Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:10, 8 January 2005

Note: The talk page should only be used for discussion about the way the noticeboard operates: what is appropriate to put on it, how to make people aware of it, who can post and why, etc. All general admin talk should go the main page. Thanks :-)

Letting other admins know about this board

What's the best way of doing this? I can't send another message to all admins, because that will be seen as spam. So how do we let older admins know about this board? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Post about it on other pages in the Misplaced Pages: and Misplaced Pages talk: namespaces, and you can let some of your admin friends know on their talk pages, because if they're your friends they probably won't get mad. Feel free to tell me about it on my talk page! even though I already know, since I'm here.... Andre (talk) 05:58, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

I've done this... :P I've posted about this board on a few notices. We might want to let all new admins know about it. Sorry to all older admins who discover this later that you didn't get messaged by me as I'm not allowed to do this. Clearly. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You've advertised on the Village Pump. Anyone who might be interested has seen it.-gadfium (talk) 07:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not necessarily true. Had I not known about it already, I wouldn't know about it from the Village Pump because I don't check the Village Pump. I assume at least some others are the same. Andre (talk) 07:12, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. I didn't find out about this on WP:VP, or the mailing list, or any of the usual ways, because I don't have the time to keep up with those. I happened to read about it on someone's talk page when I went to post a reply on another matter. Noel (talk) 12:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I rarely also check the VP because the page is just too large. I think other admins will feel the same way. Anyway, I've added to a few other places and told a few people who I don't think would mind if I messaged them. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Having this board is a good idea. -- Infrogmation 08:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<AOL>Me too!</AOL> Noel (talk) 12:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How about popping it in your signature for a few days? --] 10:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edits to Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators alerted me to this page. Doesn't every administrator have that in their watchlist? How else would you know what you are suppose to be doing? 8-P --ssd 13:53, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Erm, I've never seen this page! Mark Richards 21:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suppose that as issues come up, admins will just get directed here. For example, I contacted TBSDY about an admin related issue and he directed me here. Most admins have 10 or so odd other admins that they ask for advice on tricky issues right now, so if everyone here just starts redirecting those advice questions to this board, the word of mouth should spread pretty quickly. I think it's a great idea, in the past when i had questions i would just pick a few names off the admin list and copy and paste questions on all of their talk pages. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:59, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Redirect gone on talk page?

Hey, why did this get removed? Most noticeboards have redirected the talk page to the normal page... after all a noticeboard is a page that's ONLY a discussion page! Unless we're going to discuss our discussions :-) can we put the redirect back again? Ta bu shi da yu 09:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've put it back. Our talk is already fragmenting! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As it should, IMO. The chatter should go on talk. -- Infrogmation 19:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Purpose

I'm curious what the purpose is of this board, is it merely for admins to facilitate in inter-admin communcation, or also for regular users who require assistance of some random admin? -- ] 11:21, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

I intend it for admins to talk about admin related things. Wikipedians already have Misplaced Pages:Requests for sysop attention. I've created it because there is a need for admins to communicate with one another and I have not been able to communicate things by messaging all admins. Apart from it being totally impractical to ask these things in general (we have to use the mailing list, and IMO these things should be left for Misplaced Pages), it's frowned upon to message all admins anyway when asking for help. Little admin "cliques" are formed of admins who know one another and communicate things, so different ideas on adminship are thought out. This board gives us a forum to talk about admin related tasks and issues, that way we can see what's going on and communicate thoughts on a pretty tough job. I don't mind normal users talking on the board though. We Are Not An Elite Club (aka We Are Not A Cabal). - Ta bu shi da yu 11:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There already seems to be a tendency to use this board chiefly for complaints and that does not seeem right. We have Requests for sysop attention/commment/arbitration/mediation/whatnot. Can we please agree to keep complaints about individuals or their actions out of this place. Thank you. Kosebamse 21:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you're referring to the discussion about Sam Spade, I'd like to point out that I posted that to get some feedback from fellow-admins before performing a block. It wasn't meant to be a complaint. ] 21:27, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Spamming all admins

