Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:57, 3 October 2006

Archives
December 2004 December 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – February 2006 March 2006 – July 2006

EssjayBot II

Per the discussion at BRFA, EssjayBot II is taking over the archiving of ANI; the short version is that Werdnabot is both currently unsupervised and having difficulty with sections that have === subsections. EssjayBot II will archive the page each day at 0:05 UTC (a lot of other bots run on the hour, so this will be nice and offset), and will archive any thread where the latest timestamp is more than 24 hours old. It looks at sections as a whole, so sections with === subsections won't be separated, and == sections will stay on the page until the === sections grow old enough for archival. For those who are concerned, the feeling was that 24 hours was long enough, as the one-archiving-per-day would prevent most from being archived at exactly 24 hours since the last comment. Additionally, the archive number will be automatically increased each Sunday and Wednesday, to keep archive sizes at bay; if this needs to be adjusted, it can be. Comments, concerns, and stabbings should be directed to User talk:Essjay, please. A first-run will be conducted momentarily. Essjay (Talk) 10:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, good to have an archivebot —Minun 15:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the right process for bringing things back when that makes sense? Should they be placed back on the page at the bottom, and deleted from the archive, or just placed back? or should we never do that but always start a new thread and give a link into the archive? ++Lar: t/c 15:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim Shapiro

It looks like almost half of this noticeboard is filled with the case of this Jim Shapiro article. Is it possible to move it to a separate subpage to prevent clogging? abakharev 23:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Template

Does anyone mind if I remove the advice on the template to add "reported by" and "result"? Reporting 3RR is already cumbersome and this just means more for people to type. SlimVirgin 20:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As I've had no response, I'm going to remove it, as it seems unnecessary. SlimVirgin 01:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

How does it give anyone more to type as it's in the template automatically? I don't think having the user in the header is absolutely necessary but I don't follow your reason for removing it. Having the result in the header may be useful by making it easier to spot complaints that have been overlooked so I think it should remain. Fluffy the Cotton Fish 04:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about it being in the template automatically. We now have to type who has made the report and the result. We didn't used to. So now there's more to type, and there was already a lot. Hence my desire to trim it back. SlimVirgin 05:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring eeping the AN readable

WP:AN and WP:AN/I are often difficult to read through due to the massive amounts of comments, many of which pertain to issues that aren't appropriate for either. Has anyone considered allowing for admins to refactor both, in a limited capacity, to improve readability? I don't have in mind any huge revisions, just moving misplaced comments to the appropriate areas when necessary. For example, if someone adds a note that a user is engaging in simple vandalism — which would be better listed at WP:AIV or elsewhere — then an admin can move the comment to the appropriate location and remove the section from the noticeboard.

It probably wouldn't result in a huge change, but it'd help — the noticeboards are such a free-for-all that any measure cleaning things up would make a difference. Tijuana Brass 01:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

New incidents added at the top or at the bottom?

Unless I missed it (entirely possible!), the instructions at the top of the project page don't specify whether you'd like new incidents added at the top or at the bottom of the existing list. If this really isn't specified, can you (all) take a decision and edit the instructions portion of the project page?

Atlant 18:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good question, Atlant. As a matter of general practice, I would say that new subjects would go on the bottom of the page. Mostly, this is because the tab at the top of the page ("Start a new discussion") will automatically append the new subject at the bottom. This would also mirror generally-accepted practice on talk and discussion pages as well. -- ShinmaWa 20:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.

Atlant 00:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Change in template to WP:ANI page?

At the top of WP:ANI (and I believe other similar pages as well), there is a "see also" list of pages to refer to as potential alternatives to reporting matters at ANI. The first of these is Misplaced Pages:Policy_enforcement, which is described as "record user suspensions here." However, the Policy Enforcement page itself redirects to Misplaced Pages:Account suspensions, and that page says that it "is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical purposes," and the content is months out of date. Should the cross-reference be deleted (or at least made significantly less prominent) here and on the other AN pages? Newyorkbrad 01:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just posting again because no one's noticed this comment yet. I will flip a coin to decide whether to be WP:BOLD and fix it myself, or figure if no Admin cares it's not worth worry about. Newyorkbrad 15:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR Noticeboard Format

I'm wondering why the Example is both at the top and bottom of the page but more importantly, nowhere on the page does it tell you to put new reports at the top or the bottom specifically. Right now they are going both place and its really confusing. Could someone fix this? pschemp | talk 14:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the second such question in a week. The instructions say the template is on the bottom of the page and to place new entries on the bottom, but those instructions are admittedly unclear. I'm going to be bold and do the following to try to ease the confusion:

1. I'm going to remove the example from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader, leaving the one on the bottom of the page.
2. Clarify the instructions a bit in the header to point to the right example.

I'm not an admin, but I was in the neighborhood. Hope this helps. -- ShinmaWa 19:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Much better. pschemp | talk 02:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Was

Was this appropriate? WAS 4.250 14:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The original comment would have been better on WP:ANI. The Land 15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Make clearer that posts removed after 24 hours

I have posted here a few times, and I'm always annoyed when I come back and find that a post has been archived after 24 hours even when there has been no response. At the very least, it would be courteous to make clear at the top of the page that threads are likely to be removed after 24 hours even if there has been no response. I know that this is a very busy area, and that admins are overloaded, but there is a vicious circle operating here where failure to do things properly and courteously can increase overall workload later on when problems resurface. The particular case can be seen here. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Let me guess. The Noticeboard has so much traffic that the talk page gets ignored? (No, I don't mean this seriously, just commenting while I patiently wait). Carcharoth 00:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, it doesn't just have to be seen: it has to be seen by someone who knows the answer. I suggest contacting the individuals you were discussing this with and seeing if one of them knows. - Jmabel | Talk 05:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I've done that. Do you have any opinion on/solution to the general frustration encountered by those who don't realise straight away that their posts to the administrator's noticeboard will be removed to an archive after 24 hours? Carcharoth 09:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. This is probably the single most likely way to get an admin's attention, but in general once you've done that, it's best to move the matter elsewhere. If you propose where else to move it, yourself, you won't be at a loss as to where it was moved. - Jmabel | Talk 01:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

archiving

the archives are piling up, is there any point in this? I mean, do we need to copy-paste stuff to archive pages nobody is going to read? We could just maintain a list of links to permanent versions of this page ("archive X" would be a link to the version of the page just before it was blanked and began filling up with what is to become "archive X+1"). Since archives are static anyway I don't quite see the reason to keep them around as live pages. dab (ᛏ) 19:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Archives are used much more often than you seem to think. Archiving by permanent links is quite uncommon and there are problems with that method. —Centrx→talk • 20:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also easier to link to the specific discussion in an archive than to the page history. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

alright, but what problems? I took to archiving my talkpage with permalinks recently, was that a stupid idea? I can link to individual topics with no problem, in any case. dab (ᛏ) 13:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)