Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 6

message: I've noticed people moving threads to subpages. Are these threads still ending up in the archives? Have a look at the subpages of AN and ANI here. Might be worth someone checking whether the old pages did end up in the archives. Is this subpage method new? I'm not entirely sure it is the best way to handle this sort of thing. More use of "resolved" tags might help, or telling people to discuss at other venues. Carcharoth (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh hang on, I see now. The link to the page remains on the main page, and that link is still accessible from the archives. Still, if you want to see the consequences of a "subpage" system several years down the line, have a look at the sprawling subpage structure of RfA and AfD. I challenge anyone to find the non RfA subpages at RfA, and the non-AfD subpages at AfD! Excessive numbers of subpages can results in such miscellaneous pages getting lost unless they are prominently linked from lots of places. Just something to think about before going too far down the subpage route. Might be better to manage the board better and direct further discussion to the appropriate venues - sometimes another venue altogether is better than a subpage of AN or ANI. Carcharoth (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: My apologies - the reason for the moves is hidden in #Frequent abuse of AN for personal vendetta above. I don't see your concern that these discussions can't be found anymore. For one,  Since all moved pages had at least a handful of contributions, they all show up in the history, and you can find them just fine. (We could even change the bot to include a special edit summary when archiving any links to subpages, so you could specifically search for those.) Moreover, there will be much fewer cases in which you will have to search for a discussion at all: Linking to these discussions is actually one of the reasons why subpages are preferable: All existing links just stay correct, as oposed to links to ANI#issue, which all point to nowhere when they're archived 24 hours after the last post. — Sebastian 11:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did see the earlier discussion, but wanted to raise some new points. Specifically the consequences of hundreds of subpages in a few years time - a point that you didn't respond to. The pages I am worried will be lost are ones like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/sprotected. In other words, the subpage structure is being used for two purposes: (1) genuine subpages; (2) long threads. This could cause confusion later. I, for one, often use the subpage listings to try and get an overview of how a particular ares of Wikipedia is organised. All the functioning subpages should be accessible by a few click from the main page, but if not, the subpage listing is an alternative. Seriously, try and find the administrative subpages at RfA in the link I provided above, and give again here. Hundreds and hundreds of subpages, with the few "other" subpages being lost in the noise. As for linking, threads without a subpage still have the problem, so this is an incomplete solution. Some people do use the archive search engine, so that should be changed to search all subpages (if it doesn't already), not just the archive subpages. If the problem is large edit history for a page, then we should start a new page each year. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (2008), and so on. Ditto for the village pumps. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That would be a better solution. But sometimes moving to a subpage is not needed at all. Take for example Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/King James I of England. That is actually quite a short thread, but if people had been following it (instead of just going "ooh, bit too large, let's yank that off to a subpage"), they would have realised that it was petering out to a close. There was a minor exchange still going on between me and Allstarecho, but that would have stopped soon. What was really needed was for someone to step in and say "resolved" (it effectively had been), and ask people to continue the extra discussions elsewhere or in a new section. Then it would have been archived 48 hours later with no problems. I still think the best solution is better management of the boards (AN and ANI). Carcharoth (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Feel free to archive it manually and delete the sub page.  I think we should set a standard for minimum length on these to avoid creating too many.  I suggest about 50k.  - Jehochman  Talk 22:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: My feeling is that creation of these subpages should stop. Now. Only for the really excessive threads do we need subpages. Other than that, judicious use of new subsections and resolved tags should help. The King James thread for example was split into three subsections. It might have looked like a long thread, but most of it was old discussion that wasn't archived because the discussion was still continuing in one subsection. Carcharoth (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The subpages won't be archived by the bot as long as nobody puts a date in the section.  Sign using three tildes when starting one of these, like this: - Jehochman  Talk  I agree that this should only be used when a thread exceeds about 50k. Very few get that long. - Jehochman  Talk 22:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that threads should not be moved to sub pages except in egregious situations - it merely prolongs the dispute.  By this time, the Durova thread might have been archived, we as a community might have been (ideally) working towards a constructive solution but, because the thread will, essentially, never be archived, there is still as much heat as ever.  --Iamunknown 06:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub pages 

message: I've just discovered the concern raised here. What can be done about this? Carcharoth (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My feeling is that creation of these subpages should stop. Now. Only for the really excessive threads do we need subpages. Other than that, judicious use of new subsections and resolved tags should help. The King James thread for example was split into three subsections. It might have looked like a long thread, but most of it was old discussion that wasn't archived because the discussion was still continuing in one subsection. Carcharoth (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The subpages won't be archived by the bot as long as nobody puts a date in the section.  Sign using three tildes when starting one of these, like this: - Jehochman  Talk  I agree that this should only be used when a thread exceeds about 50k. Very few get that long. - Jehochman  Talk 22:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that threads should not be moved to sub pages except in egregious situations - it merely prolongs the dispute.  By this time, the Durova thread might have been archived, we as a community might have been (ideally) working towards a constructive solution but, because the thread will, essentially, never be archived, there is still as much heat as ever.  --Iamunknown 06:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another concern

message: Where do I find responses to my query about checking whether there was a reply on my spotting "possible vandalism"? The problem appears to be having to trawl through multiple archive pages when a link would be useful. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are some links Blocked library systems and Main page talk page. -- Jreferee   t/c 07:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responses to queries 

message: I can see things getting quite messy if they can't. 67.135.49.177 23:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a good idea to break it off into it's own section if the circumstances permit... but I would remoend (edit: "recommend") against removing text without a very good reason (reverting vandalism, libel, etc). ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 23:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can off-topic discussion be removed from incident sections? 

message: Eagle's archive search is only searching through archive 44 for AN/3RR, 85 for AN, 235 for ANI, and 7 for CSN: (click conservatively - don't wanna suffocate bot). This is a big problem, because the last six months are not being reported. Anybody know what's going on?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Evil Spartan (talk • contribs) 05:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm aware of the situation, hopefully by this weekend I'll have everything fixed up and working again. The problem is the archiving bot's format has changed, so the automatic update system on the search broke. —— Eagle101Need help? 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eagle's archive search not searching far enough up 

message: No, we might not have enough of them yet. I know that's a scary idea. I have just proposed one to be related to political and social issues at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposed new Admin noticeboard. I would welcome any opinions, positive or negative, regarding that proposal. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting solution, where is the problem? Has there been enough traffic going to ANI or other locations to warrent the new board? If not just go there for the time being, when there is a real problem that you can point and show me 3 or 4 *recent* (less then a week old) cases that would have benefited from such a board, I might change my mind. —— Eagle101Need help? 00:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if this is really needed, what we have seems to work alright. KnightLago (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new noticeboard 

message: Does anyone know how far back the archive search works?  I am looking at a block that lists an WP:ANI thread from August and I can't find it through the search.  If we are going to have a bot remove threads this quickly, it is extremely difficult to work with if there isn't a way to find old threads. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ability to search archives 

