Misplaced Pages

talk:Administrators' noticeboard - 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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tikiwont (talk | contribs) at 14:29, 22 April 2008 (→ANI fuels drama: Had similar thoughts to Jehochmann, how about {{adminhelp}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:29, 22 April 2008 by Tikiwont (talk | contribs) (→ANI fuels drama: Had similar thoughts to Jehochmann, how about {{adminhelp}})(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Shortcut
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.

Archives

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

NOT the Misplaced Pages complaints department

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)

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)
Agreed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
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)

Administrative backlogs

The page currently suggests that the noticeboard should not be used to report administrative backlogs: "To report administrative backlogs, add {{adminbacklog}} to the backlogged page."

But I have to wonder ... how many people really check Category:Administrative backlog? I've seen pages tagged with {{adminbacklog}} remain in the category for weeks and some pages are virtually always tagged as being backlogged. Black Falcon 18:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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)
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 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI fuels drama

ANI fuels drama by providing a large crowd to leer and jeer at the daily drama. I think Misplaced Pages would be better off if we got rid of this page entirely, and instead encouraged people to go to a specific venue for solving their problems. WP:EAR and WP:WQA are two good places for a lot of ANI stuff to go. The advantage of other noticeboards is that the crowd is smaller so there is less incentive for grandstanding, and the people who frequent the boards have consider experience handling specific types of issues. Jehochman 01:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How would you make sure that anyone reads those boards? I tend to report Soccermeko's resurrections there, instead of through sockpuppet channels, simply because if I report it there it gets dealt with in an hour or so, and if I report it other places, I wind up battling the socks for days. I'm sure other users post their issues here for similar reasons.Kww (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I block large numbers of sock puppets at WP:SSP. The ratio of effective work to time-wasting drama is much better at places like WP:SSP and WP:COIN (where I spent a lot of time before becoming an admin). If people are lost, they can go to WP:EAR and get advice how to solve their problem. This board, WP:ANI, tends to make matters worse not better. Jehochman 01:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeat after me: AN/I doesn't fuel drama, people fuel drama... — CharlotteWebb 02:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Drama requires a stage, and a big audience. If we break things up into smaller stages and smaller audiences, there will be less drama and more work. Jehochman
Quite the contrary; I've seen lots of drama that provides its own stage, and doesn't give a damn about the size of the audience. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The drama isn't the problem. The problem is what causes the drama, and that won't go away if we take away the outlet. The drama will just spill into other places, where it can actually do more damage. WP:ANI actually does a good job limiting drama because it's so high-traffic, so while some issues do create a big fuss, a lot of others get a little attention and then die, as they should. Mangojuice 14:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll freely admit that I, at least, read WP:ANI for daily entertainment, but I do also attempt to make useful contributions to things there that catch my interest. Jtrainor (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI unfortunately is one of the aspects of Misplaced Pages that has not scaled well. It is likely to only get more chaotic as the community grows, if the current structure is retained. 129.174.91.115 (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Any process that uses people will result in drama. If we get rid of the board the drama will just move to somewhere else. (1 == 2) 22:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, probably stirred by you 1 == 2 on IRC. Giano (talk)
I choose not to be baited, thank you. (1 == 2) 22:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Correct. You prefer to do the baiting. SashaNein (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I also choose not to be baited by you either, whoever you are. (1 == 2) 13:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Having ANI makes it easier for some new users to get attention quickly if they need it. If we make them hunt for the content specific noticeboard that they want, it will probably cause frustration. Frankly, I don't mind the drama here - I tend to ignore it, if it's not a topic I'm particularly interested in. - Philippe 22:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had thoughts similar to Jehochmann, that we might be better of without ANI. It is ill-defined (what exactly is an incident?), it doesn't scale, doesn't have the features of a good trouble ticket system, and once archived you don't find threads easily. Most importantly, it is centralized and attracts crowds. Once you post there, you can get either a swift response or literally anything else might happen. The problem of alternatives remains. Possible answer: Promote and refine the more specific boards and add something decentralized such as {{adminhelp}} in the line of the {{help}} one. Probably we still need one cathh-all board. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The massive AN/I page

As I've been perusing ANI a lot recently, I've almost immediately started to wonder why it is not setup more like AfD, with every reported incident getting it's own space. I imagine though this may have been discussed a lot in the past. Could anyone point me in the right direction for an old discussion on this topic so I can see editor's thoughts/consensus? Thanks Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This was tried not too long ago, as I recall, and it was a failure. Problem is that nobody sees the discussions on their watchlists. I don't want to speak for everyone, but I know that for myself, it's much easier to have it centralized on one page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Why couldn't people see the discussion's on their watch lists (like we can for AfDs)? I personally have a huge problem with loading up to the bottom of the RfA page. Do you have links to discussion over this? This is mostly a curiousity thing, I'm not really bringing it up for consideration again. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it was tried, it was proposed and Coren set up a bot that could operate it. The problem was, indeed, that folks wanted each post on each subject to show up on a watchlist without having to watch subpages individually. Avruch 19:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's what happened. Ultimately, no consensus to make the change; almost all the opposition was based on this issue. I'll try to dig up a link in the archives to the discussion. --barneca (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
. --barneca (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Ahhhh, thank you much. If I believed in the barnstar nonsense I would probably give you one. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I accept, with thanks, my invisible pink barnstar. --barneca (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm exceedingly curious why it would be pink....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it kind of spoils the joke, but see: Invisible pink unicorn. --barneca (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Spoiled the joke. I hate myself when someone has to explain a joke to me. Lo siento. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

NO no a millions times no. Having them on subpages would blow out my watchlist so fast its not funny. It would also reduce notification of new topics you might be interested in (because they are only seen in the watchlist of the main page once, after which you have to have the subpage on the watchlist). Viridae 03:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

We could arrange parallel processing. Editors with usernames A-L would post at WP:ANI1 and M - Z could start threads at WP:ANI2. The advantage of this approach is that it is scalable. We can have as many noticeboards as we need to keep the page length within reason. Jehochman 04:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Or, sections larger than 30KB (or similar) could be branched into a /subpage. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just an idea I have had; any ANI section still active after 36-48 hours after first post is automatically collapsed. Most, if not all, of the parties active in the discussion will be aware of the details - anyone else will have to go by the general heading (and digest in the collapse field?) All recent stuff will be in full view of the passing audience. I suggest a 36-48 hours, as to allow all the different time zones and editing times of day for editors to get maximum exposure. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • That sounds reasonable, although I wouldn't see the need for collapsing if it makes no difference to loading - there will be the menu at the top of the page top for navigation. If you want to work up a wording for a proposal at the appropriate venue I will certainly second the suggestion. I think the time limit needs to be agreed, but certainly no longer than 48 and no less than 24 should be the area. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • (You can tell that I am not the most technically adept...) Will the transcluded older topics still be logged in the page menu, or will the menu simply list the transcluded page, or would it be similar to the way the RfA mainpage lists the transcluded RfA pages? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Problems with a group of new editors - making substantial changes, deleting verified passages and inserting instead quotes from anonymous websites

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)

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)