![]() |
This page has been mentioned by a media organisation: |
---|---|
|
![]() Archives |
---|
Threads older than 8 days may be archived by ClueBot III. |
Contents
WP:ANRFC transclusion
It's a bit ironic that a discussion on the overwhelming backlog at WP:ANRFC wound up listed there. There's a consensus for removing the transclusion, mostly because it's overwhelming in size. There's support for some alternative and general concern for the backlog at ANRFC. More discussion would be necessary to agree on an alternative (if any) to the transclusion. If I might make a suggestion, it might be possible to build a compact template that links to the oldest 5 discussions listed at ANRFC. A bot could potentially update the links. Bot requests is that way. ~ RobTalk 05:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I boldly removed ANRFC, and got reverted - so talk time! I propose we STOP transcluding WP:ANRFC to this page. There are plenty of places to check on the backlogs, including that dedicated noticeboard. I think this clutters up this page too much, and makes it hard to read, especially from mobile browsers. I would be in favor of some sort of "status box" (perhaps bot maintained) on WP:AN to make it easy to see the backlog. Ping to Lugnuts, who encouraged more discussion here. — xaosflux Talk 14:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- The alt. solution is for some admins to help out with tackling said backlog and this becomes a non-issue. Is there an admin around here who could help with that? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. That list is too long for transclusion on this noticeboard. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Offtopic |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- I agree also. --Izno (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Lets get an RfC going. And then point out the irony when it's still open 60 days from now and listed at ANRFC. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- That would be putting the cart before the horse, also not an advisable argument strategy. --Izno (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I like linking to things too instead of helping out. Do I get a fiver? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- You've made your point Lugnuts. And before you say it no, I couldn't have closed a discussion in the time it took me to write this reply. Sam Walton (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Sam. You're another one who complains about the backlog, has the power to address said backlog, but so far as done nothing to help. Why is that? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Why don't you comment at these discussions? That would helpful as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Sam. You're another one who complains about the backlog, has the power to address said backlog, but so far as done nothing to help. Why is that? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- You've made your point Lugnuts. And before you say it no, I couldn't have closed a discussion in the time it took me to write this reply. Sam Walton (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I like linking to things too instead of helping out. Do I get a fiver? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- That would be putting the cart before the horse, also not an advisable argument strategy. --Izno (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Lets get an RfC going. And then point out the irony when it's still open 60 days from now and listed at ANRFC. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- There have been dozens of previous discussions. I still maintain that my proposal was a good idea when it comes to saving space: we could transcluse ANRFC under a collapse and/or with fakeheaders to clean-up the TOC. It would fulfill both goals of minimizing clutter and maximizing visibility. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'll support an RFC but I think it should stay. I think it's dumb to have all the individual CFD listings there to me. That's already been expressed at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#CfD though, that's eating up a lot of the page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks to Ricky for helping out. I've reverted the removal of the CfDs, as this is still ongoing and we're looking for a consensus. Again, easy to hide the problem, rather than help out. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Lugnuts is now edit warring on WP:ANRFC to keep 53 CfD discussions listed. Consensus here is fairly clear and I've warned him on his talk page against disruptive behaviour generally. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Wrong Martin - I was restoring the status quo until a consensus is reached. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- And around and around we go, waiting for some more input here - there are always going to be backlogs, and yes they should be tracked and have a way for willing volunteers to work on them - that being said, making duplicate WP:ADMINBACKLOG has lots of things that can be worked on - double listing them all on this page takes away from the other coordination that should be occuring here. — xaosflux Talk 13:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that there will always be backlogs, but it's only recently this one has grown to the levels we have now. Has there been a drop-off of admins who are around in the last 2 months? Yesterday, a CfD discussion from 7th December was still open, despite it being brought to the attention of this forum for some time. I'm only listing things that are more than 1 month old, hoping that most of the current open discussions from 24 January onwards will not need to be listed. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- And around and around we go, waiting for some more input here - there are always going to be backlogs, and yes they should be tracked and have a way for willing volunteers to work on them - that being said, making duplicate WP:ADMINBACKLOG has lots of things that can be worked on - double listing them all on this page takes away from the other coordination that should be occuring here. — xaosflux Talk 13:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Wrong Martin - I was restoring the status quo until a consensus is reached. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