message: I've noticed that inflammatory titles like "Harassment by User:X" can damage a user's reputation because they appear in the edit summary, which shows up frequently on user watchlists.  Isn't it unfair to allow accusations to be advertised in this manner via watchlists?  Such titles may contain allegations that many people will see, but they may not look at the actual details of the case.  Should we neutralize titles, changing them to NPOV versions such as "User:X" or "User:X and User:Y", to help reduce drama and protect the reputation of editors who may be  unfairly accused?  - Jehochman  Talk 17:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Accusatory or uncivil titles could be altered to a more neutral tone. For example one might change the title of this thread to be "Thread titles that are potentially inflammatory". Of course in this case the title is fine, that was just an example. 1 != 2 17:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, so long as an accurate & explanatory edit summary is used when the title is changed. DuncanHill (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflammatory thread titles 

message: When the idea of making subpages for long ANI discussions was introduced, I was under the impression that they would be used only when necessary to make the page a manageable length. Are things like this acceptable? -Amarkov moo! 17:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subpaging short discussions 

message: I'm tired of trying to get people to pay attention to what JzG is doing with the tools. All I want is for some uninvolved admins to engage him in discussion about his pattern of behavior. No "pound of flesh" necessary, if he'll just stop misusing his toolkit. If he won't then there won't be any choice but to RfC. Trust me when I say I don't relish doing that, with the abuse that's levied out by some of his defenders here at AN/I. I can only imagine what it would be like at an RfC... Mr Which??? 02:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that RFC is a public venue, more so than here, since anyone can get involved in an RFC and post whatever they wish on it. As I pointed out before, I suggest you come up with reasons why, in the blacklisting case, why you feel the website should be useful to use. Right now, I just notice people wanting that site unblacklisted only because JzG did the listing. Just stay calm, just stay civil. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll notice that throughout this fiasco, I've been relatively calm. I've had a bit of righteous indignation at an admin or two who tried to squelch discussion with the archive feature, but otherwise, I've tried to avoid attacking other people. Their actions? Fair game, though. As for the blacklisting of legistorm, it was poorly done. Sure the site has advertising, but so does every newspaper we link to here. The facts it presents are useful, non-partisan, and completely neutral. In other words, very helpful to the project. The only real explanation I've heard on that matter is, "Well they were added by SPA accounts." Yet, when Alansohn readded them, he was reverted by Hu12. Anyways, I'm tired of all this, so I'm going to go edit some articles for a bit. Mr Which??? 03:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally do not see the ads as a major problem; that is why adblock was invented. I do not know who Alansohn is, so I cannot comment about his actions, but I do agree that accounts whose sole purposes to add the weblinks, or IP addresses that belong to the company, should not be adding the links en mass. I think that was the major problem in the case. Anyways, staying calm is good and editing articles can also relieve stress. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Speaking for myself only, I closed out the threads related to that topic because it became clear that no productive discussion was happening - just bickering between sides. AN/I has a specific purpose that needs to be maintained in order for that purpose to be achieved - i.e. quickly responding to notices of specific incidents that require admin attention (warnings, blocks, deletions, etc.). Point of clarification, as well - it says 'Archived thread' but that isn't actually what is happening - I (and others) use the discussion-top and discussion-bottom templates to close out the thread. Content is ultimately archived by a bot based on how long its been listed. AvruchTalk 04:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gotta love the archivers! 

message: follow me. Mercury 13:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANI length 

message: What roads remain if one files a report, but the issue is not resolved and simply disappears into the archives? Thanks, Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try Wikipedia:Editor assistance. Addhoc (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember WP:EAR because they will listen to you. Jehochman  Talk 17:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unresolved issues 

message: Why does the WP:ANI page have these strange interwiki links to :de:User:Cultura, :de:User:Forta, fr:User:William Pedros and :ro:user:125.245.199.2?  Am I the only one who's seeing these? 131.111.8.97 (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because those users are primarily contributers to those wikipedias, and don't have a userpage here maybe.--Phoenix-wiki 11:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Someone tried to link to those from his/her post, but forgot to add colons. Fixed. Prolog (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange interwiki links 

message: Since from time to time editors come to AN/AN/I with bot related problems, I suggest including a link in the top navbox to the Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard which is an existing place for people to complain/ask questions about the numerous bots that run here. MBisanz talk 19:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a link to that noticeboard is warranted, but I suspect that severe or widespread issues will still be brought to ANI for what is percieved as a quicker response, since ANI is generally busiest and, thus, most watched. No harm in attempting to filter some of the simpler items to a better forum. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  18:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Excellent idea! Alice✉ 18:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: Can someone point me to the discussion where it was decided this would be done? I don't think this is appropriate at all; it breaks section linking, and as such has almost an effect of "stealth archiving" those sections [as someone clicking a link might mistakenly think that it was no longer present on the page] —Random832 18:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem Random is pointing out is that if someone links into the ANI page from somewhere else, with a specific pointer to a section header, when the "resolved" is included, those links coming in will not function properly anymore. I can see that being annoying if you're trying to follow up on a discussion elsewhere and click in expecting to be directed to it, only to wind up at the top of the page because the header's been changed. I'd suggest that just the resolved template is more appropriate than changing section headers. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: However, I do, now, see the benefit of having it made clear in the contents list; I've been wanting to do a javascript for something similar for the content list for AFD for a while. This should be doable; I'll have something later this week probably. —Random832 19:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I understand. This is a problem frequent contributors to AN/I are probably used to (because headers change and sections are archived with regularity) but I can see the problem. It would be nice if there was a way to represent at the top of the page which sections on a 300kb page still need attention. Avruchtalk 19:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That would be great, Random. Avruchtalk 19:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Collapse boxes are incompatible with the MiszaBot archiver used at AN and ANI. They don't save any page loading time, and they make it harder to do plain text searches of archive pages. Collapse boxes were formerly used at WP:BLPN and WP:COIN but they were dropped when bot archiving was instituted.  EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a quicker resolve archive makes a lot of sense, especially for people on slow connections. I've added your code into my monobook.js but it doesn't seem to alter anything, can you glance over it and see if I left out something key? (I've done the ctrl-R on Firefox). Avruchtalk 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, I've removed it temporarily... I noticed a strange thing where on AN/I I have to go two sections up and hit the edit tab in order to edit the section I want. Not sure what would cause that. Avruchtalk 20:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try again -- it sounds like a bot archived sections between the time you loaded the page and the time you clicked "edit".  This would cause such a problem to occur.  75.5.236.14 (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to use ctrl-shift-r to reload a changed monobook.js. —Random832 23:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thought - if somehow (not sure how) when the heading was changed, an anchor (span link) were added at the end of the heading line, with the same anchor name as the former name of the section heading, then incoming links wouldn't break - they'd link to the hidden anchor, the former name of the section.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 16:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mangling headers for "resolved" 

