Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:09, 16 December 2006

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

Unanimity for community banning?

(Text moved to Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Unanimity_for_community_banning.3F).

Akron Wiki

I feel that the Akron Wiki article is being unfairly deleted, and that it, and the word "Akronness" should have article status. Please tell the people involved to make changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiwiki1950 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussions about this were at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Akron Wiki and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Akroness. You or anyone else is quite welcome to revisit either of these at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. On the other hand, unless something significantly changes (like the website is still there in two years and has become a widely known and used regional resource) my guess is there's approximately a 0% chance that either of these articles will be restored. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Should this be archived?

Should this be archived? It seems that some of the reports aren't garnering any further attention, and several of them seem to have been resolved.--Vercalos 19:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm refering to the /incedents subsection.--Vercalos 19:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? That page is archived several times a day by a bot that removes any section where there has been no discussion in two days. Essjay (Talk) 01:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

ANI archive size

Currently, ANI is archived by Essjaybot such that the archive is "filled" until the archive exceeds 300KB. The result of this is that the archive can get up to 350 or 400KB. The consequence of this is that there is a delay in loading even on newer computers with fast connections, and an even greater delay on older machines or slower connections or when opening several archives at once to find discussions from a particular time period. The typical archive size for article talk page is more around 130KB, and the typical size for administrative noticeboard archives—when the switching of their archives was not ignored—was more around 200KB and less. The reason given for having such large archives is to reduce the number of archives. This provides no great advantage—we have no shortage of numbers—but there is a practical disadvantage for having large single archives. —Centrx→talk • 11:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the size should be reduced. I don't know exactly how the bot works, but it should be an easy thing to change. Maybe reduce the 300k to 100k? --Tango 13:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Takes about 2 seconds to do; all it needs is consensus. Essjay (Talk) 13:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great to me and my extraordinarily sketchy dial-up. Snoutwood 08:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Amen - do it -- Tawker 08:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, reduce the archive size; I know how hard it is to view the old large Help Desk archives. --ais523 08:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, go for it. the wub "?!" 13:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely (guess who's on a 56k on weekends?) yandman 09:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do it. Alphachimp 09:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been reduced to 150 KB. Ah, the ease with which consensus is implemented. Essjay (Talk) 02:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Template for reporting offensive usernames?

Hi there!

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this but I think it is. Please gently point it out to me if it's not.

At times, I am running through the new user log and I find an offensive username. Rather than put them on WP:ANI or WP:AIV, I would prefer it if I could just put a template, like {{Offensive username}}, on the offending user's page. If this template added the usernames to a category, like 'Category:Offensive usernames', then admins could just run through the list and block these users indef. If this was approved I could change all the sections in policies and guidelines saying to put the template on instead of reporting the users on WP:ANI or WP:AIV.

Cheers and thanks for considering this,

Yuser31415 05:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that reporting them is better, especially reporting them to AIV because it is meant for that sort of thing and it is wiped clean rather than archived, because it is better to not create user pages or talk pages for offensive names. The user or talk page could be deleted afterwards, but it would be more work and admins might neglect to delete them. -- Kjkolb 13:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. Never mind at the moment then :) Yuser31415 18:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Except .... admins already leave a message on the user's talk page, don't they? So the offensive username template could be put on the talk page ... all it would make worse would be the fact that admins would have one more place to patrol. Yuser31415 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see enough gain to justify giving admins yet another place to monitor. --Tango 13:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason to not just use WP:AIV. It's just as easy. I'm with Tango. -Patstuart 19:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How to avoid edit conflicts and clutter

I just experienced several edit conflicts here, and I really hate to clutter this page with discussions, when it should be reserved for notifications. While I still think in the concrete case there was an easy way to avoid the discussion, I am aware that it can't always be avoided. — Sebastian 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Transclusion

Would it be possible to transclude the individual notifications from sub pages? — Sebastian 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It could be done... much the same way that WP:AFD is. However, it starts to get complicated. ---J.S 00:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's way too much work for each discussion. Perhaps a better thing would be to create even more sub-noticeboards. —Mets501 (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Linked subpages for discussions

OK, let's keep it simple, then: Instead of keeping each case in its own section, they are just bullets in a list. Whenever someone enters a request, an admin replies with two simple steps:

• adding his ~~~~ after the request
• adding a template to the user's talk page that says "I'm taking care of it, let's discuss it here".