There's backlogs at AFD, TFD, CFD and MFD all approaching a month on all grounds. There's literally no reason that CFD should be so prominent. CFD is miserable because it's functionally impossible to Relist a discussion when you can't see a consensus. MFD is having a stupid fight about that and one reason admin's hate doing any of this is you just get shit on no matter what you do. The fact that even Relisting discussions gets me reverted and ranting as me for being a terrible person for doing that with no warning even is another reason why no admin cares about this stuff at all. Make it less of a stupid chore and you'll have admins dealing with these things. And listing every single CFD discussion is just doing more to annoy people not encouraging. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- There is no AfD backlog (at least not more than one day), it has never been longer than a day for quite some time already.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Corrected. Either way, individual listings of backlogs aren't helpful to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks anway, Ricky. I guess it's easier for most admins to sweep things under the carpet, rather than tackle the issue. Hats off to them! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Corrected. Either way, individual listings of backlogs aren't helpful to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- So aside from Lugnuts is there anyone else that finds this useful as-is? — xaosflux Talk 15:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Well it prevents my mouse scroll-wheel from getting gummed up... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Only Xeno and Walton. Still, you can't beat democracy. Blimey, that Requests for comment listing is getting rather long. Best get someone to look at that. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Based on this thread, looks like we've made a few adjustments - I've tweaked the RFCoRFC's section as well - but we have left a prominent notice at the top of WP:AN with counts and dates to drive anyone who is willing to work on closures to those pages - hopefully this works for most? — xaosflux Talk 00:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Lugnuts and Ricky81682 here, and JzG, Hobit, and Jc37 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive270#Should requests for closure continue to be transcluded on this board? that we continue to transclude WP:ANRFC on WP:AN.
WP:ANRFC should be fully visible on the highly trafficked WP:AN. A partial transclusion makes editors and admins viewing WP:AN less likely to see requested closures they may be interested in closing.
I think it is fine for Lugnuts to list 50 CfD discussions at WP:ANRFC to draw attention to the CfD backlog. I understand Ricky81682's concerns that it is a chore to update both WP:ANRFC and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure. However, closing admins do not have to update WP:ANRFC because Lugnuts updates closed discussions while he adds new ones. It is a net positive to post 50 CfD discussions at WP:ANRFC, which through its transclusion to the highly trafficked WP:AN, will draw far more admin attention to CfD's significant backlog than an easily overlooked note that there is a backlog.
-
- I think it's a net negative and it puts the CFD backlog way above the other backlogs. I have yet to see any indication that other admins want to touch the CFD backlog because someone has listed every single one separately. Most of the discussions have barely two or three comments so I personally would be happier if the people here spending time reverting to update and coordinate the backlog list just actually make an opinion on one or two of these discussion. You want admins to close these things? Get a good solid discussion there rather than a 50/50 of like 4 people where there's a guarantee of an argument after the fact. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is there any evidence that listing large groups of discussions like this actually attracts more admins to work on the backlog? The list gives me the MEGO effect. When large backlogs like this build up, it looks more like a procedural issue than a simple lack of attention. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Lugnuts will be better able to answer than I, but if the backlog has decreased since Lugnuts started listing these discussions, then it strongly indicates that his listing the discussions here is helpful. Ricky81682, thank you for your hard work closing CfDs.
I've participated in five of the oldest CfD discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
- Lugnuts will be better able to answer than I, but if the backlog has decreased since Lugnuts started listing these discussions, then it strongly indicates that his listing the discussions here is helpful. Ricky81682, thank you for your hard work closing CfDs.