message: I'm proposing an additional category in the :Template:Editabuselinks to reduce the number of posts at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment here User:Mbisanz/TemplateSandbox. MBisanz talk 13:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry can you clarify the propusal? You want to restrics howmany times an editor can post? Or you want to archive the posts? Igor Berger (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to send posts that would come here in error to other pages where they are better served.  Like people who come here to complain about a deleted article, might be better served at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.  Not archiving anything or restricting anyone's ability to do anything. MBisanz talk 13:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was getting that vibe, so came back for an input. Sounds like we need more categories, so a disembarcation page to different categories. So when they come with a problem we dirrect them to the right sub board. Think of it as a forum architecture. But before doing the template collect sub boards. Like 3RR, NPOV, etc..what do you think? 
#Request is started in AN or ANI and then they are dirrected to go down the directory tree. Or if they know what is the problem they can go straight to the branch. I hope you are following my logic. In software design the tree is upside down with the root facing the sky. Would be nice to have an admin rights functionality to move the case back to the root.
#Or do you want to have chambers. Like room 1, 2, 3 etc. And you have links to these chambers from AN and ANI respectfully. Igor Berger (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well actually, neither.  Right now we have a nav-box that links various boards, request forums, report forums together so that users can navigate to pages that are most relevant to their need.  I'm merely saying that there are more pages that are frequently relevant that should be added.  Sort of like saying right now users have 10 links to pick from and I'm saying they actually need 15 to pick from, does that make sense? MBisanz talk 19:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed template change 

message: Since TTN gets reported to AN/I at least once per day, perhaps we should have a standing thread or subpage for him and a note at the top that says "Please add complaints about TTN to the TTN section only." Avruchtalk 18:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The precedent would be Wikipedia:administrators' noticeboard/Wiki editor DonFphrnqTaub Persina.  I don't think it would be appropriate to name him at the top.  Maybe just a standing polic that when someone complains, their complaint is moved to the subpage and replaced with a . MBisanz talk 18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Better yet, create, transclude an old discussion, protect. They tend to get really formulaic. Will (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the page you mentioned as a precedent was not created due to volume of mentions on ANI, it was created because the user has a right to see and answer any discussion about them and it is established that his browser is not able to load ANI. —Random832 19:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, we used to have an ANI subpage used exclusively to address TTN's actions. It seems to have been active for only a month, which is a rather short duration compared with TTN's terminally controversial behaviour and the endless complaints. PeaceNT (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AN/I vs. TTN - A AN/I_TTN subpage needed?! 

message: Betacommand's last archive run messed up due to not distinguishing subsections from main sections (leaving orphaned subsections in some cases, archiving subsections without their parent section in others); archiving needs to be put on hold until this can be sorted out. [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=183187928&oldid=183187660] is the relevant diff. —Random832 16:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive broken 

message: Here's what I was thinking:  User:Slakr/Sandbox/ANI.  Anons could post to a subpage transcluded into a section on the main page and someone can add it manually (I'd say let the bot auto-add it, but that would present a target for ip hopping vandals). What do you guys think? --slakr\ talk / 19:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Another idea

message: Right March.com radio broadcaster Bill Greene, who edits here as User:Profg, has made a podcast from an anti-liberal anti-Darwinist movement "conservative viewpoint" available at http://web.mac.com/profg/iWeb/Site/Podcast/7D1AFD6C-C07F-11DC-B69C-000A959E8368.html discussing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The podcast opens suggesting using google to search for evolution or intelligent design, and you'll find Wikipedia near the top results, "But let me tell you, there's an incredible liberal bias there" then describes WP as being mostly edited by students and academics who don't need to spend their time trying to make a living, filling their heads with "liberal mush". Near the end of the podcast he says "But I wanna tell how how you can take action on this... The first thing you can do, on the issue of intelligent design, is go to wikipedia.org and go to, say, the section on intelligent design, and read it, and see if you could improve it. Or maybe it's the page on evolution, or creationism. Go to one of these pages and see if you can improve it. Anyone is allowed to edit it. There's a little bit of a learning curve, but really, it's supposed to be their premises, be bold, go right in there and improve it, but within five minutes, what you have written will be completely reworded, or kicked out. If you go to the discussion page and try to talk about it, you will be slammed. And if you get a little bit out of hand, because it's easy to get upset about these kind of things, you'll be kicked out. You're history. But you know what? Get a whole bunch of your friends to all do it at once. Everyone get on the phone in a conference call, or maybe get your iChat going or something, and everyone go in at once, because they can't stop, say, a dozen people, or 24 people, or 50 people, or a hundred people if they all come in at once and say 'no, we're going to do this' and they're concerted about it. Take action! Get it done!" ... dave souza, talk 11:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If people do come along and improve the article, good on them, we like that. But the first sign of this being a type of attack - especially if his listeners don't "improve" the articles and just vandalise - then someone will protect them from editing until they get bored. It's a bit of a waste of energy for everyone involved, but it's not the first time someone has thought that this is a way to break Wikipedia. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 11:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "they can't stop, say, a dozen people, or 24 people, or 50 people" -- yawn. These people for all in the world seem to be thinking Wikipedia has been going strong for six years just by bambi-eyed trust that nobody on the wide internet will get it into their heads to do any mischief. Big surprise these are the same people that embrace muddle-headed pseudoscience... You also got to love the approach of "these Wikipedia geeks have no life, so all you hard-working faithful, spend your time with some pointless revert-warring..." dab (𒁳) 11:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd put my money on the "Wikipedia geeks"... -- ChrisO (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's that very geekiness and lack of personal lives that allows us to be technically proficient enough, and have enough time, to guard against the kind of "uprising" he calls for :) Equazcion •✗/C • 12:12, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I have a personal life! Just last week I had an awkward, 3-minute conversation with someone I'm not related to and don't work with. It counts. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 12:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Frolicking aside, I suggest all serious talk about how to respond to this go to WP:ANI, where there's been a parallel thread. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed 

message: I propose we discontinue all archiving of AN/I - any actions taken based on it can be explained in a log or edit summary, and anyone who wants to see the discussion leading up to it can dig through the page history. —Random832 19:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very bad idea. it makes searching the archives inpossible. one should be able to search the archives. βcommand 19:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: this proposal was more to make a (non-disruptive, so lowercase) point about the current silliness at WT:RFR than anything serious. But anyway, we could solve your issue by requiring everyone to be meticulously precise with their edit summaries. —Random832 19:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Concur with Doc, trout-slap to Random: please don't make frivolous suggestions to prove a point. Some of us are not bothering to monitor your dispute and don't want to be dragged in through pointed suggestions elsewhere. Thanks. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 20:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Explain to me how an isolated "frivolous suggestion" is disruptive. Do you, in fact, know the title of the page redirected to from WP:POINT? —Random832 19:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  discontinue archiving 

message: This may not be the right place, but what happens when a user persistently vandalizes a discussion page and rejects all warnings as well as expressing the opinion that arbitration is a waste of time? Can I report vandalism on a discussion page by a registered user?--mrg3105mrg3105 14:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From the look of it  you two are engaged in a content dispute, this is not considered common vandalism so AIV is not the place to report. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  user disregards all attempts 

message: I'd like to find out the final outcome of a thread about user:RightGot, which was on WP:ANI on 19-21 January. It looks like most of the stuff from that time has been archived but this particular thread is missing from the archive. Any ideas? andy (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive345#RightGot --barneca (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive error? 

message: Items at AN/I  or ANB are generally referred to in ongoing discussions as "Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Whatever it may be" . Once the discussion has been archived, this gives a link only to the main AN/I page. Usually the item can be found by searching  the archive, but we should devise some way of having stable links. DGG (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal No. 58379 to change WP:ANI (currently first thread on this page) would solve that, but it seems to have died.  I still like the idea a lot, especially with Coren's bot doing almost all of the heavy lifting (see his fine-tuning of the idea down further in that thread).  If I were God Emperor of Wikipedia, I'd say let's try it for a week and see what happens, but for some reason I don't quite understand I haven't been proclaimed God Emperor yet. --barneca (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like being able to see all edits to ANI on my watchlist, not just when threads are started or archived. I've always thought it would be useful, however, if the archives were listed alongside relevant dates so looking for archives from way back when isn't an agonizing search for a needle in a haystack. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a novel idea.  Could the archive bots be coded to also write an "Archive index" file; just some subpage that contained a list of the titles of threads and the archives they are located at?  Even something in plain text could be searchable using only the "find" function in your browser.  That would expedite finding old threads.  This seems like a trivial thing for a bot to do; its a simple find and write function, which is essentially what it does to archive in the first place.  It could just identify each thread header and post the text contained in the header to a file like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive Index or something.  This seems workable.  Anyone know if this can be done, and who to contact if it can be?  --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The ref-desk bots have always done this automatically (presently operated by Ummit). Someguy1221 (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  finding items referred to 

message: I assume there is a hiccup somewhere, but right now, the AN/I page is showing as having significantly contributed to  FA's Taiwanese aborigines, Battle of Red Cliffs, and Georg Cantor, as well as GA Pūnana Leo. Did somebody fool with the header? Horologium (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been fixed, there was a problem with including a page. Nakon 04:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I saw. I was going to delete the comment, but you had already responded. Horologium (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AN/I has contributed to three FA's? 

message: I have written a script which collapses sections on AN/I. It collapses sections that are marked as resolved, and also sections which are over 600 (text) bytes and have not received a response in over six hours. A summary listing the most recent timestamp and size of the section is included, and the 'resolved' tag, including its parameter if any, is also included, in what is displayed below the header while the section is collapsed. There is a stable copy in User:Random832/monobook.js. It is not testedworks in MSIE. 
Questions for feedback - should sections marked as stale be collapsed? The 600-byte threshold is intended to avoid collapsing sections which only contain a single comment (i.e. a report which has not been answered), is this a good threshold? (The thread "Block evasion by User:Ottava Rima" with only the complaint is 522 bytes) I can probably count timestamps to check for a longer unreplied post. —Random832 21:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you want to collapse even really short resolved sections, or just sections that are somewhat longer and resolved? Regarding 600 bytes and six hours - some folks leave really long complaints that take as long as a day for anyone to comment substantively (from what I've seen). The other possibility is that these steps, if found acceptable, could be programmed into a bot/the archive bot. Avruchtalk 22:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Would there be any way that when the box is collapsed, it displays how many replies a thread has had? It would make it easier to spot out the ones that shouldn't have been archived. Apart from that, sounds really good! Would it be a monobook addition, or would it be a script for this page? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Does not work in Opera. —Random832 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsible sections 

message: I have been asked several questions at by  at the talk page for Lyndon LaRouche.  The answers to these questions (and arguably, the questions themselves) will not help improve the article.  I tried to answer Will at his talk page, but it is protected/locked.  Please unlock his talk page. Thanks. CM (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted on the talkpage, you may post to User:Will Beback/Scratchpad.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Opps, I did not see the talk page message.  Thanks.  I'd still support the unlocking of the user's talk page.  CM (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will Beback 

message: I've been using Random's javascript tool to alter the TOC based on whether sections are marked resolved. Anyone have a quick way to mark things as resolved? I guess its laziness, since it takes 2 seconds anyway, but a 'Resolved' button would be handy. Avruchtalk 14:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to start the beginnings of a script here. I probably made several syntax errors, so feel free to correct them. I still have to implement the main function, though. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolved tags 

message: Avruchtalk 19:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly useful template 

message: Something very very odd just happened. I refreshed the incidents noticeboard, and for some really strange reason, all the threads changed, they were replaced by threads, bizarrely, from March 2005, only i wasn't in the archive, the address just said it was the noticeboard. How the hell did that happen?--Jac16888 (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Flood of IP vandalism. Page is semi-pp for three hours. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ah yes, should have thought to check the history. Cheers for letting me know--Jac16888 (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to hear it was nothing major, but I was kind of looking forward to a possible time paradox on Wikipedia... Or maybe a wiki-haunting. -- Ned Scott 04:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the...? 

message: Is this now standard practice?  There's a new thread about Betacommand that has just been excised out of sight to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand - .  For ongoing, very lengthy threads that have been up for a number of days, then yes, by all means, move them to a subpage, but after less than a day?  I don't think that's advisable - it greatly reduces visibility. Neıl ☎ 15:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm 50/50 on this. The existing BCB threads were a mixture of forest fires created by users who, frankly, want us to say "fuck all fair-use legal provisions" and very long, rambling threads that an attempt to add to meant a minimum of three edit conflicts. Taking the heat out of this by shoving it sideways might help either or both problems. As for whether moving stuff to a subpage is generally a Good Thing, well, no, it isn't at all. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 19:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 3 schools of thought on this one.  One says that discussions shouldn't be split as it hides them.  Another says when they hit a predetermined size.  And a third says when its continuing issue like the Muhammad pictures or User:hopiakuta.  I tend to think the third is the better scenario, as long as a pointer from each time its initiated is left on the main page.  By that time enough users know that X is a continuing issue and not to ignore it.  With a long, one-time thread, people who haven't visited the conversation might not know its important enough to go to the subpage.  MBisanz talk 21:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people sufficiently flock to any topic concerning Betacommand. Should this become common practice? Surely not. However, for topics that get brought up relentlessly (and pointlessly), it makes sense to move it to it's own page. In this case in particular, where the same issues are being repeated. They should all be in a central location. Lara❤Love 21:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumping long threads to subpages 

message: Aaaaaaah! Apologies in advance for the irate voice, but today was probably the squillionth time I followed a WP:AN/I#Whatever style link to a discussion, only to find the thing had been archived. I'm too blurry-eyed to go looking through the archives for the topic because I probably have to squint through ToCs of dozen new archive pages with zillion topics each to find the topic I'm looking for. Once a topic is archived, it's (almost) poof-gone!
Here's a idea for some bot maker or another: Master index of topics. Create a new massive AN/I/Topic_Index and subpages for AN/I/Topic_Index/February_2008 or whatever. Now, if I follow a link that says WP:AN/I#Bloody_trolls_at_it_again, and it's been archived, I'll just append a bit: WP:AN/I/Topic_Index#Bloody_trolls_at_it_again, and on the resulting page there's a link - just a link - to the real archive subpage, so I find out it's been archived to /Archive3213. If there's multiple topics with same title, just add month and year for a more specific guess: WP:AN/I/Topic_Index/February_2008#Bloody_trolls_at_it_again. 
Would this be problematic? (With hundreds of tons of subpages, it's probably not that funny to use...) Or are there better ways to handle permalinking? Or is there a search engine specifically for AN(/I) content? (Plug in the topic name and blam, there you go?) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had similar concerns. Part of the issue is the title of the section, perhaps an automated date script could be added so the likelyhood of two sections with the same name is lessened. Benjiboi 14:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Suppose a bot checks for incoming section links, while archiving a thread, and updates the link targets so they instead point at the appropriate archive? Might be a bit involved (external and internal links, encoded and unencoded, shortcuts and all that jazz) and could have some pitfalls, but might be worth exploring. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any better ways at handling permalinking? 

