Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

Editnotice

Is there a way to turn it off or make it appear smaller? On my 1280x800 screen, I can hardly see the edit box without scrolling down. Kusma (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I am talking about the ANI notice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Does it have to be that large? Kusma (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I looked at that with a view to improvement. I might yet do something there......... FT2 (Talk | email) 10:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I tried to ensmallen it a bit [1]... We could probably provide an option to turn it off via user css with a span tag. Someone more clever than I will have to sort that out though. –xenotalk 13:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI curiosity

A user's suggested in a WP:AN discussion that they feel there can be issues at ANI:

  • "For whatever reason, discussions at WP:AN seem to be a little more calm and rational than ANI"
  • "ANI is a bit like throwing chum into a pool of sharks. It's just the mentality there"
  • "AN doesn't seem to attract as many drama seekers [as ANI]"

Quick feedback: some truth to it? A lot? Not much?

FT2 (Talk | email) 10:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

  • IMHO: 1) True. 2) False, in the latter part, as a place doesn't have a mentality whilst the people in a place do. 3) True, but that's an effect rather than a cause: ANI is where people are directed if they have drama to share, it's where newer users go to have some drama, it's where experienced users go to create some drama, and it's where the couple of editors (not admins, interestingly) go to shout BAN HIM BAN HIM BAN HIM at anyone who made a simple mistake or, alternatively, shout DON'T BAN HIM at people who are obviously abusing the 'pedia. AN doesn't project the "hurry" of ANI, so you don't get so much immediate action there and thus less drama. ➲ redvers Buy war bonds 10:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • ANI is where things get resolved (or sometimes not), AN is where you tell people something is resolved (or sometimes not). LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've always felt that AN was for less urgent matters requiring admin attention - I usually use it for requesting second opinions or assistance with situations that I feel need another admin to look over, but only if those situations are not immediate issues. ANI tends to get more traffic because it really is for those emergent "incidents" that need sorting out as quickly as possible. Those tend to be more serious issues, usually involving a potential for blocking or other actions that tend to get people fired up. It's also watched by people who are either a) willing, able and sometimes overenthusiastic to deal with such situations firmly and directly, b) regular defenders of alleged evildoers, c) watchdogs of admin actions who provide critique of such actions and offer sober second thought, or d) the occaisonal folks of the living-under-a-bridge-and-eating-billygoats persuasion. That all adds up to a drama generator at times. (Interestingly, I haven't been to ANI for most of the last week thanks to the Drama-Out. It's been remarkably quiet. Haven't got as much done as I'd have liked, though.) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've usually said the distinction lies in urgency. Things that need immediate resolution can go to AN/I; things that need more time or discussion can go to AN -- in my experience, AN tends to get about 500 edits every week or two, where AN/I tends to get about 500 edits every day or two. For better or worse, the more pressing issues are also going to be the more "dramatic" ones, which is going to attract or deter certain crowds. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Investigating a couple of articles at the very backlogged WP:SCV, I have uncovered another serial copyright infringer, this one having infringed across multiple account. Under his current username, I have discovered infringement going back several years. Learning of his alternate accounts (See [2]), I found that CorenSearchBot picked up problems with another (User talk:Mirza Barlas/Archives/2008/June}, while he was given personal warnings by several users as far back as 2007 under another ([3] and [4]). I need to run a contribution history so that we can eliminate material that the user may have pasted under his various identities.

I have indefinitely blocked pending some assurance that this contributor will not continue violating copyright policies, which he's been aware of for several years, under any username. Since I do not typically start with an indef-block, I wanted to invite review. Also, please, assistance. WP:SCV is swamped, we have several multiple-article infringement issues up for cleaning at WP:COPYCLEAN, and I do not know until I run our contribution surveyor program on these username how extensive the investigation is going to be. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Thought I was putting this at ANI. Since it's here now, I guess I'll leave it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving discussions that do not belong at ANI to other venues

I think this is a separate topic from the renaming RFC above, so I'm posting this as a separate thread. I noticed the {{ANImove}} template that FT2 has recently created and implemented for AN to keep AN on point. Perhaps we should be doing the same thing for singular threads that do not belong at ANI (i.e. reporting sockpuppetry that should be at WP:SPI or uncivil communications that should be at WP:WQA) which would help keep ANI on point; I say singular to mean threads that deal with one single issue to differentiate from threads that have multiple issues which may be appropriate to discuss at ANI. Any thoughts about this? MuZemike 23:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Exception - if it is an escalation of a matter from one of those boards to ANI, or a request specifically for admin attention to a matter at one of those boards. Those are legitimate examples where ANI may be valid as an escalation. A generic "{{ANImove|type}}" enhancement allowing the mover to specify the target noticeboard (ANImove|SPI, ANImove|WQA, etc) would be trivially easy. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Ehhh... I'm not so sure about "enforcing topicality" on a board like AN. I'd rather the issue just get resolved and archived rather than shuffled around. Nifboy (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi ppl

how are you ppl doin? i am a newbie here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkiisneat (talk • contribs) 16:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I've left some useful links on your talk-page to help you get started. They should help you find your way around too - this board is really for bringing issues to the attention of Wikipedia's administrators ;). All the best, EyeSerenetalk 16:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Structured reports at ANI

Can we please implement structured reports on ANI, like we have done at WP:AE? There is a big advantage to the administrators who respond to requests if all the necessary information is clearly laid out and complete. We need to see:

  • What articles (if any) are affected, listed using {{article}}.
  • What users are involved in the incident, listed using {{userlinks}}, or a similar template.
  • Diffs of misbehavior.
  • Discussion by involved users.
  • Discussion by uninvolved users. (It really helps to separate the bickering from the uninvolved opinions.)
  • Result posted by closing administrator.

Some structure would help reform ANI so it would not be so easily used for gaming the rules, retaliation, personal attacks, and whinging. Jehochman Talk 04:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI requests cover such a range of variety, that it's not clear what template one might use. If a workable answer develops I may well support it. The split of "involved" and "uninvolved" is good; however it also opens doors for huge drama over whether admin A is "involved" or not (we've seen this in several well known AE matters). What might be a good step is to review half a dozen ANI archive pages and see if there's an 80/20 rule - 80% of matters can be fitted into a small number of categories/structures. If so, which would those be? FT2 (Talk | email) 05:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
As a test, I have formatted Wikipedia:ANI#Domer48_and_Rannph.C3.A1irt.C3.AD_anaithni. I believe this format would be applicable to the great majority of cases. We can do this manually, but it might be very useful to provide a case template in the edit notice, as we do at WP:AE. If nothing else, a data collection form would encourage editors to provide complete information (which they often do not do). Upon reflection, we might add one more heading to request diffs of the notifications to the involved editors. Keeping things organized can enhance civility and encourage more participation by the uninvolved. Jehochman Talk 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Jehocohman here. It appears that far too many "discussions" are led off track, editors and posts are misrepresented, and drama is embiggened due to lack of structure and mis-communications. There are always going to be the "bickerings" between users who have a past history, emotions will undoubtedly come into play, and hurtful things get said no matter what. If however, we can separate the vendettas and grudges - keep the facts, diffs. and relevant items organized - it makes it far easier for everyone to act in a more enlightened and confident manner.
I've thought for some time now, that I'd like to see some sort of weekly or monthly "roundup" or summary accounting of the major events posted somewhere for reference. Established editors that are blocked/unblocked, and the reasoning behind it. Controversial pages that are protected/unprotected or deleted. Major shifts in our approach to various guidelines. Something along the lines of what Dan does for WP:UPDATE that involved administrative actions. I'm not sure how feasible it is, but it is an idea. — Ched :  ?  05:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned about making ANI more complicated. On the other hand, Jehochman makes some excellent points and structuring discussion would be advantageous in many respects.
ANI is often frequented by editors who go after those they are in dispute with or have grudges against. This allows (and perhaps encourages) a kind of gaming of the system where some editors go after and tag team-up against other editors. This is at least partly because it can be very difficult to differentiate between editors who are contributing to a discussion and involved parties, increasing the chances that someone can be blocked if the discussion is dominated by interested parties. I've also seen threads be kept open until a favorable result is achieved, and all it seems to take is to keep adding new comments. And there's already the issue of how much time it takes to actually investigate a dispute and sort out the underlying issues as opposed to the characterizations and depictions made in statements. And some of us are not great diff diggers as our interests are elsewhere. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Could there at least be a policy in favor of discussing the dispute with the targeted editor and making sure they have an opportunity to answer allegations made against them? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggesting that this proposal will address the problem of gaming the system, personal attacks and whinging, is nothing more than a noble dream. We already have a closing summary at the top or bottom of each ANI, if it has been closed. As it is, we also demand for diffs and article names. Beyond that, this proposal merely adds one new thing to to the mix: invitiations for people to draw battlelines, over and over again. One can foresee people who will slur uninvolved others by calling them involved, merely because they disagree with their views. And others claiming they're uninvolved, even if they are actually involved. I think most administrators that handle these reports are fairly intelligent enough to figure out whether someone is involved or not - the way the system is currently structured forces users to look at the dispute properly. Sure, it's not a mistake-free system, but no system is. On a final note, very rarely are users blocked based purely on allegations - usually something more concrete is needed. As for responding to allegations, that's what RfC/U is for. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
We don't need to solve the problems completely; nothing will. It is a good idea to try to reduce them a little bit. A small improvement applied on a large scale has substantial merit. Jehochman Talk 13:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a perfectly acceptable view; I just don't see the "small improvement" by this suggestion. As it is, uninvolved and involved users comments can (and sometimes should) overlap; particularly when trying to explain and clarify. Separating them is counterproductive; all you needed was a mere list of involved users. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist, you don't think editors should always have a chance to respond to accusations made at ANI? I'm not clear on what RfC/U has to do with it. It seems to me that discussion is always the first step in resolving disputes, so failure to do so is a real problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
ChildofMidnight, I can understand your view (and totally had the same view in the past); that sort of discussion is very important. But let's (just as an example) compare an editor who edits once a week to an editor who edits daily. So we give each of them "a chance" to respond. Are we expecting everyone to edit daily? I don't think so. So one editor may finish explaining and clarifying their position/circumstances within 3 days perhaps because they edit daily, while it may take the other editor 3 weeks because they only edit once a week. If the discussion was satisfactory, then great! It was worth it! If the discussion was not satisfactory, and a sanction should've been imposed, can we impose it 3 days after the event? Possibly. 3 weeks after the event? Hardly. In essence, what I'm saying is that I don't think enough consideration is being given to these sorts of problematic issues. I brought up RfC/U because it is the ideal place for an editor to respond to allegations against him/her that aren't as clear-cut; time is not so much of an issue for when an editor responds as sanctions won't be imposed there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman asked me to comment here (thanks!). My experience at AE is that requests are much more easily handled thanks to the structure provided by the {{Arbitration enforcement request}} template. However, this board has a much wider scope, so I'm sceptical whether any one structure could easily accommodate most requests. I could, however, imagine us experimenting with a few formats tailored to specific common types of issues, such as requests of administrator intervention with respect to an article, requests of administrator intervention with respect to a user, requests of administrator intervention with respect to an administrator (perhaps call that one {{ADMIN ABUSE!!!}}? :-), and requests for the review of sanctions. Obviously these should be optional at least for new users.  Sandstein  17:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

These are the fields I think should be part of every request posted to ANI:

Locus of dispute, or action in dispute
Involved parties (Please be sure to notify each)
Comments by involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)
Comments by uninvolved editors
Remarks by closing administrator

I am not able to think of any cases posted here that don't involve such items. Could we create a template, add it to the edit message, and make this optional so we can run some tests? Jehochman Talk 18:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) That sound good Jehochman. I had type up this comment an suggestion for fields:
In light of the issues raised in this discussion I support an optional template or guide or whatever indicating the fields that should be covered in a report.
1) Issue and articles
2) Editors involved
3) Diffs
4) Notification of parties
I also want to reiterate that comment from those accused of wrongdoing should always be solicited, and discussion to resolve a situation should be encouraged as a first step. It's unbelievable that we have some admins who consistently fail to show the most basic good sense and judgment by failing to communicate entirely with those involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Jehochman's list of "things that all issues have in common" is good. I'd handle it by adding to the tabbed list of links, two more items: "other requests involving a complaint against a user" and "requests of a housekeeping nature/anything else". Then link those to an ANI post with a template preloaded for each. Updated mockup:
Please select the closest request from the following categories.
You will be taken to the appropriate noticeboard:
Biographical article
issues ("BLP") 		3RR or edit
warring 		Ongoing
vandalism 		Page
protection 		Civility
problems 		Sock-
puppetry 		Arbcom ruling
enforcement 		Content
issues 		Appeals
Any other request involving a complaint against a user or a matter in dispute

Housekeeping requests / anything else

FT2 (Talk | email) 02:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
That seems like a good way to organize it. If anybody dislikes the incident template, they can just erase it and type freeform. I'm not sure which MediaWiki page to edit, but perhaps somebody else could boldly deploy this solution. Jehochman Talk 05:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Mockup

Based on the above this is as close as I can easily get to the proposal. It includes the tabbed appearance, and uses show/hide to give the user the templates and instructions for ANI posts.

Please select the closest request from the following categories.
You will be taken to the appropriate noticeboard:
Biographical article
issues ("BLP") 		3RR or edit
warring 		Ongoing
vandalism 		Page
protection 		Civility
problems 		Sock-
puppetry 		Arbcom ruling
enforcement 		Content
issues
 
For all other requests, click "show" and use the instructions to create a request on this page:
Any other request involving a complaint against a user or a matter in dispute

Use this format for all other matters involving a dispute or other issue needing administrator attention. Please paste and complete the following template into a new section. Then notify the other parties on their talk pages, or (for a matter discussed on another page) notify the discussion on that page. 

; Locus of dispute, or action in dispute

; Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion

; Description of the dispute and the main evidence
<!-- SIGN BELOW USING ~~~~ -->

; Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)

; Comments by uninvolved users

; Remarks by closing administrator
Housekeeping requests / anything else

Use this format for all matters that are not contentious (no dispute or complaint is involved), but where administrator help is needed. Please paste and complete the following template into a new section. 

; Description of the matter or request and any relevant links or diffs
<!-- SIGN BELOW USING ~~~~ -->

; Any other users that may be involved

; Comments by uninvolved users

; Remarks by closing administrator
v · e

If this works it can be pasted at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents by any administrator, and edited there, and all changes will be immediately visible at ANI.

FT2 (Talk | email) 20:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. All editors are invited to test. Jehochman Talk 21:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The tabs are good; but the other issues I've raised above don't seem to be resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Strictly on on aesthetic matters, I'm not a fan the red text, as it reminds me of a red link. hmwithτ 14:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Another colour would be preferrable; I also got confused. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Can something be done to stop the box changing width when the show/hide is clicked? Keith D (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Fixed. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. I agree the red font isn't helpful. And that text seems a tad small to me (or maybe the For all other... part could be bigger?), but maybe it's okay. I like the simplicity of the tabs, but the instructions are a bit wordy for my liking. Doesn't "Locus of dispute, or action in dispute" =Location and "Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion" = parties involved? And I think "Description of problem and diffs" is sufficient without "and the main evidence". Then I would simply say "Please remember to sign you statement and leave the remaining portions blank". If we want people to be concise we have to lead by example. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

On the formatted discussions - wouldn't it be easier to use one of those buttons that loads the edit box with the template preloaded? Nathan T 14:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be easier. Do you know how to set it up? Jehochman Talk 14:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice?

What do people think of putting a request in the edit notices for AN, and ANI for posters to keep their complaints/queries/etc as concise as possible?--Tznkai (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be fine as long as it was kept to concise reminders. Anything more will be more likely to be ignored. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
We may as well - it would be a useful thing to remind verbose editors of. Nick-D (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I think nobody reads the edit notices. The solution for this board, I believe, is to use template request formats and allow any uninvolved administrator to close a request when it is done. We should stop allowing endless discussions once it has been determined that no administrative action is necessary. ANI is not dispute resolution. `Jehochman Talk 12:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No, that's a bad idea, because as you know from your own experience it often increases drama, and makes people feel they're being censored. AN and AN/I are indeed part of the dispute resolution process, the first part of which is to ask for fresh eyes. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Uhm, at WP:SPI and WP:AE we routinely allow admins to close threads once a determination is made. Why is this board different? Why must we allow endless discussion, and worse? Yeah, there are a few editors who want to "fight the man" and who shout "censorship ZOMG!!1!" whenever somebody tries to stop an unproductive discussion. It's impossible to do business here. The board is blatantly used for gaming the rules, block shopping, and all manner if ill behavior. If it can't be set right, I think it would be better to delete it. Oh, one more thing, it makes me feel bad when you make presumptive statements like "as you know from your own experience". Would you please avoid trying to guess what's in my head. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 14:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
People who don't want to read a discussion don't have to, so I see no harm in letting people talk; it's not clear why anyone would be prevented from "doing business," as you put it, given that everyone can simply ignore the parts of the board they feel are unproductive. It's usually obvious when a thread has exhausted itself, but attempts to close threads prematurely makes things worse, as we see time and again. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
You've made a fair comment. My concern is that a user who's being discussed at ANI is in the stocks, or on the ducking stool. I've been there and it's uncomfortable. I think we owe the subjects of threads a fair hearing, and then the matter should be closed. It's not fair to the subject when discussion drags on endlessly. Once it is determined that there should be or should not be an administrative action, I'd favor closing the discussion. If people want to continue chatting, a link can be given to some other talk page. If a matter needs to be appealed, a new thread can be started. How can we reconcile your concerns with mine? Jehochman Talk 15:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we allow discussions to unnecessarily drag on endlessly, most of the time. (Obviously, it doesn't matter which system we're under, the same exceptions will be encountered from time to time.) Usually, when a discussion drags on endlessly, it's because a user doesn't get it, the filing user isn't satisfied with the number of responses they've received, or people are having little side-conversations which aren't entirely related. Of the three, only the latter can really be tackled - though, even that is sometimes met with opposition. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Reply to Jehochman. What you say about a fair hearing is true, and it's a question of judging when it has started to drag on unproductively. If threads collapse into active abuse of the subject, and violations of NPA, that's a different matter. But it's not simply a question of administrative action. Posters may want input from admins, or may want to draw admins attention to something. Not everything has to end in a block or other action, or be deemed pointless. Posters also have to be allowed time to make their case, and other users must be given time to see the thread in case they have something to add. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI page rename - discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The title "Administrators noticeboard/incidents" seems to cause some confusion among less experienced users unfamiliar with administrators, who may need help. Clarity of title and more intuitive titles tend to be helpful. ANI was named long ago, and although most users seem to find it, it may be somewhat arcane unless one is familiar with wiki terminology.

Would it be worth retitling this board "Wikipedia:Administrator help" or "Wikipedia:Requests for administrator assistance"?

It might remove some mystique, and also make it more directly intuitive to seek admin help when appropriate.

Thoughts?

FT2 (Talk | email) 10:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this one of those pages that has been edited so much that moving it would have the propensity to knock us offline, as with VFD? Dekimasuよ! 13:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I've always thought of AN as a "bulletin board" for things folks should be aware of. AN/I? ... I kinda thought it should be AN/DC - some folks might think "Damage Control", and others might think "Drama Central". To be honest though, it doesn't really matter to me what the name is - just please leave a redirect behind. I've gotten so used to ANI. ;) — