, or do any of the rest, whatever their personal beliefs are.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure we're here to promote the views of the entire world. If we did that, we'd have to add sources saying that gays are evil and women inherently inferior to men. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't this be on the main AN page? Ryan Postlethwaite 00:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Probably. I only found out that my comment was being discussed here by chance - Alison ☺ 00:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a philosophy major, I find this kind of discussion intriguing…but it really has nothing to do with bettering the encyclopedia. LessHeardVanU, you picked up on an interesting point, worthy of some rumination; but when it gets down to it, pointing out what others ought to ruminate about, relying on extremely scant evidence, simply isn't productive for the task at hand. Even if Alison did allow a bias to peek through for a sec, it had no impact on the decision. If a tree falls in the forest, just go on making a better encyclopedia! -Pete 00:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have couched my terms more carefully; WP may indeed be disadvantaged by the appearance of any bias in its admin functions. Paedophile advocates, for example, can be very clever in manipulating legitimate discussion and could perhaps (in this particular scenario) contest the block on the basis of bias rather than the violation of guidelines, policy et all. The contest would ultimately fail, but it would cause more work for WP and would be another avenue of POV pushing. Sensitive issues require careful responses to ensure matters are dealt with appropriately (and I am also aware of the grave irony of this discussion).LessHeard vanU 12:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I am anything but convinced its just the US or just the first world who endorses child sexual abuse as an abhorrent crime. Even in the third world we support this viewpoint pretty much everywhere, SqueakBox 01:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Er... potentially touchy subject, I know, but... 

message: On his talk page he refers to the people who have commented and opposed his actions recently as english racists I think thgis is highly offencive and something needs to be done about it.the offending section can be found here--Lucy-marie 18:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could have asked him about it. He might explain himself to you. Ever think of that? Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The individual in question seems to want to brand people as racists then engaging in discussion with someone with these kind of preformed views would be unproductive. I have tried to talk to the individual on one occasion in the past, my fisrt comment got a weird response with no clarity and my second comment was ignored. The fact remains though he did brand some users as racists which is an attack.--Lucy-marie 18:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand your concern, but as I read it his post was merely humourous ... in poor taste, but not meant to call anyone an actual "racist".  --Iamunknown 18:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afriad It has been interpreted as not a joke in my opinion, I think poor taste is an understatement. The calling of anyone a racist either as a "joke" or otherwise is wholey unacceptable. I would like further action taken.--Lucy-marie 18:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please talk to Doc first, he may even retract his statement.  --Iamunknown 18:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hm, glad I stumbled on this. Please read my remarks in context. I was replying to Bishonen's protecting my talk page  against IP vandalism which I strongly suspect is racially motivated. I was not referring to any logged-in user (well, maybe one who has a link to a racist blog on his talk page - but that's another story). Try assuming good faith. However, I don't think I need to assume good faith on the part of stuff like this  --Docg 19:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely no idea. I nominated a bunch of articles to afd. People agreed, and most were deleted, I'm not popular with Lucy-marie for that.--Docg 20:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOcg again 

message: My impression is that WP:AN/I is for serious and time critical issues.  This WP:AN board is for less critical issues.  Is there another board of even less urgency?  Yesterday, I posted comments about possible plagerism (which has since been addressed, fixed, citations added, etc.).  Would it have been more appropriately placed in a different board (is there an WP:AN-lite ?)VK35 19:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I view this board as a board for administrator attention, and AN as a board for administrators to discuss already-taken actions. --Golbez 20:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  purpose of this board? 

message: Why do posts often get ignored? Are they far too numerous to be handled? --PaxEquilibrium 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignoring 

message: Ryulong, I see no reason to believe that your archiving of the thread regarding Wikipedia's willful enabling of harassment against H enjoys consensus. Please seek it here before proceeding to edit-war on the noticeboard.Proabivouac 09:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already made whatever statements are necessary on my own talk page in this situation.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 10:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There is also no such thing as "consensus" when archiving.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 10:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't the first time, but if others revert you, there certainly is.Proabivouac 10:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving H thread without consensus 

message: See Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header#User talk:Whoever/User talk:Whomever. Chick Bowen 03:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical change to header 