message: A strange thing seems to have happened when I was editing the noticeboard. All I did was to write a short reply to a user but looking back at my edit it seems to have caused a virtual mayhem on the page . Was I accidentally editing an old version? Anyway, sorry for the mess and thanks to NE2 for fixing it. JdeJ (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened 

message: Some months ago I suggested adding a direct reference to Wikiquette alerts on this page for issues regarding WP:CIV/WP:NPA which don't require admin intervention but could be helped by third party discussion. At that time simply to help limit unnecessary posting here. Currently it, WQA, is up again (incorrectly) at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (2nd nomination). Rather than killing this debate citing an error in venue (parts of WP:DR aren't WP:MFD), it'd probably be better to show why WQA is useful. This ,referring minor issues which may not belong here to WQA, could help illustrate WQA's use. Anynobody 00:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to [[WP:WQA]]? 

message: I asked about the actions of an administrator who unilaterally deleted eight articles yesterday.
I deleted the names of those eight articles because I am disappointed in the replies my question is getting.
I was disappointed because administrators, who can look at the text of the deleted articles, as I can not, are commenting on the merits of the specific articles, rather than the general question of when administrators should ignore the recommendations of Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, which states 
So I excised the names.
Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concern about people using their own judgment rather than going by the speedy criteria, but how can we determine if we think the articles were speediable if we don't know which ones they were? delldot talk 22:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  excise -- see talk 

message: I have worked up a proposal for a redesign of the header section of WP:AN, which is currently extremely cluttered.  It's currently at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/newheader.  I'd welcome comments and criticisms on the talk page, particularly about the ToC and archive box, and possible colour-schemes.  Happy‑melon 14:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good in general, but I'm not sure about removing emphasis from the "this is not DR" parts— users have enough trouble understanding that as it is.  — Coren (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redesign of the top section 

message: Since AN and talk:AN are protected, I've created Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts as a place IPs can post concerns.  On an as-needed basis, can this be built into the header? MBisanz talk 03:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a decent idea to me, but I am not sure of the title. Perhaps 'new user reports'? SorryGuy  Talk  02:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was 1AM when I saw the post the page had been protected and created it on the fly.  Feel free to rename and reformat. MBisanz talk 02:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Why is it protected and how long is it going to last? 86.44.6.14 (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was vandalism and page blanking, it is now unprotected. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 08:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts is now full protected to prevent spurious vandalism and cross-postings.  Please unprotect if WP:AN is semi-protected in the future. MBisanz talk 08:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks guys. presumably wp:an/i can also be unprotected provisional to further malarky? 86.44.6.14 (talk) 08:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It would certainly seem to be sensible to firefight on only one front at a time. Sadly, this excludes sensible anon IPs but I can't see another way round the current situation. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected status 

message: I was advised that this is the place for making a case for unbanning editors.
I would like to request that User:Lir be unbanned (agan).
The user is required for participation in editing/authoring articles as part of Military History project Eastern Front revamp/expansion. 
While I appreciate the difficulties Lir has with Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia admins have with him, these issues seem to me to be quite separate from his ability to contribute to Wikipedia content.
Lir has expressed to me that he wants to contribute productively to the articles in question, and has demonstrated this ability, albeit his edits were undone by another editor based on the banning, and having foregone any discussion in talk. Given Lir's personality, and history, this seems to have been an expected result. I dare say that behaviour in administrative realm does not equal poor article content assumption.
My proposal (I'm aka mrg3105) is that Lir is unbanned on the basis that he limits his contributions to  project articles and lets bygones be bygones. All discussions should be limited to article talk pages. 
There is a lot of editing and authoring to do there, and I would ensure Lir has what to worry about as part of the team of editors and proposed project parameters and goals.
It seems to me that people like Lir need a bit of mentoring and understanding, and for lack of it they become perennial banned editors, literally since Lir is clearly not masochistic, but has been banned, and unbanned since 2002, including by Jimbo Wales. People with that much dedication, even if exhibiting a degree of self-destructiveness, should not be excluded from Wikipedia because, although seen in a negative "light", are also the best advocates of Wikipedia, and its best defenders. 
I do not think it will be productive to dwell on the past. I propose that Lir be brought back on a 6 months probation to allow him to demonstrate ability for editing without seeking administrative recourse. Is this acceptable?
Regards  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shattered Wikiglass (talk • contribs) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for unbanning 

message: Just a heads up, I have semi-protected WP:ANI due to vandalism. Sean William  @ 22:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jinx! GBT/C 22:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANI semi-protected 

message: OK, I had five edit conflicts just now trying to edit a section.  That's fucked up.  We need to do this up like the RfAs and AfDs, where each discussion goes on its own subpage, which is just transcluded onto the main page.  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love that idea... MBisanz talk 03:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That wouldn't fix anything; you'd still have the same EC in editing that specific section. btw. Coren had a BRFA up recently in relation to this, and nobody really cared. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the sake of numbers, imagine if we'd been doing that for the last 100 archives. I took a random sampling of about 12 and got an average of 55 sections. That'd translate to 5500 subpages. If we'd been doing that the whole time we'd have over 20000 subpages. That seems, unwieldy to me. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 04:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid it would break my computer to look, but given 100 AFDs per day, thats 30,000 AFD subpages per year I think.  And it would certainly help with section links disappearing as the page gets archived. MBisanz talk 06:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said before, I like being able to watchlist an entire noticeboard; having to watchlist every single section would just explode my watchlist to insane and unmanageable levels. Anyway, editing a section shouldn't cause an edit conflict with someone's editing another section, so as mentioned above, it wouldn't solve any problems. AFDs are different, from my perspective. The possible administrative results of an AFD are extremely narrow, so someone interested in what's getting deleted need only know what articles are up for it. And that's easily accomplished by watchlisting AFD/T, or just the articles one cares about. That's simply not possible with noticeboards, as there are no "this article/user is now being discussed at the <insert noticeboard name here>." Someguy1221 (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That too. ViridaeTalk 06:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid point.  Don't know how to fix that. MBisanz talk 06:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: We have that, albeit in infant form at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts.  And I'm sure 99% of IPs would just add a section, that then some nice auto-confirmed user would drop into a subpage. MBisanz talk 06:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I should point out that "a bot" can server the function of "some nice auto-confirmed user" for that task.  Funny enough, that's exactly what CorenANIBot was designed to do. :-)  — Coren (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Additionally, you'd have to ensure that each subpage got a unique name. So unless we're archiving by day or by month, it will get very confusing after awhile. Although, WP:AN/2008/03/Topic Title might not be too bad. ^demon[omg plz] 15:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's basically exactly what the bot does.  — Coren (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Would it help if the page was archived more often? Starting with threads marked as resolved perhaps? 52 Pickup (deal) 08:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If a thread is truly inactive, then it won't be contributing to the edit conflicts. And as mentioned before, even if it weren't, it would not contribute to edit conflicts in other sections. All that would accomplish is keeping down the average size of the board. The most annoying thing for me about edit conflicts is getting one because someone inserted a new section under the one I was editing without using the add section tab. But then, only the devs could alleviate that one. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah. Good point. (I'm not my brightest on Monday mornings...) That said, reducing the board size isn't such a bad thing either. 52 Pickup (deal) 08:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Indeed, I get that issue on this machine, even for being a fast machine (I think, it's an issue with Iceweasel... Anyhow, as coren mentioned above, there's a bot approval request up, for exactly this task. I know, when I edit conflict here or at ANI, it's a HUGE pain, to load the entire page, and re-figure out where I meant to put my comment. Of course, on some issues, it'll be big anyhow, but, maybe a lot less big... SQLQuery me! 11:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey, let's make this not suck 