In addition, sections could be used for different purposes, as in the vandalism page. — Sebastian 00:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Much of what goes on here requires discussion. "This is what I did, any comments?" type notes are very common. ---J.S 00:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I think we can address that. Not everything that's said in a discussion needs to show up in everybody's watchlist. I think people should have the option:

• Bulk of the discussion: on some dedicated page
• Important alerts for everyone: add to existing bullet (e.g. as sub-bullet) — Sebastian 01:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm not understanding what your getting at here. ---J.S 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's try it with an example. Instead of keeping this whole drama with its many pages of gory details all on WP:AN, and creating scores of changes that show up on everybody's watchlist, we would have the discussion on a dedicated page that only those watch who are involved or interested. On WP:AN, we would simply have something like this:

• Death Threat Accusation Someone needs to have a chat with User:Morwen. The user has just accussed me of making a death threat against her which is totally absurd. ... -- Husnock 10:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Discussion moved to this page. -- Brookie 10:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A suggestion has been proposed - please comment, everybody. -- bainer (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • More drama: someone has now posted this personal attack at my talk page. Morwen - Talk 15:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Case closed: And all was well in the wiki. --bainer (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm interesting. That might be possible. How would we name the sub-pages? Would it be for everything or just for long discussions? Lets see what others think. ---J.S 02:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, it would help, but I think it would be more hassle than needed. However, when a thread gets large, I think it is a good idea to move it to it's own subpage and provide a link under the original heading here. After all, it is 1 out of 7 threads that take up most of the space on this board. HighInBC 03:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea to do it only for long discussions, although that means we can't have the bulleted list. I created a table with statistic, which shows that there are indeed about 7 threads that are longer than a screenful (5000 chars on my computer, YMMV). That's about 12 paragraphs + headline. (Excluding headlines, there were 462 pars and 185679 chars w spaces. Thus, the average paragraph was 400 characters.) So a guideline like this would make sense:

If a topic reaches 12 paragraphs then its discussion will be moved to another page and it will be replaced by a short summary and a link to that page. When the discussion reaches a point that requires everybody's attention, someone will add that to the summary.

— Sebastian 18:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

More subpages

How about two new subpages, "Complaints about admins" and "Complaints about non-admins"? If you are specifically complaining about someone, you make a subpage (the name of the user being complained about, similar to ArbCom, probably) and transclude it on to the appropriate page. I'm suggesting 2 pages, as complaints about admins usually requires multiple admins to respond so we can develop a concensus, whereas a complaint about a non-admin can often be dealt with by a single admin. Once a complaint has been dealt with, it is removed from the page (perhaps archived somewhere, in any case, the subpage can hang around for eternity). This should work quite well, as complaints are generally resolved at a certain point and it's clear when it should be removed. With more general discussions there often isn't a clear end, it just gradually goes inactive. This is moving towards creating a Court of Administrators, which some people might not be happy with - personally, I have no problem with it.

The only major problem I can see with this idea is that it might end up with almost everything happening on these subpages, which defeats the object of trying to separate things. Someone with more time might want to go through the history of AN and see how much of it is complaints and how much general discussion and requests. AN/I would probably cease to exist, as almost all of that is complaints, by its very nature. The non-complaints things that are considered incidents can move to the main noticeboard. So it boils down to having one more subpage than we have now, but having them slightly more structured. --Tango 12:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing Other People's Discussion Comments

Crossmr needs to lay-off editing other people's Discussion Comments that he doesn't agree with. It's unethical.