| Revision as of 22:38, 4 June 2010 view sourceGoodDay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers496,397 edits →It's there, then it aint← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:39, 4 June 2010 view source TreasuryTag (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users46,645 edits →It's there, then it aint: ) See? You can be constructive if you try :Next edit → | ||
| Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
| :The report-in-question shouldn't have been deleted by the subject of the report. ] (]) 22:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) | :The report-in-question shouldn't have been deleted by the subject of the report. ] (]) 22:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::I concur. <font color="#7026DF">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 22:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:39, 4 June 2010
| 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.
|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Is it possible to create links to specific ANI discussion that persist after archiving?
Apologies if this is discussed elsewhere, but is there any way to create links to particular discussions on WP:ANI (without using permalinks) which would still point to the right place after the discussion has been archived? Is there perhaps a template that handles this?
What I mean to say, suppose I want to link to a particular discussion on ANI, e.g. ]. I don't want to use permalinks as I expect that other people will add to the discussion. Soon however that topic will be (automatically) archived, so is there a way to ensure that the link points to the correct discussion in the correct archive? 80.135.11.248 (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think it's possible, but maybe someone will be able to come along and correct me. Best I could suggest would be that you type the section title (assuming that it's a useful title instead of generic, otherwise use a sentence from the section that's unlikely to be common in multiple discussions) into the search box at the top of the noticeboard, and use the address of the results page as your link. It'll be a two click process to get to the discussion, but you should be able to find it fairly quickly whether it's been archived or not. --Onorem♠Dil 23:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say it is possible. You just need to locate the discussion in archive. For example here's the link to one of January discussion. Please ask me, if you need more help.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I realize that once I've located the discussion in the archives, I can link to it. What I meant was to find out if there was a way to link to a discussion currently live on ANI in such a way that the link would not go stale once the discussion is archived. Apparently there is no way to do it, for technical reasons. 80.135.22.44 (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is currently no way to do so. We'll have to wait for Liquid Threads extension to be enabled on the English wiki, which is supposed to allow for this. Abecedare (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- If I were you, 80.135.22.44, I would have linked to the current discussion now, and then change the link, when the duscussion is archived :) --Mbz1 (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that's always an option, but I was wondering whether there was some automatic way to do it. In fact I was thinking whether there was some template, something that the archiving bot would recognize and handle automatically... Maybe that's a good idea to raise at WP:VPT. 80.135.12.144 (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Just FYI, in the sidebar there is a "Permanent link" link, which will link to a revision. . However, as that is a revision, if the discussion isn't complete, it won't show any updates to it. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 22:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- The user did ask for a solution without using permalinks :D. I think Cluebot does/did fix links to sections it archives, or something along those lines, obviously AN/I is currently handled by MiszaBot - Kingpin (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, my bad... I guess that's what happens when I try to edit and watch Star Trek at the same time. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 23:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for late reply; the reason I don't want permalinks is that my idea was to link to a given discussion, but not to any "snapshot" of it (if the discussion is ongoing). What I wondered was if there was some sort of template -- perhaps something along the lines of {{link-to-discussion|page|topic}}, which would translate to the ordinary link (i.e. ]) when the topic is "live", but which would be changed into the appropriate link to the appropriate archive once that topic is archived by the bot... 80.135.12.144 (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, my bad... I guess that's what happens when I try to edit and watch Star Trek at the same time. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 23:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- The user did ask for a solution without using permalinks :D. I think Cluebot does/did fix links to sections it archives, or something along those lines, obviously AN/I is currently handled by MiszaBot - Kingpin (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- If I were you, 80.135.22.44, I would have linked to the current discussion now, and then change the link, when the duscussion is archived :) --Mbz1 (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is currently no way to do so. We'll have to wait for Liquid Threads extension to be enabled on the English wiki, which is supposed to allow for this. Abecedare (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I realize that once I've located the discussion in the archives, I can link to it. What I meant was to find out if there was a way to link to a discussion currently live on ANI in such a way that the link would not go stale once the discussion is archived. Apparently there is no way to do it, for technical reasons. 80.135.22.44 (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say it is possible. You just need to locate the discussion in archive. For example here's the link to one of January discussion. Please ask me, if you need more help.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Admin status
Resolved – wrong location Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Tbsdy lives seems to have left under quite strange circumstances, and actually since he was re-sopped here as a returnee under no cloud there were multiple instances of disruption involving him, he has retired as I know and has user page deleted. One of his essays was nominated for deletion today and he appears to still be watching his talkpage as he commented soon after http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Tbsdy_lives&curid=27358511&diff=363746318&oldid=363741621 by saying "don't care" and deleting the template. As it was also mentioned on Newyokbrad's talkpage recently I was wondering, what is his current Administrator status and what would be the position regarding that status if he chose to return? Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- This page is for discussing the noticeboards, not bringing issues to. Should be at WP:BN imo. Aiken ♫ 16:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, excuse me. It is hot here. I have move it there as directed. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Where are the administrators?