message: I protected AN/I for 5 hours due to the recent edits, feel free to unprotect or extend if the need arises. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 07:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected [[WP:AN/I]] 

message: I didn't notice this earlier.  This did violate the rule on the Rudolph Valentino page.Kevin j (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Block Requested for Thegingerone, for violating the three-revert rule 

message: Can someone let me know on if any action be taken on an editor who is continuously sending me abusive emails? Help on this issue is appreciated. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 11:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: possibly. Is the user currently blocked? ViridaeTalk 12:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not any that am aware of. The user am talking about is User:Tayibe1948. Can I forward the emails I received to someone? Thanks Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 12:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abusive language through emails 

message: Can we please come to a consensus on how to close or resolve issues raised at AN and ANI?  Right now on ANI, I see several issues that are marked as resolved using a template (and many do not explain how the issue was resolved) and a few that are "archived" using some gaudy template that encloses the text in a colored box with warnings not to edit the content.  Is there a method to this madness that I am not seeing or understanding?  --ElKevbo (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are at least 2 versions of the resolved Check mark that are done on an admin preference basis.  And I think its the same way for the rest of the styles of resolving.  Could stand for standardization. MBisanz talk 08:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Though does every thread need a resolved tag with an explanation of why it is resolved, sometimes the thread is only two lines and does not need an explanation. I think the current system is just fine. Tiptoety talk 22:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Marking a thread as resolved will get it archived to the archive page more quickly since there is at least one bot (whether it's still in development or now active) that picks up on it. —Random832 (contribs) 14:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to close/resolve issues 

message: Because I see it as coming clean about the history, it matches my knowledge from extensive observation and personal conversation with the blocked Sarsaparilla, I am reverting the TW revert of his last IP edit to this report. I believe it really should be here for the record; it is civil and does not attack or blame anyone for his problems.--Abd (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your decision, but won't revert your undo. I've renamed this section to avoid any confusion about the events. The previous wording could have been taken to imply that my reversion earlier was vandalism. --Onorem♠Dil 17:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, no such implication was intended. It was a "vandalism revert," not a "vandalizing revert," but I do realize that someone could read it incorrectly. Your edit summary called Sarsaparilla's edit "vandalism," therefore your revert was a "vandalism revert." But, of course, your edited section header is totally appropriate. And thanks for leaving the material in place. Material submitted by blocked editors *may* be reverted on sight, but it is not *required* to do so, and the welfare of the project not only allows but also requires that we judge each situation on its merits. Your removal of the material was totally legitimate, and I believe that my restoral of it was likewise, on the grounds that what I know to be the honesty and clarity of it may be useful in the future, if and when these events are reviewed. I could have, instead, made a reference to history, but, for the convenience of the reader, I decided to bring the text back. Thanks again.--Abd (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think that's what you meant, but the wording left it up to interpretation. For what it's worth, my edit summary did not call his edit vandalism. --Onorem♠Dil 18:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacing banned users comments 

message: 68.191.179.217 is making vandalism in articles. A few users warned him but he simply doesn't care, he continues to vandalize. Just check his  talk page. I'll warn him, and if he vandalizes wikipedia again, he should get blocked. 
--Mr Alex (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism problem 

message: I would suggest putting this note higher on the page.  Today, I had to tell three different people that "he called me a name" is not a reason to immediately go to WP:AN asking for a block.  It is annoying how many messages here are like that (and really annoying is how much my talk page has become that).  Should we start closing the threads to make it clear that this is not the way to get results? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We should be directing editors to WP:WQA instead, then closing the threads. I gather that's what you had in mind --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that WQA is usually either moribund when it comes to answers or an exercise in tarring and feathering users. So I'd go with saying "get a thicker skin" and closing the threads. There may be a nicer way of saying this; alternatively, cruder ways of wording it are not unacceptable. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT the Wikipedia complaints department 

message: The page currently suggests that the noticeboard should not be used to report administrative backlogs: "To report administrative backlogs, add  to the backlogged page."
But I have to wonder ... how many people really check :Category:Administrative backlog? I've seen pages tagged with  remain in the category for weeks and some pages are virtually always tagged as being backlogged. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always found it useful to report onto the noticeboard itself if it's a very large backlog. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 18:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. Looking through some of the archives, I notice that the suggestion not to use WP:AN for backlog notices is ignored on numerous occasions. Ultimately, I suppose that this applies. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrative backlogs 

message: 82.58.65.162
account just opened. inserting linkspam
Mccready (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In future, this would be better reported here Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  82.58.65.162 

message: A group of new editors who seem to have found an agreement outside of WP (see talk page of that atricle) made big efforts to change the article of Dorje Shugden substentially without any discussion. Any request for discussion on the changes were neglected. Moreover verified passages were deleted and balanced views deleted and insertion from a anonymous website made. I like to ask you for your help by checking the subject, revert or a temporarily block of the article. I have sent all new editors welcomes and ask for collaboration but as you can see from the talk page they just ignore. Thank you very much, --Kt66 (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved your request to WP:ANI where it is supposed to be - this page is for discussing WP:AN rather than an issue itself.  It is at WP:ANI#Problems with a group of new editors - making substantial changes, deleting verified passages and inserting instead quotes from anonymous websites.  x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ANI is protected so only admins can edit it. useful. not. Mccready (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, it's only move-protected at the moment.    x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with a group of new editors - making substantial changes, deleting verified passages and inserting instead quotes from anonymous websites 

message: has already been warned on linkspam. is continuing eg at Breast Cancer. block suggested. I tried using the spam page as suggested but it's busy and I can't use itMccready (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're reported it to WT:WPSPAM so that should be alright.  But could you use WP:ANI instead of this page (which is a talk page) next time?  Thanks.  x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  119.63.129.28 

message: Can somebody find out which template has been tampered with, because the entire noticeboard appears to be broken, and it goes back through the last several revisions. Horologium (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Something very odd is going on... I think it might be deeper than a template stuff up... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AN/I and AN are both broken. Horologium (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks as though someone has changed the text to white, perhaps--notice that the "Until" in Until 1=2's sig shows up, as do some blue words.Gladys J Cortez 03:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fixed now, whatever it was. Horologium (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some sneaky vandalism on a template used in the header. Vandalism reverted, template protected, user blocked. Mr.Z-man 03:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken? 