message: Why is it only an advisement for editors to inform another editor they are making a post about them here? shouldn't that be upgraded to a requirement? --Fredrick day 16:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Imagine notifying every blatant vandal that has a thread here that they've been reported? People's complaints normally get little consideration if they've not notified the user, if it is possible that the user might have something constructive to say. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 16:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  advised/requirement 

message: Is this enough for an instanblock given the editor's COI evident from their contributions?  Many contributions all consist of adding references to AFD author's book to other pages.  WLU 11:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing AFD comments 

message: Good relations with newbies and other editors are always what we should strive for.  The complaint on AN/I was against KP Botany.  
Should matters like this be on WP:AN as AN/I is more suited for urgent matters?
I have seen people revert complaints like this.  Is this inappropriate, particularly if it is not re-listed on WP:AN?
VK35 18:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  KP Botany 

message: I placed a complaint on the project board, but it doesn't show. FOA 08:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? 

message: To make it easier for what we're searching for, it would be nice if pages with tables could be made which listed the Archive # and the date valid for that archive and actually this would be solved automatically if we used the date or period of the archive in the Page title in addition to the archive number. So for example, this
:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive268
would become:
:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive268 7/8/2007-7/10/2007
Any comments? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe creating/maintaining an index would be easier? --After Midnight 0001 15:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, yes that would be nice. If the bot can automatically put the date range while creating the archive page, that would be very helpful in finding what we're looking for. I've left a message at the Bot owner's page. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the bots don't simply create pages, they also add to them so having a date range would be really hard.  An index of the first and last date in each archive might be the best option if something needs to be done.  Vegaswikian 19:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each archive should be for a week long worth of material. Bot should be archiving at the same pace. -- Cat chi? 20:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion gets by without having archives in the conventional sense.  All contributions are entered on dated pages. Once you have made a comment on a dated page, for instance Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 18, your comment will be reachable via that page name forever. If you take a look at the table of contents at WP:TFD you'll notice that it puts emphasis on only the last week or so of pages, but all the others are still there, completely accessible. Something like this could certainly be done for the administrative noticeboards. Note that AfDs are also 'immortal', in that a name, once entered, always works.  No AfD pointer ever needs to be updated due to archiving. EdJohnston 21:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be nice, here, too.  I hate searching for the archived discussion when a link pointed me to a now non-existent section..  — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better titles for Archive pages 

message: I noticed that when cycling through the diffs on this page to catch up with a conversation it is really slow due to the large volume of this page. If you add "&diffonly=1" to a diff url, it only shows the diff and not the whole page. I created a little javascript function that adds "Diff only" buttons next to the "Older edit" and "Newer edit" buttons on a diff page.
Using these buttons, your browser only receives the diff, not the whole page. Cycling through changes on a huge page is very fast. This script should do nothing at all on non diff pages.
This has been tested on the latest version of Firefox and nothing else, so please tell me if it is buggy in other browsers and I will do what I can.
To comply with GFDL licensing, please include the url "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Until%281_%3D%3D_2%29/monobook.js&oldid=146047045" in your edit summary to give future editors a link to its original edit history. Just add this to the bottom of your custom javascript page. Enjoy. Until(1 == 2) 02:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is so long, I hope this helps 

message: ;If you are here to report a violation(s) of civility or no personal attacks policies please consider posting instead to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts	
When I was new I thought this board was the right place to report violations of WP:CIVIL and/or WP:NPA issues. Later I came to understand that there are other venues for that. I've noticed that many editors seem to have the same perception I did. I think some confusion could be addressed. (I also know that no matter what one writes there will be people who ignore it.) Anynobody 02:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: edited in. Navou  banter  12:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for the AN/I board 

message: If you look at the two green sections in my edit at
 and also at this 
 you can see that things are patched up between Amoruso and myself. 
I'm not happy to have the title of my post sitting on a page which a lot of users visit as it perpetuates the original allegation. What as an ordinary editor am I allowed to do to remove it? My request at the top of the complaint has how been sitting there for a while and I don't know how to expedite things further.--Peter cohen 14:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules on deleting, closing or whatever complaints 

message: While it is explained that this venue if for the reporting and discussion of incidents that possibly require administrative intervention, this page has recently been attracting threads that are of no relation to the page's actual purpose. An example exists in this thread and this thread. Perhaps the purpose of this page, in relation to what it is supposed to discuss and resolve, should somehow be made more transperant, because this page, which already receives numerous posts a day, is becoming clogged with these improper threads. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewrite the intro at the top of the page to be more clear about what this is, and is not; that is, what kind of disputes it can help you with, and cannot.  --Haemo 08:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already pretty clear. I'm not sure I would be the best one to rewrite it, but I think something really has to be done about this. Often it becomes difficult to see the really, most attention worthy posts when the forum is clogged up with these improper postings - not good. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we need to make it more BOLD?  I don't really see any other way to do it. --Haemo 08:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We will always have a certain amount of misplaced requests (Wikipedia is a far too confusing place for beginners to figure out the correct place for a specific request). If the board becomes too clogged with those, perhaps we should remove those threads and explain patiently on the user's own talk what the correct place is. Kusma (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, Removal of innapropriate threads is the best solution. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a new venue? Wikipedia:Miscellaneous requests? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about removing the threads and perhaps a new, non-bity template suggesting that ANI is the incorrect forum and that  is a way to get an appropriate response. Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about moving the threads to their correct forum and leaving a link at their talk page? --Masamage ♫ 03:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, moving threads and linking them would be better.  I certainly am willing to follow a trail of bread crumbs (the link to my now moved thread) to get to the right place. Navou  banter  04:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Template made - . Thoughts? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper use of the [[WP:ANI]] forum 

message: I use two different library systems, the IPs of both of which are blocked regularly due to vandalism of various sorts. There are, I deduce from the "useful change" of being able to proceed to edit on logging in, other examples of such IPs split between "useful/harmless persons" and "nuisances": is there any way of narrowing down where the problems occur and dealing with the persons involved? In most cases it is a slight inconveniece to sign in to correct typos etc, but there is a theoretical case of organisations so affected creating problems (though I am not certain what legal principles would be involved). Jackiespeel 17:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocked library systems 

message: I would like to make it mandatory that any editor who initiates a discussion here (a "complainant") be required to notify the party (the editor) whose action resulted in the complaint. That gives the editor a chance to participate in the discussion and frankly, only seems fair. If the complainant has some reason not to notify the editor being complained of, then in the first line(s) of the new discussion, the complainant should state why ("I didn't notify User:X because I feared for my life" or even, "I didn't notify User:Y because I'm just too upset to want to deal with that editor."). Then no discussion would take place after the original posting until the next editor who wanted to participate in the discussion could inform everyone (before making any other comment on the matter) that the editor had been informed. 
Actions are taken here, with the authority of administrators, that overrule other editors. It seems like basic decency to at least inform the editor that the storm clouds are building before deciding to throw the thunderbolts. 
Is it too much to ask? Noroton 18:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unnecessary instruction creep. Making it mandatory will just make the process bureaucratic, and result in legitimate complaints being attacked because of a procedural error. It's certainly a good idea, but if you feel someone needs to be notified, it's best to just take the initiative --Eyrian 18:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why say "unnecessary"? This is a page for bureaucrats, so being a little bureaucratic isn't too onerous, I think. You could say "instruction creep" about any good or bad proposal, couldn't you? I say it's one little requirement (how many are there to post a complaint here?), and being fair to editors is really more important. We have all sorts of procedures in the dispute-resolution process. The fact is that editors are not notified. You suggest that I notify all of the editors who are complained about? But you just said that editors doing it once would find it onerous. Not a serious suggestion, I think. Noroton 19:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: When dealing with established editors, such should be done, yes. However, when the actions of regular hit-or-miss trolls, vandals, and socks are discussed, they do not and should not have the privilege of such notification. —Kurykh 18:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting that you bring up vandals. We routinely notify them with warning templates. It wouldn't be hard to put a template at the top of this page that we could cut and paste onto an editor's talk page. It's no different from the procedures we use for AfDs, or listing at AFD subject pages. Noroton 19:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We warn them with warning templates, yes, but adding ANI into it is just like saying "oh, when you have time, vandalize ANI too." Same with trolls, etc. —Kurykh 19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then it becomes a question of whether it's worth the trouble in many cases where you wouldn't get a discussion out of the accused party. I tried looking down the page to see which topics were like that and to get a sense of how many were, say, differences of opinion rather than a cut-and-dried case. I didn't have the stomach to read through too many, but I got the impression that it's at least a substantial minority. I think that's enough to make it worthwhile. Noroton 21:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's always a good idea to inform involved parties of a WP:ANI report, but making it "mandatory" is going to create more headaches than it will solve.--Isotope23 talk 18:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why it would make for more headaches. Noroton 19:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think your right that its important, especially in a case where someone may want to defend themselves, but there are situations where it is not appropriate and so to make it mandatory would be excessively beauracratic and detremintal to the running of the wiki in some cases. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 18:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for recognizing it's important. Is there a better method to insure that more people will get the chance to defend themselves? I can't think of a simpler, more effective way of doing it.Noroton 19:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Another point about that: Won't the editor who's complained about have an important perspective to add to the discussion if that editor wants to? It seems to me that would often be the case. That would be extremely valuable, I think. Noroton 19:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It is important, but making it mandatory is not necessary.  Often, if an editor simply forgets to notify another editor, a separate editor will notify him or her, and then all is well.  --Iamunknown 18:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not from what I've seen. Noroton 19:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great, Persian Poet Gal! I hope it gets used. If it were mandatory, it would.Noroton 20:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  It would probably be a good idea from an Admin point of view to, as a good practice, check and see if reported parties have been notified and if they have not been (and it is appropriate to do so based on the report) notify them of the discussion.--Isotope23 talk 20:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (outdent, and ec x2) It's good to have a template, as I think it will make people more likely to notify the users concerned, but this part bothers me a little: "regarding your recent edits, a particular dispute you were involved in, or about your present conduct"... I'm afraid it's likely to strike people as "you've been bad and we're talking about you".  Maybe it could be a little more generic?  What does everyone else think? Pinball22 20:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I can't stay on too long but I'll leave this one last comment.  The text can be modified with the "reason" parameter to anything that the sender wishes to put.  As I said above though, no harm done in tweaking the wording or template however you all feel is best.  Edit: Yeah I see the point about the civil/npa links, go ahead and change it around if it strikes as a tad offensive.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto for the WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA links; might imply (to defensive editors) that you expect them to misbehave, and are warning them ahead of time.  Perhaps tho, instead of removing all that, just make it clear it's a generic template, to lessen the possibility of offence?  --barneca (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)It's a good idea, but I agree that it's unnecessary instruction creep to put a "do it or die" stamp on it.  If you want it done in every case... feel free to do it. Also, I don't see a any kind of consequence for non-compliance in your proposal. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 20:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, noncompliance. Good point. That might be where the onerous part sneaks in, because it would require policing. How do you block people from either creating a new topic or contributing to it until after some notice has been put on the editor's talk page? Without some admin policing it, I guess that would be a software fix: It gets posted, perhaps, after you check off that you've notified the editor, or (better), it automatically puts a note on the editor's talk page. Of course, if we had that kind of software fix, it would cease to be onerous to actually do the notifying, wouldn't it? By the way, in cases of multiple editors being complained about, I think it should be optional to inform more than one. But maybe even that wouldn't be too onerous if you just type in the User:Names into boxes as part of the initiation of the discussion. Noroton 21:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Do we really need a template for that?  Whatever happened to  not templating the regulars? Tex20:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats neither policy nor guideline? WikipedianProlific(Talk) 20:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That may be, but it doesn't mean you won't piss certain people off even more by slapping a template on their talk page.  Why is it so hard for people to take 30 seconds to write "I've brought our issue to AN/I"? Tex21:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it depends on a case by case basis I guess, theres certainly nothing wrong with the pesonal touch. But if an issue involves 5 or more editors it could become tedious to write specific messages. The great thing about having templates is there is no mandatory requirement for us to use them, but they are there if we want to make our lives easier. Just my thoughts. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 21:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Could the p/o problem be rectified just by making the template language diplomatic, short and bland? I don't think it's the fact of the template so much as what the template sometimes says that ticks people off. That and the colors. My next proposal is to ban primary colors for templates ... Noroton 21:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (ec) The template merely provides an option. If you wish to use it, it's there. If you prefer notifying by hand, well do that. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 21:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  OK, I didn't mean to come across as if I were against a template.  I was just reading this page and this is the second time someone brought up an issue and someone went and made a template for it.  And I know there are people on this site who would not take a template very well.  I really don't care either way. Tex21:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Inform editors when their actions result in a complaint here 

message: At least one editor has mentioned that recent archiving has been happening too aggressively. When a discussion is on-going, when is it appropriate to archive the discussion using the "discussion top" and "discussion bottom" templates? Sancho 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the discussion is ongoing and you have to ask yourself whether it's appropriate to archive it then it probably isn't appropriate. Discussions should only be prematurely archived if they're descending into really bad attacks and suchlike. But most people who post here should know better. 81.153.125.209 21:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival 

message: Arknascar's proposal may not have been archived in full by the bot. If any of the Wiki markup is not right, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=160357810 to look at the original comment in the edit history. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment added later (2 January 2008) when doing manual archiving

message: The talk page of ANI is being redirected to the AN talk page.  Therefore, there is just one talk page for both.  If this is intended, no action is needed.  On the other hand, there are two separate boards, AN and ANI, not just one. Archtrain 19:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is deliberate; the redirect's been in place at least since 2005, anyway. --ais523 17:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note (may be reverted/removed) 

message: Today User:Thafadi Adahabou treatened to kill some people. He also vandalised some other articles. All his bad-edits have been reverted, and je is indefenitly blocked. But shouldn't you admins bann his IP-adress forever asswell? -The Bold Guy- 15:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because other people might also use that address. --Carnildo 21:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Thafadi Adahabou]] 

message: The shortcuts that help redirect to specific sections of the project page appear to be out of order. Now, when I click on the link from edit summaries, I am only taken to the top of the page.
Any idea why this is happening? --Aarktica 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, what exactly do you mean? Can you give an example of one of the edit summaries you're having this problem with? EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An example of this issue is present in "Hoaxer User:Woofe705" — a current issue at at ANI. Unlike "Indef blocks vis a vis Proxy", the former simply points to the top of the page. --Aarktica 22:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Looking at the history logs for AN, Wknight94 made posts back-to-back to both sections (21:40:28 and 21:34:01.) --Aarktica 23:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken shortcuts? 

message: I'm mad about user-conduct RfCs. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Let's get rid of the user conduct RfCs because they're inefficient stupid wastes of time. Please tell me what you think. ScienceApologist 19:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check it out 

message: <debate>
</nowiki></pre>
which would look like:
:One suggestion: we should call it a discussion or thread rather than a debate. Sancho 17:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of header for debate 

message: Please someone who could, add the Persian interwiki for the same page as fa:ویکی‌پدیا:تابلوی اعلانات مدیران Many thanks in advance... --Kaaveh 01:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could have done this yourself by editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header which is only semi-protected. However I've added the link. Graham87 06:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persian Interwiki 

message: <debate>
</nowiki></pre>
or this, if the second parameter was left blank:

{{User:Arknascar44/ANI top|Name of header for debate}}
{{User:Arknascar44/ANI bottom}}

:When the Conflict of interest Noticeboard recently switched over to bot archiving it stopped using the show/hide closing boxes, which were implemented using  and . I'm not sure why you mentioned the  template in this discussion because that template allows placing a verdict on top of the thread *without* boxing it up.  The WP:WQA noticeboard has been using those for quite some time, and they seem to work. They also make it easy to revert or modify a verdict if it doesn't have universal support. 
:The show/hide boxes are not a good fit with a bot archiving system in my opinion. They also make it harder to search through an archive file for a string of words since the text is hidden in the boxes. EdJohnston 21:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of header for debate 

message: We could replace distracting threads with something like the reference desk has for medical advice type questions: . Sancho 16:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That template is highly controversial, though. A.Z. 02:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? Sancho 17:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree this is a great idea. Some time ago I archived a discussion that was an classic content dispute spilling over to ANI, and the editors simply argued between in the archived templates. Thise would make for an actual to get rid of unwarranted threads before they ridiculously out of hands here. Circeus 18:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thread deletion template 

message: There really should be an easier way to find this page. I wanted to request a block for an IP address It took me about 20 minutes to settle on this page (Incidents), and I'm still not sure that this is the right one (my edit is here. There should be a simple explanation, such as "this is where to request a block." In the spirit of a Wiki, all users should be able to request a block, not only ones who already know how. Most people would just give up.
The first paragraph currently reads: "Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks. Any user of Wikipedia may post here." At the very least, if this is the right page, the "such as" should say "such as requesting a block or...." Am I wrong? Twilight Realm 21:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've a couple of times recently explained that reporting vandals is best on WP:AIV - maybe there needs to be a big note at the top of the page with a link there, because obviously people aren't seeing any notices that are existent now. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the start you just can't know where everything is, IMO big writing won't help because there is simply a learning curve needed to learn everything, getting used to all the policies and request for admin intervention pages.  On the commons for example it's much simpler, but there are a lot less edits, and vandalism there seems to be very low.  Even after like a year or something I'm still a way from knowing everything.  If you use firefox, I would suggest twinkle, it really helps.  Jackaranga 22:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make things clearer. 

message: The Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page needs to be archived more frequently or perhaps broken into segments listed perhaps by the week that they were added, 4 per month. This page is very long and is very difficult to navigate through due to the loading time, and I'm using DSL. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a large part to due to the long long threads that appear there.  For example, right now, all of AN/I is about 546 KB in length.  If you take out the first (105 KB), second (49 KB), and third (130 KB) threads, you've cut the thing in half.  The problem I see if there's a ton of "take it to RFC, take it to AIV, take it somewhere" threads but then people still argue at AN/I hoping to find the right admins who will give them the blocks they want.  Maybe those should be settled as resolved and closed immediately (perhaps a signal to User:MiszaBot II to take it away now?).  Second, maybe we should consider removing the hundreds of lines of text that people always post during their simple edit wars (maybe a link to the old AN/I version instead?).  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. It's turned into a "ask the other parent" sort of situation where users continue until they get the results they want, opposed to taking it somewhere else for further discussion. That page wasn't meant for that sort of long long discussion. I would suggest closing the largest topics and archiving them, notifying editors to perhaps take it to RFC or Arbitration if no solution can be found quickly.  Wikidudeman (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've seen what happens once that starts.  At that point, you have the other editors commenting on why they think RFC or Arbitration doesn't work and the damn thing gets completely side-tracked.  Actually, look above.  Maybe (and I know I'm going to get it for suggesting this) but we should consider blocking users who abuse and waste time at AN/I as well; make it clear that if people point them somewhere, that's where they should go.  I know, I'll hear about WP:BITE all day for that (especially once the "new" users come out of the woodwork with like two edits but knowing how to get to AN/I and write full detailed complaint with diffs, etc. to complain).  I wonder how long until comments like this or  this comes back to bite me. At least the bot's removed a bit of the page (I might consider archiving it myself if editors keep playing in some of the longer threads). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: please do. --Jack Merridew 09:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long... 

message: The community sanction noticeboard has been closed and instructions request submission to WP:ANI.  Is there a better way?
The discussions on CSN are not as fast paced as ANI.  Perhaps, WP:AN is better.  
Also consider whether only administrators should decide on CSN issues.  I think this is not the case.  However, ANI is mainly frequented by administrators only (and non-administrators with a complaint).  Therefore, CSN decisions on ANI would be directed away from the mainspace editors, which is the heart and soul of wikipedia.  
Is Village Pump a better way?  Village Pump is a place for all users, not just administrators.  Any other suggestions? Archtransit 17:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: THis push to get everything to ANI is misguided, it is already and dumping more stuff into will only make it worse. Specialty boards that draw people with skills in that area is a better way to go. Rlevse 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a few people who regularly participate on CSN and AN/I do not use village pump. I personally despise it. Redirecting it there would be a terrible idea. Village pump already gets too much random stuff as it is, and CSN is something that requires Administrator input (i.e. people who need to unblock and/or block). ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSN gone, redirected to wrong place? 

message: Do the  templates do anything? I mean, do the bots that archive this page read them, and archive accordingly? Or are they just there to be pretty notices to other readers? Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To the best of my knowledge, they just serve as quick visual references for readers.  The archive bot works based off of the thread's last post.  --Kralizec! (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I just didn't know if the resolved template over-rid the date requirement in the section. Thanks. --Ali'i 20:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the top item in this diff, which was made by archiving at WP:COIN, you'll see that the bot *does* seem to use the timestamp on the  template. The timeout is 10 days at COIN, and this item, Alexander Ferocia, was resolved on 11 October and archived on 21 October. The last signed comment in the discussion was on 5 October. So resolving things does reset the archiving timer to zero. You could always resolve without signing :-). EdJohnston 01:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  resolved templates 

message: proposed here. simple and hopefully helpful? ~Eliz81(C) 23:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Useful. I just hope it would be rarely used. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  01:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANI emergency template? 

message: Yes, this board is too large and issues are often dealt with in a shoot-from-the-hip manner.  I suggest editing the header to say:
* This page is only for incidents that require immediate administrator intervention.  It is not the Wikipedia complaint department.
* If you have complaints or suspicions, but don't have clear evidence that administrator action is needed, please select the relevant Noticeboard to discuss your concerns.
* To propose community sanctions, please use the administrators noticeboard instead.
If somebody comes to WP:ANI without succinct evidence to support a block, they should be sent elsewhere and the thread should be closed.  WP:AN is a better place to discuss community sanctions because it has less traffic and is slower moving. - Jehochman  Talk 14:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 100%. Perhaps threads that do not belong, should be removed, as well? SQL(Query Me!) 00:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree with moving to WP:AN.  Part of the reasons for closing the CSN were to increase visibility.  lots more people look at the WP:ANI.  We need to come with a better way to manage the case load (such as subpages similar to how RfA and Afd works).  --Rocksanddirt 18:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloated board 

message: Since CSN has been deleted, bans are soberly discussed! There is no voting, and no bolded Endorses! Truly, this has made banning much fairer!
Too bad these people haven't gotten the memo that ANI is inherently fairer than CSN because there is no voting. Maybe someone should loudly insist that voting is evil; after all, that's always worked before! -Amarkov moo! 22:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly; if that worked, you won't have to shout it again. —Kurykh 23:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear, it seems that changing the forum doesn't alter human nature.  If you want to slap all of them with a trout, be my guest.  But how do we discuss a proposed ban without saying "I support this" or "I oppose this"?  It's very natural to state an opinion. - Jehochman  Talk 00:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea. Apparently I didn't do very good sarcasm here... -Amarkov moo! 00:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We use a similar system at AfD and it works. When it comes to banning problematic users, the simpliest way to deal w/ it is to give less consideration to views of involved parties participating at such discussions. It is just not easy to ban someone who got 20 sympathizers (POV pushers). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  01:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Amarkov, your sarcasm is good, but my deadpan is better.  :D  - Jehochman  Talk 03:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I really don't see how this is a problem. The bolded portions only serve as a summary of one's position, with ensuing rationales afterward, or concurrence with a previous opinion. Now if the only thing there is "support" or "oppose," then those should be discounted, but otherwise, I don't see a problem. —Kurykh 02:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yay, now we don't vote on community bans. 

message: Can something be done on the links from "my contributions" to take "persons raising queries and complaints" to their posting - otherwise difficult/timeconsuming etc to find whether there was a response. Jackiespeel 13:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queries etc 

message: The incident board seems to be a broad mish-mash of miscellaneous issues. Some of these would probably best be handled on their own boards, which I am guessing is why the Fringe theories and Reliable sources boards were created.
On many occasions I've seen admins post requests for reviews of blocks they have imposed. In order to make it easier for admins who want to both review and have their blocks reviewed by other admins I'm suggesting Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Block review board. (It could even use WP:BRB for a shortcut.) Anynobody 07:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block review board 

message: There was been some experimentation with absolutely positioned links.  In general absolutely positioned things are bad, and I try to ignore them when possible, but these are particularly bad .  It is not safe to assume that the #content div is as wide as the browser window. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, what skin is that. In theory, the links should be positioned at the far right within the #content div.  — Edokter • Talk •  14:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the simple skin, with #content set to a fixed width. The monobook skin does not suffer from this problem; the divs do align relative to #content if I switch my skin to monobook, even with #content set to a fixed width. I have meant to investigate this before but never looked into it enough to understand what is going on. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As of last night, when using the Classic skin and the Opera browser, the "top" and "bottom" links would sit there blocking part of the page. --Carnildo 22:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean overlapping with other parts of the page? I also saw that in the monobook skin this morning when I tested it out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top/Bottom links