- Is there any evidence that listing large groups of discussions like this actually attracts more admins to work on the backlog? The list gives me the MEGO effect. When large backlogs like this build up, it looks more like a procedural issue than a simple lack of attention. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's a net negative and it puts the CFD backlog way above the other backlogs. I have yet to see any indication that other admins want to touch the CFD backlog because someone has listed every single one separately. Most of the discussions have barely two or three comments so I personally would be happier if the people here spending time reverting to update and coordinate the backlog list just actually make an opinion on one or two of these discussion. You want admins to close these things? Get a good solid discussion there rather than a 50/50 of like 4 people where there's a guarantee of an argument after the fact. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Well, that needs to be compared to a control group first, since the backlog would presumably have decreased naturally without listing here. The question is whether the rate of closure was different compared to what it would have been otherwise. How many discussions were closed since listing here, and how does it compare to the number that were closed over the same length of time before that? Sunrise (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Thank you Cunard. The backlog issue has been listed on AN/ANI many times before, with little or no action taking place. A user will say there's a backlog. The backlog thread will stay a few days on the main AN page and a few days later, it's put into the archive as no-one replies to it or takes any action on the backlog. So what was the alternative? To start listing the oldest remaining CfDs on the request for closure noticeboard. I didn't just add anything that was 7 days past its end date, I started at the very oldest (one nearly 3 months old) and worked back, stopping at anything that was less than a month old. Does this work? Hard to say, but I think it does. Not only did I list every single outstanding closure, but I checked each and every morning for the ones I'd previously listed. And you know what? A fair chunk of them had been looked at and closed. I guarantee that they would not have been closed if they had not have been listed for closure individually. I even closed one myself (one about the Troubles in Northern Ireland - a touchy subject to say the least). I think the peak list length was about 60 discussions. It's now at around 45 or so. I do understand that we all volunteer our time (thanks Lugnuts for volunteering your time each day to check all the CfDs. Why, don't mention it!), but I don't understand that with 1,000+ admins that this gotten into this state over the last 3 months. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Remove transclusion if it can't be trimmed to a reasonable size. There is no need for individual CfDs to get this kind of prominent treatment. If you think there is too much of a backlog, please go to WP:RFA and nominate yourself or others until there is no longer a backlog. —Kusma (t·c) 12:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'm waiting for you and Xeno to do a joint nomination of my good self, which no doubt will have the support of MSGJ, Xaosflux and Walton. But I can see you're very busy from your recent contributions to do that. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- So now we are back to having a huge page that is a copy of another page - providing notice that backlogs exist on some sort of page - sounds fine to me as an administrator, there is no benefit to copying the entire page. There are some administrators that for example will never work a CFD, just as there are some that will never work RFPI, CAT:UAA, etc - they focus in the areas they are both willing and comfortable to work on. Point is there is a place to track this work, and that place is not here. — xaosflux Talk 12:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Who are the admins that are both willing and comfortable to work on this backlog? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- There's got to be a better way: The status quo just doesn't work. The TOC and page itself is far too long for anybody using a non-high-res monitor, tablet or mobile device to scroll through useably. Moreover, if we look at this from a user experience perspective, I strongly suspect we'd find that most users either jump straight to the bottom of the page and read up, or don't scroll past the TOC. When you put a large poster on a bulletin board that people use for other things, that large poster rapidly blends into the background, and people ignore it. I strongly suspect that's happening here, and as such, argue that the status quo is self-defeating. Look, if we want to notify admins that there's an admin backlog on certain pages or noticeboards, a better answer is to just list those pages semi-prominently... or set up a selective/opt-in watchlist notice (similar to WP:GEONOTICE) that puts a notice on admins' watchlists when certain backlogs exist: admins who are interested in CfDs can get notified of a backlog there, admins who are interested in UAA can get notified if there's a backlog there, etc. What we have here just isn't functional. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely, by Gawd, NO! I wish I'd seen this thread earlier. The problem isn't ANRFC. There are basically two problems. The first is that Admins as a class have allowed ANRFC to be hijacked by one or two non-Admins who are spamming it with a lot of junk, which is hiding the content that should necessarily be there – Admins need to rein in ANRFC. The second problem is that the Admin corps is dwindling, something that really seems to be accelerating lately (it seems to be a combination of many long-term Admins disappearing, almost no former Admins resysopping anymore (there have been none at all so far this year...), and some recent passes at RfA getting burned out (or distracted by life) very quickly which means even the some of the no0bs that we've been counting on haven't helped as much as hoped. Bottom line: backlogs seem to be getting worse, quickly. (I've been shocked to see what's going on a WP:RM lately...) But the second problem goes far beyond ANRFC (heck, it even goes far beyond RfA...), and isn't going to be solved here... But the first problem can be. If necessary, hold an official RfC on what is properly germane to be included at ANRFC, and let's rein the ANRFC over-spammers in... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- The goddamn Germans got nothi'n to do wit it! Sorry, I've waiting a long time to use that, hehe. OK, looks like the TOC collapse (I think that's what happened) has worked. We can all see the list, but the TOC doesn't mess-up the screen. I also apologise for any earlier blunt comments, that's just how I am. Feel free to create the shortcut WP:CUNT and put it on my userpage. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- In what way has it "worked"? There's no edit warring on it? I'm honestly trying to figure out your definition of progress here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- The goddamn Germans got nothi'n to do wit it! Sorry, I've waiting a long time to use that, hehe. OK, looks like the TOC collapse (I think that's what happened) has worked. We can all see the list, but the TOC doesn't mess-up the screen. I also apologise for any earlier blunt comments, that's just how I am. Feel free to create the shortcut WP:CUNT and put it on my userpage. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
We have now had comments from 16 editors either here or at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#CfD.
- Remove: Xaosflux, Izno, MSGJ, Opabinia regalis, Kusma, Mendaliv,
IJBall, Sam Walton, Only in death - Keep but collapse: Salvidrim!, Ricky81682
- Keep but "reform": IJBall
- Keep as-is: Lugnuts, Cunard
- No stated opinion: Xeno, Ymblanter, Sunrise
Apologies if this has over-simplified your position, but I think consensus is fairly clear at this point. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- If it helps, my stated opinion is that it serves no purpose other than to unneccessarily prolong how long it takes to get to the useful stuff so it should be removed. So I have moved my username above to the relevant section. If people want to deal with it, they know where it is. If they dont, it doesnt matter how much you wave it in their faces they are not going to swallow it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note, although I think it should be removed, I think keeping "backlogs" TOC item on AN is useful, but keep it simple, just a list of (area of concern)(# items)(oldest). — xaosflux Talk 14:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- @MSGJ: & @Xaosflux:, pardon me as an editor who did not participate in this discussion, but I think that tally is oversimplified. The consensus I see is to remove transclusion only if the list cannot be trimmed in some way to a reasonable size (which does not disrupt the contents page). The questions of whether it can be trimmed, and what is the best way of doing so, is what is outstanding. I don't see a consensus to just remove, which is what I understand from the tally. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note, although I think it should be removed, I think keeping "backlogs" TOC item on AN is useful, but keep it simple, just a list of (area of concern)(# items)(oldest). — xaosflux Talk 14:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm "correcting" my vote above, because it's been misinterpreted. To be clear, I do not think ANRFC should be removed from WP:AN. What I want is for Admins to rein it in and remove a lot of the "junk" entries that don't belong there so it can become a useful resource for Admins (and non-Admins alike) again. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Kusma: @Mendaliv: @Only in death: @Opabinia regalis: @Ricky81682: @Sam Walton: - I don't know if I have misread, but are you in the "remove" or "keep but reform" or another category in MSGJ's tally above? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- I would call myself "remove" because I don't see reforms as alleviating the problems I pointed out. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not in the remove camp for ANRFC transclusion, but I do support removing CfD from ANRFC. Sam Walton (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- I would call myself "remove" because I don't see reforms as alleviating the problems I pointed out. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, I'm a support keeping ANRFC on the AN page but removing the specific CFD listings (a generalized "there is a backlog" listing is fine with me). I don't want it collapsed, I want them gone. We do not list the individual listings for backlogs at other discussion sections and I do not treat the TOC exploding alone as a problem but the AN page itself. Again, using myself as the example of the last admin to actually tackle these CFD listings, the individual listings don't make me want to touch and in fact discourage me from bothering. I'd rather go to TFD or MFD than CFD if it's just going to be a bunch of non-admins who spend all their time writing and re-writing the listings rather than actually comment on the discussions or NAC some of them. Why not propose a change to CFD like TFD to allow for non-admins to close and G6 the actual deletions? That would actually solve a problem rather than create more make-work. --- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm indifferent between "remove entirely" and "remove specific listings and just use it as a general backlog log". As for CfD's backlog in particular, I'm not at all familiar with the procedures there but was going to suggest the same thing Ricky did - restructure the procedures to facilitate NAC closures of obvious deletes. If there isn't already a separate automated log of old discussions, like WP:TFD/O, that would also be useful. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Remove. I totally agree with Opabinia regalis (higher up rather than immediately above) about the MEGO effect of these huge listings. At the top of the page, too. It's been reducing the "normal" AN to a puny appendage. Bishonen | talk 23:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC).
- Any uninvolved party want to determine a consensus here? — xaosflux Talk 13:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- As this is not an RfC, I think that is a bit too ambitious - and it's probably better to have an RfC for changes on the scale I think you are proposing given it was transcluded this way for 4.5 years or so. But I think there is no doubt that there is a clear local consensus to remove individual CFD listings. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I started this section to request comments - and it did! My primary concern was the large expansion of the page due to all those individual CFD listings, both on the page and in the TOC. Barring any new developments, I plan to remove them in to a single line that CFD has a backlog, the size of the backlog, and the oldest date. — xaosflux Talk 01:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- In the circumstances, that is an appropriate response to bring this to a close. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- A link to the list of backlogged items seems appropriate also, which I presume exists. --Izno (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Backlogs it is the first item. — xaosflux Talk 02:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- I started this section to request comments - and it did! My primary concern was the large expansion of the page due to all those individual CFD listings, both on the page and in the TOC. Barring any new developments, I plan to remove them in to a single line that CFD has a backlog, the size of the backlog, and the oldest date. — xaosflux Talk 01:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- As this is not an RfC, I think that is a bit too ambitious - and it's probably better to have an RfC for changes on the scale I think you are proposing given it was transcluded this way for 4.5 years or so. But I think there is no doubt that there is a clear local consensus to remove individual CFD listings. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Remove... it's a mess that serves no effective purpose. If somebody wanted to see the list, it won't kill them to go to it directly instead of going to AN. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Remove. If after a month it's clear that nothing is being done at all, then put it back. But that won't be the case. — Scott • talk 13:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Proposer noted below that individual CFD listings have been removed per clear consensus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've moved Ncmvocalist's close to here and re-opened the discussion as while it's true CfD listings have been removed, this discussion is also - and arguably primarily - discussing transclusion of ANRFC, not the CfD listings, and that discussion is ongoing. Sam Walton (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've added an RfC tag so no argument is made in future that not enough members of the community had an opportunity to comment on this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've moved Ncmvocalist's close to here and re-opened the discussion as while it's true CfD listings have been removed, this discussion is also - and arguably primarily - discussing transclusion of ANRFC, not the CfD listings, and that discussion is ongoing. Sam Walton (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Remove. Fails the "Are you in the right place?" test - there's even an item for it there already. If I'm looking for a backlog to clear (and the ones I usually deal with are already caught up), I know where to find that page. What I don't know where to find is the start of the Administrator's Noticeboard, at least third of whose full page length is always taken up by this transclusion, and frequently two thirds or more. —Cryptic 17:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Cunard has some two-dozen items currently listed on WP:ANRFC. I'm wondering why so many. I just looked at one, which was stale, and didn't seem particularly urgent. When you spam a list with too much "important" stuff, the effect is to make none of it important. Unimportant to-do items get put on back burners. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep transcluded. WP:ANRFC was created in October 2011 after this discussion, where DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) requested a separate board. WP:AN had served as the precursor to WP:ANRFC in allowing users to list closure requests. I listed closures at WP:AN as did other editors.
Here is a list of October and November 2011 closures by the other editors: 1 2, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Someone, please close this RFC, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Closure of merge discussion, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Another merger requires an uninvolved party, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Outstanding AFD from September, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#An admin for closing a "let's just try again and again until they get tired" RfC, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RfC uninvolved closure request..., Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Closer requested, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Closure needed, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Poll in need of closing, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011 to close shortly, uninvolved admins needed to assess, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Overdue RfC, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RfC closure needed, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Close request, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Ditto, etc.
WP:ANRFC is an extension of WP:AN (where closure requests had been listed in the past). It was created to be a centralized list of closure requests. It prevented closure requests from getting prematurely archived by a bot from WP:AN because they weren't addressed within 48 hours.
WP:ANRFC should remain transcluded on WP:AN because WP:AN has a higher visibility. As Hobit (talk · contribs) noted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive270#Should requests for closure continue to be transcluded on this board?: "Yes they should remain here. While some may not need formal closure, it is very frustrating when no one seems to find those that do. AN is a good place for them to go as there is a high degree of visibility."
As JzG (talk · contribs) noted here, "It also gets them done, albeit slowly - which is hardly a surprise since they would not be on the list if they were easy. As an admin, I like having the transclusion. It reminds me to go and pick a few off every now and then."
-
- @Cunard: you could also reduce drama by exercising some discretion. RfCs that are months old with nobody venturing an opinion don't need to be spammed, they just need to be closed. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Cunard: you didn't directly respond to my query above, but from looking at Bernie Sanders#Democrat/Independent, which you weren't involved in, it appears that you are patrolling for RfCs that have run for thirty days. Please, per the WP:RFC instructions, if you feel that these need a formal, proper close rather than a de facto close, extend them beyond 30 days (re-list them) by changing the first timestamp to a more recent date. Undo the bot's automatic 30-day archiving if necessary. It is much more difficult to sort these out and respond to them after they've been archived. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- And please consider, for any of these that seem relatively easy or clear-cut decisions, making some (non-admin closure)s. Positive experience with that could be cited at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cunard. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- As I noted at User talk:Cunard/Archive 10#Adminship?, I have no interest in becoming an admin. I wrote to JzG above that I've closed several RfCs I'm comfortable with closing. I generally do not extend RfCs because the RfC bot will treat them as new RfCs and notify editors at Wikipedia:Feedback request service. I do not edit the talk pages to prevent a bot's archiving because I do not want to clutter editors' watchlists. Discussions in archives can be easily found by pasting the header like "Democrat/Independent" into the "Search Archives" bar like the one at Talk:Bernie Sanders. This search returns Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 6#Democrat/Independent. If closers cannot find the discussion through this method, then they usually note that in the closure request, and I or another editor will take a look. Cunard (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- And please consider, for any of these that seem relatively easy or clear-cut decisions, making some (non-admin closure)s. Positive experience with that could be cited at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cunard. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep transcluded with the (currrent) reduced ToC overhead. It was too much (especially CfD), now it's reasonable. I'll try to come back and start doing non-admin closes where I can. Note: I was notified of this discussion by Cunard's ping. Hobit (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Other options? Perhaps we can have alternative "views" of this board, such as at the test Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/b, taking advantage of untranscluding pages? — xaosflux Talk 17:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep It's what gets me to close, any, ever. Admins and others need to start doing it, that will keep it short. Also, AN is where they are appealed, so it makes sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Shortened WP:ANRFC transclusion
I discussed the close with BU Rob13. I have restored WP:ANRFC transclusion after modifying WP:ANRFC to transclude just the "Requests for closure" header and the "Requests for comment", "Backlogs", "XfD", "Administrative", and "Requested moves" subheaders. Within those headers, we include links to their sections within WP:ANRFC.
BU Rob13 wrote:
That would absolutely be supported by my close, yes. Basically, my close was that there was consensus against including the full transclusion, but consensus for including something, especially if that something is fairly compact but encourages editors to close discussions. There wasn't consensus for any specific alternative to the full transclusion, mostly because they weren't talked about enough. As an editor (i.e. not part of the close), I would even argue that your proposed compact version doesn't go far enough – information on how many discussions are awaiting closure in each section and how old the oldest discussion in each section has been open seems appropriate and doesn't compromise brevity. Just a couple of more lines under each heading would be enough to convey how urgently closers are needed.
I agree with adding more information such as how many discussions are waiting closure and how old the oldest discussion in each section is. But that information will fall out-of-date quickly if not updated. I don't know if there is a technical/bot fix for this. Cunard (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've opened a bot request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Update number of closure requests and oldest closure request for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Cunard (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
What to do with the Detailed Indices of this page ?
What should we do with pages like :
- User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (later described as MDI)
- User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive1 (circa 230 of them, later described as DI)
- User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/A (circa 30 of them) (the Alpha pagesRF)
In fact, there are three questions.
- Why should we do something, rather than do nothing ?
- Why should we fix these pages, rather than simply delete them ?
- What should be done technically, to fix the pages (to be asked later, if #2 is answered by fix rather than by delete).
For the first question. File MDI is obtained by trancluding the various DI. Presently, the MDI is on overflow and appears at Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Only the first part is displayed. Moreover, the table is not really useful due to how the transcluded DI are written. (1) many dates are missing ; (2) the table cannot be sorted by date -- e.g. Firefox doesn't sort this table by date ; (3) many links are poorly formatted, and therefore are poorly displayed in the last column. Finally, pages A,B, etc are empty, have to be empty, and in fact, should even not exist.
For the second question. With some little work (but not that much), the MDI can be split in several parts and the DI can be rewritten, leading to User:Pldx1/Master Detailed Indices/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard-Part 1. And so is the question: in your (informal) opinion, are you rather interested by the existence of this kind of pages ? Or maybe by a page grouping the last 100 archives ? Or would you be rather indifferent to the suppression of these pages ? For the moment, my intent is to see how the wind blows concerning Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and perhaps Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Not other pages. Thanks.
Special ping to: User:Cobi (from ClueBot III), User: Wbm1058, User:Francis_Schonken (from User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_202#Conspiracy_Unveiled) and User:Rich_Farmbrough (from Category talk:Pages where template include size is exceeded). Pldx1 (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- The existence of {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}} should be noted. This results into /Archive index, dealing only with Archives 1-9. Pldx1 (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- I cleaned up User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/User talk:Jimbo Wales, which was experiencing similar issues. There are a few types of section titles that CB3 doesn't handle gracefully, and I fixed it by refactoring those section titles to something that CB3 would handle well. A more robust fix would be to upgrade the CB3 code to better handle these special cases. While Jimbo's archive index is still inside the template limits, it's still a very big page which takes significant time and resources to load. So the need for an index split at some point is apparent. As it seems the Administrators' noticeboard archives are larger than Jimbo's they may have already passed the need to split. Same for the BLP noticeboard archives.
- CB3 is still not archiving Jimbo's page, while we wait for the Job Queue to clear the backlog of backlinks caused by talk-page BLP templates. See HERE for the status. Once it's cleared, I'd like to turn CB3 back on at Jimbo's page and see how it works there and elsewhere. That is, if it's still running. The source code doesn't indicate any updates since 19 June 2015. Cobi hasn't publicly talked to us since he left a couple of messages on Jimbo-talk on January 29. If anyone knows more on the CB3 status via emails or chats, please give us whatever updates you can. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Dear User: Wbm1058. You are introducing another question, namely how links should be keept in sync when a given section is moved to an archive. For this problem, there is no need to ask about usefulness (but the technical requirements are more difficult to fix, due to a complexity problem). Concerning indexing of the pages, I have some clues about how to improve the process (see User talk:ClueBot Commons). But the first step is to know if the users have or not any interest for maintaining a global index of Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. Pldx1 (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- In my answer just above, I missed a key point about CB3. The building of all these indices is not the reason why CB3 is on trouble (and, additionally, this feature could be separated from the rest of CB3). Again, the question is about the usefulness of the indices. Pldx1 (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have addressed similar issues with the indexing of archive pages. I'm not sure why you say the Alpha pages need to be empty - they might well do better not to be in User: space. Most of the search issues are well addressed by the "prefix:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard" search.
- The MDI may need to be split, I had the same problem with my talk-page-mega archive some years ago. It partially defeats the purpose of course. An alternative is to subst: many of the older pages, which are unlikely to change. A third method is to reduce the size of the sub-pages: For example if this page were moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive and the archive-pages moved to titles such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/100 the archive links could just be /100#12.
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC).
-
- Pages like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/A are not archives pages. They are an Alphabetical Index of the archives of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard . In fact, it would be less misleading to decide that all the indices should be renamed as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Indices/A, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Indices/Master Detailed Index, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Indices/Archive1| etc. In any case, the file named here ArchiveA doesn't contains any archived section, and doesn't deserves to be indexed.
The naming scheme should deal with all possibilities. There are also files whose archives are named "Archives/2002", or even "Archives/2002 January" (this one being far from optimal, it should use "Archives/2002-01 (January)" in order to be sorting-compliant). Not mixing archives and indices was a property of the Cobi's naming scheme, and I think we should keep that.
Pldx1 (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Pages like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/A are not archives pages. They are an Alphabetical Index of the archives of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard . In fact, it would be less misleading to decide that all the indices should be renamed as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Indices/A, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Indices/Master Detailed Index, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Indices/Archive1| etc. In any case, the file named here ArchiveA doesn't contains any archived section, and doesn't deserves to be indexed.
Two weeks later
And now my opinion is done: users of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard aren't waiting for such an index. Therefore I have deleted User:Pldx1/Master Detailed Indices/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard-Part 1 and the sequel that were build to give an idea of how some improvements could look like. This suggest that the same should probably done with many of the User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/xxx, but this is another story, and another discussion. Pldx1 (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Żojiłkaśoj
My artickle about polish cakes was deleted for no reason , so I am making a protest. my artickle must be re-in-stated plvase. --Sagbortio (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Should boomerang proposals require that the target be notified on their talk page?
I know technically someone who opens an AN or ANI thread is leaving themselves open to a boomerang and should already be aware of goings-on in the threads they started, but if after some time going one way, a thread suddenly turns against the OP, should they be informed that a request is now being made for them to be blocked/banned/somesuch, so that they can defend themselves? I'm pretty sure this is why we are required to inform other users when we open AN and ANI threads about them?
This is more a general question about the philosophy of these noticeboards, since I'm usually pretty well on top of threads I started, and I usually make an effort to ping someone, and warn them well in advance, if I am the one proposing a boomerang against them.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- My sense of fairness says we should notify them in some way (at least pinging) if there's any chance they stopped paying attention. My sense of justice is laughing because if they're going to push for action to be taken against someone on AN/I, they should keep paying attention until the issue is resolved. (AIV and to a lesser extent 3RRNB and RFPP, I get that people just leave reports and don't follow up because there may not be much for them to do beyond the initial report).
- I generally use my sense of fairness rather than my sense of justice, because the latter is admittedly maladjusted. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Only if the thread had either been closed or archived. It shouldn't be someone else's job to notify an editor of updates to a thread they started. If such a proposal were to be incorporated it would become just another thing to argue about Oh, no it wouldn't be fair to sanction me for bringing my own poor attention to a noticeboard, because I stopped watching ... NE Ent 11:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think making that a policy or even a guideline is way too problematical -- it gives someone an out from a sanction if someone else didn't "notify" them. The drama boards are already full of frivolous filings; in my opinion we want to make the burden on the filer to well and truly make their case more stringent, not give them more outs for misbehavior and time-wasting and vendettas. Besides, if someone actually gets a TP notification, that's probably going to make them waste even more of our time by endless defending. I don't see much if any good coming of this to justify whatever "fairness" it may encompass. Usually there are pro and con people on any thread, and if the filer seems asleep at the switch one of their camp can always nudge them in the case of a serious boomerang proposal that is gaining traction. Softlavender (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- ANI needs to be focused more on conflict resolution than being a dumping ground for admins - "here, you deal with this". I don't think notification of a boomerang action is necessary or warranted. The filer should follow through any complaint they make to the end; it needs to be evident they are making attempts to resolve the conflict rather than just defer the matter to an admin.--WaltCip (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Rfc needs closure at Time Person of the Year
Howdy. May we have an un-involved administrator close an Rfc which was opened on February 20, 2016? GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: You've already made a request at the proper place (i.e. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Time Person of the Year#Rfc: Elizabeth II). A recent request I made on January 10th wasn't handled until April 7th.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: Oh, someone already attempted to close it. Now I understand why you're posting here. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 23:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)