message: Is violating a policy about content a conduct issue or a content issue? For example, is persistent violation of the no original research policy something to be reported here? Life.temp (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Violating a policy about content tends to be a editorial issue.  Only when the user throws a tantrum or is constantly incivil does it become behavioral. -Jéské  (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 01:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec)If repeated, it's conduct. You should give templated warnings from [] and then report to WP:AIV after the fourth. However, it's better to try and engage the editor in discussion on the article's talk page, if possible. --Rodhullandemu 01:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Surely persistent, repeated violations of policy are not allowed?  Civility is not the only operative policy.  If someone shows a repeated unwillingness to abide by core policies, why would we want them editing here? Dlabtot (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that there is no authoritative process for ruling on violations of content policy. When there is a conduct violation, it can be reported here, and an admin (possibly in collaboration) makes a ruling about whether a conduct policy has been violated. Then, takes action using the special admin tools. In contrast, no authority makes a ruling about whether the "no original research" policy has been violated, and then takes action. If the majority on an article want to violate content policies, Wikipedia seems to have no way of addressing the problem. This sort of thing happens frequently in some of the small culture war articles, where there may be only 3 editors. Life.temp (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not quite the same issue. It sounds like you've got editors forming a faux consensus to keep an article outside of Wikipedia policy norms. This sounds like conduct, it breaks conduct policies and it will be judged ultimately as a conduct issue. But it is actually a content problem. No, really. I know it sounds perverse, but you need to strip the entire issue back to the ultimate cause or ultimate problem. The problem in this hypothetical case isn't actually the editors' behaviour - that is just a symptom of a fault with the article. So you need to pursue the fault with the article. This is a slower, more painful process than expecting admins to act immediately. Instead, it requires time and effort. So people don't bother, then get offended at a lack of admin action. And then admins eventually step in when the conduct starts to spread outside of the walled garden it was in, the offending editors get blocked and the article(s) gets rewritten... making it seem like admins have acted in a content issue after all, just too late. So, no, admins aren't likely to step in if things are at the point you think they are. Make your stand thoughtfully, forcefully but politely on the talk page of the article. Wait for that not to work, then pursue dispute resolution, making your case thoughtfully, forcefully but politely. Let them move to attacking you and don't fight back. Keep calm and rise above them: you're setting them a trap; let them be the ones who spring it. Then, eventually, they will do something wrong conduct-wise. Then you can report that. Or they'll go quiet and you can rewrite the article without challenge. Or admins will step in, seemingly at random, and set things back on the right road - and not because they're admins, but because they're long-term editors who have been convinced of your case and will be acting (almost always without the tools) in the best interests of Wikipedia. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 20:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exactly What Is a Content Issue? 

message: "All patronising lolcats (etc) will be removed on sight" - any objections?  It's funny to whoever added it, but usually whoever makes a post to AN or ANI does feel seriously about their report, and for an admin to mock it with one of the stupid LOL SRSLY I IZ REPORTING TO FBI or something along those lines is patronising towards good faith users, and has no positive benefit on the discussion. Grow up, children. Neıl ☎ 00:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, lets remove all sense of humor from the Wikipedias. For the record, I don't appreciate you removing any edit I make to WP:AN/I because you don't like the substance of it.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't know. This page is long enough, do we really want to increase the size by adding images? Probably not a good idea. - jc37 00:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The page gets archived, whether it contains an image or not (size doesn't and shouldn't matter in this respect). I personally see nothing wrong with it. It lightens up the mood from time to time in heated conversations. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. If it were someone spamming pictures, that's disruptive. A single picture offering commentary relevant to the topic is perfectly acceptable. I'll note that we have humorous pictures on various policy pages as well, aka wikipe-tans everywhere, the trenton new jersey one on the NLT page, etc. Are those any less patronizing? Of course not, because there's nothing patronizing about any of the images in the first case.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Lightens the mood for who? Those using ANI for entertainment, or those who feel they have legitimate concerns? I don't see policy pages as a very good comparison. Pictures there aren't obviously targeted and dismissive. I don't think that there should be an outright ban on all lolcats, but the basic rules of civility should apply. --Onorem♠Dil 01:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also important not to bite the newbies. But I also agree that we shouldn't completely stop using them: where they're humorous in a non-rude way, they're fine (and even desirable as a way to lighten the place up from its usual doldrums of eternal drama). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lightens the mood for anyone getting heated I suppose. Don't take yourself too seriously and all that "nonsense" I think that matters. I don't like to see things turn into large disputes. Humor helps now and then. It acts as a gentle and sometimes subtle reminder. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think that page size is something to discount. Editors who edit through a dialup, or other not-so-fast ways, shouldn't be penalised because someone posted an image to this page. And AFAIK, the page is archived based on date, not size. - jc37 00:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Without commenting one way or the other, size considerations really seem ... moot. The admin noticeboards are already of such an obscene length that a few extra kb here or there just isn't going to matter. Vassyana (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)One of my typical mistakes as usual. But I don't think page size is something to worry about, since its always long to begin with. Dial up users can always start new sections and edit only sections per the usual. If they found that a noticeboard is too long, they can just single an admin out. Shorter conversations is a better way to save space if thats the only concern. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: AN/I is currently 563 KB of text.  That's a two-minute download on fast dialup. --Carnildo (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Oppose - ANI is full of depressing things and a humorous image might lighten the mood a bit - I posted Drama-icon.svg to summarise a small drama about FU images. And really, the size argument is moot - the pages are 250kb of wikicode already. Sceptre (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. You don't like lolcats. Since when does that allow you to remove my edits to a talk page, or to AN/I? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 09:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you not like these cats? Kudos for picking out cute ones. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: WP:RPA. A user receives a death threat, which clearly he takes seriously - even if you don't - and your response is to mock it. That's insulting to the user. I believe you're carrying on like this about the threat purely to make a point that you don't like the WP:TOV essay. Neıl ☎ 09:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd be wrong then. I don't care about TOV as an essay, so long as it's being properly represented as an essay and nothing more. As for personal attacks, I'm not attacking anybody personally. Which user is named in any of the images, hmm?⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 09:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By that argument, I could put a big flashing GIF that said "GREAT BIG IDIOT" at the top of a thread, but it would be okay because it didn't NAME the person who started the thread.  Neıl ☎ 09:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec)I agree with Neil on this, and would add it's hard to trust the judgement of any admin who pisses about with stupid images and comments. DuncanHill (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably hard to trust the judgment of anyone who makes comments like the above either. But to each their own, right? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 09:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see it as a moke. Its a thankful image. And can I ask that you guy stop reverting the image? That looks rather bad. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a "moke"?  What is a "thankful image"?  Who do you refer to when you say "you guy?".  Thanks. Neıl ☎ 09:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he meant "mock" (ery), I have no idea about thankful image, and you guy probably means "you guys". Incidentally, there's a response for you on my talk page Neil. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 09:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)You got me with little to no coffee. Thats "mock", an image thanking you for bringing it to ANI's attention, and "you guys" = Neil and Swat. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the translations.  I am done with edit-warring on the images - I have made my views known, I think it's unhelpful and childish to mock good faith complaints with lolcats (I notice someone on AN has now created one to mock the Arab-Israeli conflict), and someone else will, sooner or later, put an end to it. Neıl ☎ 10:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The lolcat to which you refer is not mocking the the Arab-Israeli conflict. Why on earth would you assert that it is when it so clearly is not? How much is your argument undermined by so doing? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lolcats are just humor, the main problem is WP:TOV being pushed out of proportion to the level of involving government agencies on obvious pranks, seriously this week somebody contacted the FBI when someone posted a dialogue line used in a movie, TOV should be used when viable such as in threats to schools or something plausible, calling the FBI on a Michigan "terrorist" was just paranoid. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  Also, new article needed at War on terros.  Can't believe it's a red link. --barneca (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lame :-) - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New rule request 