Well, shooting for the whole admin list feels pretty spammy to me too, tho i question a block as response. But the notice bd is a good plan; i've gotta add that to my bookmarks. --Jerzy(t) 07:20, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Regarding your mass admin message on the matter, I'm not really sure why people are so upset about it, but I do think there are more efficient ways to contact all the admins. Maybe we need an Admin village pump. What really surprises me is that you had the patience to go through and paste the same message on 200-odd talk pages. My slack drive would kick in around the 20th. :) Andre (talk) 04:49, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

He blocked you? That makes an astounding amount of nonsense. I don't think it's worth getting upset about, though. I see you took my idle advice (or maybe someone else mentioned it as well) and made an admin notice board - good work! Andre (talk) 05:56, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Archiving RfC-VfD discussion

When the discussion below subsides, please do archivt it all to make this page a reasonable size again... Noel (talk) 12:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, sounds like a plan :-) Ta bu shi da yu 12:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page

I think you should advertise this page everywhere, making it clear that while it is mainly for admins, anyone can edit it. Let's not feed the cabal theorists. Filiocht 12:17, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I agree :-) I've updated the top of the page to try to reflect what's its all about. Where else can we advertise it? Can someone post to the mailing list? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we should "spam" all the admins on their talk pages? I never even knew about this page until Sam Spade directed me to it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:51, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO! See the "Spam" header further up the page. This page got created precisely because of a spam to all admins. Although in this case, it might be OK. (Everyone who's already posted here should be avoided, of course...) Noel (talk) 20:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Talk and main page

I would like the distinction between this page and the talk page restored, rather than having the talk page be a redirect to this page. IMO the page would be, well, notices about things of interest or importance to admins. The talk would be for discussion about the nature of the page, what goes on it, how to promote it, etc. (This discussion should go on talk.) -- Infrogmation 19:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, done. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The name

Shouldn't this be Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard, in the sense of a noticeboard for administrators? ] 03:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Technically you're right; not sure if it's worth changing it now. Noel (talk) 17:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done it & fixed double redirects. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are people finding this useful?

So far, it seems to me like one additional, duller, area of the Village Pump. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:07, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Which is exactly what some of us want! I don't monitor VP because it's too big (and therefore takes too long to load), there's way too much going on for me to possible keep up (I do so much janitor stuff it's already having a serious impact on my ability to write content), etc. I want a place where I can stay in touch with the community on the most important issues, without having to spend a lot of time/energy on it. Noel (talk) 12:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just so. The Pump is entirely unmanageable now. Filiocht 14:36, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Dittoed. Just like VfD, the pump isn't scaling. I stick to the community portal and mailing lists for important news. Johnleemk | Talk 15:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, this page is quite useful. ] 17:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a bit early to say. A lot of people still have to find their way here. But I'm pretty sure most will find a central place to contact admins very useful. It's much better than picking one from the list and hoping they're online. I say we leave the link where appropriate like talk pages of people who misplaced requests to admins and such. ] 08:31, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

• (raising hand) I fiind it useful. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Question: if people used the noticeboard to tell you they didn't find the noticeboard useful, would they be lying? --] 17:34, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I only found this page yesterday. I don't know if it's useful yet. I, personally, would have appreciated a talk page notification. Maybe if we don't want to spam, a good way would be to ask, at the top of the main page, that every administrator here personally contact one other administrator who doesn't appear to have been here? (I guess that might look like soliciting spam, though.) -] 19:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I think everyone has been wary of telling multiple people things on their talk pages things after TBSDY spammed all the admins on another issue and got blocked, thus the creation of this page. Hopefully all the admins will find it eventually. I find it useful. Andre (talk) 22:48, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

I find it moderately useful, and feel it will become more useful as time goes on. Jayjg 23:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• First let me say I am *not* an admin. However, I would like to submit something for your consideration. It seems to me that Discussions about most issues could be kept on other pages, and this page could be used more for Pointers to those discussions; this would avoid redundant pages and make this page easier for admins to monitor. For instance, a discussion about double-blocking could be held at Misplaced Pages Talk:Blocking policy, with a note here like "Please see my question at Misplaced Pages Talk:Blocking policy about checking IPs before blocking, to avoid double-blocking. ~~~~" The Talk: page already fills the need for a place to discuss the issue; this page would fill the need to get attention of more admins, which is what prompted Ta bu to create this page in the first place. The way this is being used so far, I can see two things happening. First, we will have "also see the discussion at WP:AN/archive576" notes all over the Talk: pages, and discussions will be split between the Talk: page and here, making them harder to follow. Second, WP:AN will be so large and busy that many admins won't bother watching it. Reserve this page for short Pointers, and you keep the actual discussions unsplintered where they belong, while having an efficient place to get the attention of many admins at once. I suspect more admins would watch/monitor this page if it were used for short occassional pointers to other places, than the number that will watch/monitor the page if it is used for lengthy discussions changing many times a day. Put one more way: this page was created to get admins' attention; keep using it for exactly that, getting attention, then redirect the actual discussion to the Talk: page it would have been on anyway. Just my $0.02 worth. Charm ©† 06:44, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

this is insightful. We need to avoid spreading discussion of one topic over several pages. dab (ᛏ) 10:37, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, this is a very good point. I'll add a note to this effect to the head of the page (after my kids open their Christman presents :-). Noel (talk) 12:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Er, do note that there are some cases where there are no places to offload discussion. For example, some people may want to request specific assistance from an administrator. Johnleemk | Talk 13:23, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To request specific assistance from an administrator, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for sysop attention. To request assistance from a specific administrator, see ]. Maybe discussion of User:Sam Spade's 12-15-2004 blocking could have been off-loaded to User Talk:Sam Spade or User Talk:MacGyverMagic; maybe not. I'm willing to concede that WP:AN may turn out to be the best place to hold certain discussions; however, I think most discussions are better off held somewhere else, and announced here. Another thought: a discussion that is being held on WP:AN, which becomes lengthy, might be moved to WP:AN/Discussion_Title. Charm ©† 20:39, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I found this page very useful in co-ordinating response to my unfortunate block. Without such a discusion forum I'm not sure that things would have gone as well as they did. Sam Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 13:59, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Archiving guidelines

Hi, can I get some feedback on how quickly to archive stuff on the main page here? (I think I've been doing OK so far, 'cause nobody's complained, but it would be nice to get something down so I don't have to rely totally on gut.)

In general my policy has been to try and keep stuff on the main page as long as possible, modulo keeping that page reasonably sized. (I.e. I don't move stuff off unless I need to, to bring the size down - better to leave it there in case someone happens by some days later and wants to add a comment.)

My sense is that with questions about specific pages/people, it's OK to archive them as soon as the situation appears to have been resolved, plus a few days grace (2-4). My reasoning here is that there's usually not a lot of policy lessons to be drawn, it's usually just very specific questions ("is anon a.b.c.d really a vandal"). If it's a question about abuse of admin powers, I leave them longer (a full week after the last comment), so as to avoid the appearance of trying to sweep evidence of admin power abuse under the rug before people can see it.

With the "here's something the community might need to know about" (e.g. the request for input on the Wiktionary link thing), I try to leave those as long as possible (modulo size) to give them as wide a visibility as possible. Eventually they are kind of stale, so after a couple of weeks I would move them out.

The general policy questions I try and leave the longest, because those seem to be the things where people seem to come by and add a comment, even after a considerable time has passed.

Does this all sound OK? Do people have recommendations for changes? Noel (talk) 00:37, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I wouldn't change anything in that policy unless people started complaining. Mgm|

All, sorry to be archiving stuff fairly aggressively, but the page is growing quickly, and I'm trying to keep the size down. Noel (talk) 04:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would welcome even more aggressive archiving. I would very much like this page page to remain manageable. dab (ᛏ) 12:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. Especially the incidents stuff, most of that can go after 24 hours. --fvw* 13:44, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

OK, I will step it up a tiny bit to try and keep the page size down. Incident reports that don't get any discussion will go after a day or so. Noel (talk) 15:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)