WP:ANI#Onefortyone was started on May 22. On that date two administrators, Mjroots and EdJohnston, graced the section with their appearances. Between them they have made three posts, all on that first day. The section has currently spawned four sub-sections plus I have initiated a separate section, WP:ANI#Using refactoring to stifle criticism, related to the same conflict but focusing on not the same user. I can understand the reluctance of seasoned admins to enter this fray, however, the Elvis article which is the seething cauldron which has produced all of this, is, as I see it, detrimentally afflicted, and my impression is furthermore that there is A LOT of underhanded manipulation and power games being played out on its talk page – which is currently simply finding its second venue at WP:ANI. My hope would be that several administrators involve themselves in this entire issue, at least the incident reports that are currently being discussed here. __meco (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- As noted in the section above, this page is for the discussion of the noticeboard itself. Your comment belongs either at ANI or AN. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, this page is for discussions about the functioning of WP:ANI. That is the angle of my inquiry. __meco (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think it kinda doesn't belong, and you probably won't get much response here, but I'll bite: that ANI thread is straying into serious tl;dr territory and it's not been made clear exactly what action is being requested of administrators. I think that an WP:RFC/U, or mediation, or perhaps even straight back to Arbitration, is probably going to bear more fruit than continued ANI discussion –xeno 21:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, this page is for discussions about the functioning of WP:ANI. That is the angle of my inquiry. __meco (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Administrators are volunteers, exactly like every other editor, and are not required to use their tools for any reason they do not want to use them. Just like an article may go unedited if no one is interested in fixing it up, your problem may have gone unaddressed because no administrator was interested in tackling it. That may be for any number of reasons, such as:
- The problem itself is not one that administrators normally solve
- The problem was not presented in a manner that admins could figure out how to solve it
- The problem is a non-problem and admins didn't see any need to intervene
- It has drifted to the top of the noticeboard, and no one really watches the stuff that goes on up there.
- It could really be anything. --Jayron32 02:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wise words. Some admins may love to wade into seemingly intractable situations and knock heads together, but my recent experience is that most of us have better things to do and prefer to point the combatants/participants in a debate to the appropriate remedies, sit back with a beer, and just let the whole thing cool down. Admins are not arbitrators of content disputes, and in the absence of overt evidence of policy breaches, do not have "super-editor" status that would supplant, for example, a Request for Comment. And, as pointed out, we are volunteers with no duty to act in any situation. Rodhullandemu 02:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking about opening a discussion on this. Misplaced Pages is not a well-functioning bureaucracy. In a well-functioning bureaucracy, issues are identified, then tracked and dealt with, with an attitude towards getting things done. If you let issues languish, then pretty soon you're overwhelmed. I don't buy the argument that this is a volunteer effort so we should give up on the idea of keeping a lid on issues. We don't just let AfDs pile up for and languish for months because nobody's interested. They get handled, not because an admin is interested in the article, but because otherwise Misplaced Pages doesn't work. The Onefortyone incident looks like a pure content dispute which should have been closed a while ago. The problem of Baseball Bugs opening ANI discussions without presenting any diffs or a balanced introduction of an issue is a longer-term problem which is likely to span multiple issues. Tolerance of this behavior lets other editors think it's acceptable. That's where some enforcement of minimum standards needs to come in. We need to adopt some rules for ANI. I would propose the following to start:
- No cases get opened without diffs or other supporting evidence and a balanced discussion presenting both sides (notify the opponent and present the case in tandem if necessary).
- No forumish back-and-forth discussions at ANI. Each person gets a spot to make their statement and can update that if necessary. The initial statement must include a summary of involvement (beginning with a binary involved/uninvolved but including a sentence comment) and a one sentence summary of how the case should be resolved (user banned, case closed with no action, ect). Anyone can make a comment to other people's statements which can be followed by a rebuttal, but no more unless the rebuttal makes a factually incorrect assertion which needs to be clarified, that's it. So the person who makes a statement gets the last word in defending their statement, although the commenter could update their comment.
- Further, there should be an enforcement mechanism whereby those who violate the minimum standards are only allowed to post when they are involved. People who cannot support allegations with diffs, or open up unbalanced cases, should not be trusted to give out uninvolved opinions.
- Related to this, there needs to be better technology allowing us to see at a glance - in a condensed format - everyone's involvement and formal recommendation. Ideally these would be tracked in a database, allowing people to easily pull up the cases that people have been involved in and the statements they've made.
This is really how all noticeboards should work. If these guidelines for information structure were presented in tandem with better technology which tracked the number of users commenting, it would also allow Misplaced Pages to more easily track issues which aren't getting commented on, too. Opening up a new database for tracking issues, rather than just ANI threads, is another idea that I think merits attention. Currently, an "issue" can span multiple ANI threads, RfCU, noticeboards, requests for mediation, etc - but there is no unifying place for someone who is investigating the issue to get the full picture of where it's been. Again, this should be done through databases and formal forms so users can't mess around with it. It would allow us to view a timeline for an issue. II | (t - c) 04:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Those most often in need of administrator attention are new or casual users, who are those least well equipped to learn and conform to bureaucracy around opening new cases. The fact that disputes are frustrating on the admin boards is a by-product of the underlying fact that disputes are frustrating. Given that in cases other than clear and ongoing vandalism, and sockpuppetry, there's very little that admins can actually productively do or enforce, changing processes is unlikely to yield better outcomes, and it blocks off access to the mostly commonly sought outcome on the admin boards - the ability to publicly vent and believe (rightly or wrongly) that someone intelligent is listening. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, ANI is supposed to be very accessible for both simple and not so simple matters. If we wanted another ArbCom-style setup, then we might as well set up a separate admin Committee with their own pages and a roll of red tape that they can use excessively. If threads are opened without evidence, then ask for it or if it's a constant problem with a certain user, ignore it. As for style issues (eg; TL:DR), or type issues (eg; ethnic battleground) that's not something that is as easy to fix as adding diffs to a report or investigating for yourself. There's probably more I missed, but that might be because of the style in which this idea was presented. But to put it simply, changing a process will not necessarily change people in the way that is desired, if at all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have any feedback on the style of presenting an idea like this? There's an easy way to get around the newbie issue - just create a form which checks how many edits you have. If you have below a certain number, there are no checks. If you are above a certain number, it asks for a balanced discussion. That does bring in the idea of putting these new proposed actions into a queue, which could be problematic. The idea, however, is to move towards a http://meatballwiki.org/FairProcess. The current process is not fair. It's a mess and often benefits the first party to bring up the issue more than it should. II | (t - c) 02:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- If your frustration is with people not following proper process, creating a more complex process is not the solution. Despite all the apparent problems with Misplaced Pages the project keeps marching onwards and keeps getting, on average, more comprehensive and more accurate. Along the way the systems are going to suck sometimes. (See WP:SUCK.) It's entirely possible we could change to another system, that would suck in different ways and and at different times. Your complaint, though, is largely not that the system is imperfect, but that people are imperfect, and changing the system doesn't change the underlying problem. Your time might be better spent in spreading some WikiLove in the hope of fostering, on average, better people. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have any feedback on the style of presenting an idea like this? There's an easy way to get around the newbie issue - just create a form which checks how many edits you have. If you have below a certain number, there are no checks. If you are above a certain number, it asks for a balanced discussion. That does bring in the idea of putting these new proposed actions into a queue, which could be problematic. The idea, however, is to move towards a http://meatballwiki.org/FairProcess. The current process is not fair. It's a mess and often benefits the first party to bring up the issue more than it should. II | (t - c) 02:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
ANI's official bird
The Greater AN/I, surely a divine gift to prevent Wikidrama. "This is a very gregarious species, always found in noisy groups. The calls include croaking and turkey-like gobbling kro-koro." - sounds familiar. SGGH 23:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe some beautiful day it'll be more like the now-obsolete city of AN/I. Equazcion 00:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Heh heh, fortuitous! SGGH 13:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Discuss
Please, discuss here Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/List of sovereign states. Thoughts and opinions are more than welcome. Majuru (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Error in PDF creation
Why I can't create a PDF out of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/X86 ??
I just click on create PDF, and when I try to download, it says "error", File not found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.130.121.48 (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Found Half-Solution to the PDF problem
I think I found a half-solution to the problem. It seems that if you go to the article, edit it a little bit (as for example, add a dash or a space somewhere in the article, or a "yeah" at the end, or whatever) and then save it, then you are magically able to create the PDF!!
Obviously, Misplaced Pages creates the file only once, and then keeps it saved forever (to avoid wasting resources on creating the same file again and again). However, for some bizzare reason, it sometimes loses the file, which causes it to throw an error. In that case, you go and edit something, which forces Misplaced Pages to re-create the PDF from scratch.
It's there, then it aint
Gentlemen & ladies, no edit warring on the AN, please. I'm getting nauseated. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- That was helpful...? ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 21:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!" --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just seeking to calm a coming storm. Sorry. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!" --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Are we gonna have to call in an Arbitrator, to stop the edit warring over the posting of McMacNee's report? GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- GoodDay, speaking personally, your "suggestions" on ANI over the last couple of days have been so useless as to be irritating. Please stop. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 22:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I despise edit wars. Also, I'm possibly the most neutral here. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- You clearly didn't read what I said, or at least, your response was nothing to do with it. Speaking personally, your "suggestions" on ANI over the last couple of days have been so useless as to be irritating. Please stop. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 22:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I despise edit wars. Also, I'm possibly the most neutral here. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- TT, again please stop trying to drive GoodDay off. He's managed to remain a hell of a lot calmer then most of the rest of us. DuncanHill (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, he's calm. But calmly spouting naive nursery rhymes ("Are we gonna have to call in an Arbitrator, to stop the edit warring?" Seriously?) is actually no more helpful than doing nothing at all. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 22:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I too can get so wound up that I resent calmness in others, but it really doesn't help anyone to start having a go at people about it. DuncanHill (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I do not resent the calmness. Calmness is impressive. I could calmly copy-paste the whole of the Doctor Faustus A-text onto this page, but it wouldn't serve any purpose. Please explain to me how the comment, "Are we gonna have to call in an Arbitrator, to stop the edit warring?" was constructive or useful in any way. If it was not helpful, it should not have been made, calm or not. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 22:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just stop bullying him. It don't help you. DuncanHill (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- That comment only demonstrates that you misunderstand the concept of bullying. Very fundamentally. If you wish to start an ANI thread in complaint of my behaviour, go ahead. (And I won't delete it!) ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 22:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I understand the concept of bullying very well, thank you very much - as well as the delicious irony of you linking to NPA. DuncanHill (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have no further time to waste on this ridiculous issue, but I will continue to ask GoodDay (talk · contribs) to tone their contributions down wherever their contributions appear to be as unhelpful and painfully naive as they have been hitherto. (Not entirely sure if I mean 'hitherto'...) ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 22:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I understand the concept of bullying very well, thank you very much - as well as the delicious irony of you linking to NPA. DuncanHill (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- That comment only demonstrates that you misunderstand the concept of bullying. Very fundamentally. If you wish to start an ANI thread in complaint of my behaviour, go ahead. (And I won't delete it!) ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 22:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just stop bullying him. It don't help you. DuncanHill (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- It was meant as a friendly warning to those edit warring. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Jesus wept... ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 22:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm an atheist. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- A comment you find useless is best ignored. Responding only increases the amount of wasted words. Resolute 22:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Jesus wept... ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 22:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I do not resent the calmness. Calmness is impressive. I could calmly copy-paste the whole of the Doctor Faustus A-text onto this page, but it wouldn't serve any purpose. Please explain to me how the comment, "Are we gonna have to call in an Arbitrator, to stop the edit warring?" was constructive or useful in any way. If it was not helpful, it should not have been made, calm or not. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 22:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I too can get so wound up that I resent calmness in others, but it really doesn't help anyone to start having a go at people about it. DuncanHill (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, he's calm. But calmly spouting naive nursery rhymes ("Are we gonna have to call in an Arbitrator, to stop the edit warring?" Seriously?) is actually no more helpful than doing nothing at all. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 22:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- GoodDay, speaking personally, your "suggestions" on ANI over the last couple of days have been so useless as to be irritating. Please stop. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 22:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- What good would one of those do? Aiken ♫ 22:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- An arbitrator can't do much on their own. Looks like a mine shaft gap. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's irrelevant now, as the AN page is rightfully protected. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- For three more minutes. Much lulz! The Hero of This Nation (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's irrelevant now, as the AN page is rightfully protected. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- An arbitrator can't do much on their own. Looks like a mine shaft gap. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
If you think a case is frivilous, then say so on the page---heck raise a counter complaint if it is so blatant. But do not remove it. One should not be able to avoid a complaint on AN/ANI by removing it and then crying 3RR violations when the person restores their complaint. Before it was protected I was about to place a warning that anybody who removed the complaint would be blocked. If the case is truly frivilous, then it will be quickly closed.---Balloonman 22:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yep. Editors should think about why Giano rmd it thrice himself. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I agree that removing complaints seen to be frivolous, citing 3RR in the process, appears to be somewhat censorious and does us no credit at all. Consensus should quickly become apparent for closure of such debates if it is the opinion of the community that they are, in fact, frivolous. We still have WP:RFC and WP:RFAR as options, but in the current example forgiver me if I get the impression that more heat than light is likely to be generated. Rodhullandemu 22:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- The report-in-question shouldn't have been deleted by the subject of the report. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I concur. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 22:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)