message: Right, I've been thinking about this and another solution came to me when I saw a page being moved on my watchlist.  When a page on a watchlist is moved, both the original location (now a redirect) and the new location are automatically on the watchlist.  If, therefore, once a day, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard was moved by a bot to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/2008-05-09 and the bot then included the last few days' pages to the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, that would fix the size problem while not creating issues with watchlists.
The only difficulty is with discussions that continue for a long time -- perhaps there could be a page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/On-going discussions that would be included above the dated ones.  Discussions that were still active when the archiving bot moved the page could be moved to there and then merged back into the dated page when the discussion was finished.
My only remaining concern is the possible divorce between diffs and the page content.
Thoughts?
Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There would be no problem with diffs and oldids: the link will still take you to the addition of the material, even if the page has been moved (try picking a random oldid, then changing the oldid number by one (keeping the page title the same).  You'll end up somewhere completley different). I'm not sure how this would affect the size of the AN page though. Happy‑melon 19:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The original point was that the page was too big to edit, not that it was too big to view.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then edit it section-wise. I also like the idea of having the bot archive  sections faster. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Another alternative solution

message: I've also noticed that when a page is moved, both the target and the original stay on my watchlist.
Some of the higher volume pages are moved by a bot on a (semi-)daily basis. (WP:SAND, for example.)
This page could be switched that plan.
It would be simple enough to have a bot move this page daily. That, and it would be an automatic archive, and the page history would then remain with those commenting.
No loss on the watchlist, and no loss of page history, and by moving, the page acts as the archive. (So no more needing to scan the archives looking for some thread for linking.)
Sounds like a "winner" to me.
Just prior to implementation, (for historical reasons), I would suggest moving this page to maintain it's long history, and once the ongoing discussions on the page have finished, treating it as an archive index page, with the archive box remaining. That way the page hostory stays intact, and a link to all the "old" archive pages stays intact. - jc37 19:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate idea 

message: Would it be worth removing the issue to a separate page? Agathoclea (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is 137kb so... . See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry. FunPika 17:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Betacommand and size 

message: Currently the noticeboard is at 416KB.  HappyMelon has tried to help in the past by early archiving and splitting threads, but it seems like this page is constantly above the 256KB goal.  Maybe a more aggressive archiving or splitting system (say once a thread reaches 25KB it's shunted to a Holding Pen or something similar) is needed. MBisanz talk 04:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check above. There was already discussion on this. I still feel something needs to be implemented, but this just hasn't gotten enough notice to be changed yet. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but I believe that we need to change the amount of time that MiszaBotII archives this page to something like 12 hours or 24 hours (and even then, it might still be too large.)  Cheers, Razorflame 20:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: Being the only regular administrator at 3RRN, it's very hard to enact blocks from old, untended-to reports. If I make a block to a user whom has broken 3RR but hasn't made a revert for a number of hours, then I run the risk of making the block punitive and not preventative. Administrators do not make punitive blocks, blocks/page protections are in place to prevent damage to our encyclopaedia.
I cannot, in my conscience, make a block 3-4 hours after a users last revert, it's unethical and totally punitive. I propose that a) more admins work on 3RRN regularly in order to process reports b) more non-admins work on 3RRN reports to quicken the process and c) we work on establishing a rough guideline (3 to 4 hours, in my opinion) on what is considered a "stale" report [where no action can be taken as it can be perceived as "punitive"]. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think, given that it actually takes quite a while merely to generate such a report, and that reverts in a 3rr violation can take place over four hours apart (indeed, they frequently do), that this places an undue burden on editors trying to prevent violations, and encourages edit-warring and system-gaming. IronDuke 21:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want something done, consider getting other admins to regularly keep an eye on this noticeboard. It's difficult coping with the stress of numerous people breathing down your neck for decisions you consider logical. Is 6 hours a better timeframe? If we agree on this, perhaps I can re-analyse those other posts? ScarianCall me Pat! 21:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's quite true that you're the only regular administrator there, Scarian. But I'll see if I can contribute there a bit more. At any rate, though, I think 3-4 hours is far to short a timeframe to consider an edit war stale. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I've generally used 24 hours as a stale timeframe. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I can see a time limit, but for a violation measured in days, the time limit should be somewhere around a day. Forcing users to generate the report and get it processed within 3 hours seems incredibly rushed.Kww (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Violations are measured in 24 hours! We don't block for 3RR violations made within 36 hours or 48... it has to stay within 30 tops... otherwise it just becomes too punitive. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: We should be able to find a middle ground. I think the main problem is that there simply aren't enough admins who regularly patrol the 3RR noticeboard. WP:SSP suffers from a similar problem. If we could get a few more admins at WP:AN3, we could ensure that blocks are not punitive by shortening the time limit to under a day. Enigma message 22:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that since the "rule" refers to the number of reversions within a 24-hour period, a report should only be marked as "stale" once 24 hours has passed since the last reversion in a report. If a shorter time limit is set, you could find yourself in a situation where warring editors will be able to watch for stale results and then begin warring again. On a related note; if there is a problem of a lack of administrators to monitor the noticeboard, it adds weight to the argument that the barrier to becoming an administrator should be lowered. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to take into account the need for escalating blocks. In cases where there have been multiple acts of edit warring that have resulted in earlier blocks, the length of a block is necessarily extended to discourage future edit warring. This discussion arose from a report about an editor who had already previously been blocked for edit warring, so a block of longer than 24 hours would probably have been appropriate. Since no block of any kind was enacted, the editor in question will probably edit war in the future. In fact, the previous report on this editor was also marked as stale, and so the editor came right back and edit warred again. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fovean Arthur hadn't been blocked before, but you are right to object in his case. Clearly an abusive editor and Scarian enacted a block. Enigma message 16:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I have to agree. As WP:BLOCK#Purpose and goals says, blocks "are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern." If an edit war is not ongoing, there is no current conduct issue of concern. That's not to say that there is no conduct issue of concern, but at that point it would be better dealt with by counselling the user rather than blocking. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stale time limit proposal 

message: As a lot of people probably noticed, someone messed with a template on WP:AIV. I'm not sure how to fix... Tan  |  39 14:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed I posted this to the AN talk page. What the heck was I thinking... anyways, someone figured out what I couldn't. Move along, nothing to see here. Tan  |  39 14:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIV