Misplaced Pages

talk:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:57, 28 October 2009 view sourceRyulong (talk | contribs)218,132 edits →ANI sidebar: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 10:14, 4 November 2009 view source Jehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,283 edits →ANI is overburdened, Proposal for ANS: new sectionNext edit →
Line 76: Line 76:


Why is the sidebar in the edit window for ANI below the editing interface?—] (]) 05:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Why is the sidebar in the edit window for ANI below the editing interface?—] (]) 05:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

== ANI is overburdened, Proposal for ANS ==

I am concerned that things move too quickly on ANI for it to be of use in discussing community sanctions. How would people feel about splitting out a board for discussion of community-based sanctions (bans, topic bans, restrictions). The proposed ] could do the following:
# Relieve some of the pressure on ANI caused by long threads. The page is frequently more than 500k, which severely damages usability for people on slow connections.
# Allow discussions to continue for several days before archiving.
# Allow structured discussions, such as we have on ], where each discussion has separate areas for involved and uninvolved editors, and a conclusion by a closing administrator. This would make it much easier to assess consensus.
Thoughts? ] <sup>]</sup> 10:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:14, 4 November 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrators' noticeboard page.
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 14 days 

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

This page is for discussion of the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard page itself.

Archiving icon
Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

User:27 Juni

Moved to WP:ANI#User:27 Juni. If ANI stays semi-protected, feel free to comment here and I'll check in from time to time to transfer comments there, but the talk page isn't watched much, and I think you're not going to get much of a response here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that ANI was just barely unprotected... Until It Sleeps 15:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Help please

Resolved
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppet_accusations - two users seem intent on belabouring a thread to make a WP:Point. Despite numerous requests to show an actual, and actionable, problem exists they seem intent to simply allege issues without merit. This, unfortunately is not the first time DC has done this to other editors although I have no evidence they are actually working in concert with Cameron Scott. Could some uninvolved folks have a read and see if this could be closed? To me this seems only an exercise to publicly flog and is both unneeded and unhelpful. -- Banjeboi 03:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at the slander in this in regards to me. - this is not the first time they have done this to other editors please be specific, *which* other editors are you referring to? Where? when? You can't name any, because you've just made it up! I have no evidence they are actually working in concert. which is an attempt by you to try and suggest (once again with no evidence) there the CIA, wikipedia review whoever are pulling my strings. Again, let's see the evidence, evidence you can't produce because it's in your head. Piss in the pot or get off it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, you feel maligned because you think another editor has accused you of something unjustly. That seems to be exactly the issue with your and DC's behaviours in the thread that I am seeking other eyes on. I have amended the statement to more accurately reflect what I meant. You would do good to follow your own advice in this situation. -- Banjeboi 11:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I thank you for making sure that your statement is now factual (although I know very little about DC's conduct with other editors so make no affirmative statements either way in regards to that). --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem. In the thread itself another editor has outlined some issues with DC's past actions. -- Banjeboi 12:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think David Shankbone's comment is terribly relevant or accurate, but it must be gratifying to have a renowned editor like David Shankbone speaking up for your best interests. This is already at ANI, why is there a separate thread opened here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A simpler format?

There ought to be a simpler way to organize AN and ANI. Currently, linking to discussion on AN/ANI is a mess and you have to search the archives. Perhaps the WP:AFD format could be used here, where each ANI discussion takes place within its own template, and those templates are displayed on the AN/ANI pages. Then, when it is archived, the template's link is still good, because it points to the template, not the entire AN/ANI page. This is just a suggestion to get the ball rolling.--Blargh29 (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I think that is a damn good idea. It would also cut down on the annoying problem of getting in an edit conflict and suddenly having all of ANI in your edit window. That drives me friggin crazy. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The idea has been suggested and discarded several times in the past. But LiquidThreads will take care of the problem, hopefully soon. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive Issues?

Is it just me (and my work computer acting up) or are some of the recently-archived threads going missing. I had a request on my talkpage to find one for someone, and it shows up in searches, but the links don't work. Again, it may be a temporary 1-of situation ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Anietor

Catholic Church has been in active discussion (let us say) for some time now, about issues that appear both in the header and in the first section. Anietor has been reverting for some time, to suppress an effort to tag the section either in general or in particular; in fact, he has made no other edits. He has argued that it requires consensus to add tags, which seems to me, and to others, to be nonsense. Please have a word with him; diffs follow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

8http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_Church&diff=322225119&oldid=322223907 22:22]

Did you mean to post this somewhere else? This is the Talk page for Administrators' noticeboard. You might try Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it will be going to ANI shortly. Considering how long the diffs have taken, this is just as well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI sidebar

Why is the sidebar in the edit window for ANI below the editing interface?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI is overburdened, Proposal for ANS

I am concerned that things move too quickly on ANI for it to be of use in discussing community sanctions. How would people feel about splitting out a board for discussion of community-based sanctions (bans, topic bans, restrictions). The proposed Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Sanctions could do the following:

  1. Relieve some of the pressure on ANI caused by long threads. The page is frequently more than 500k, which severely damages usability for people on slow connections.
  2. Allow discussions to continue for several days before archiving.
  3. Allow structured discussions, such as we have on WP:AE, where each discussion has separate areas for involved and uninvolved editors, and a conclusion by a closing administrator. This would make it much easier to assess consensus.

Thoughts? Jehochman 10:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)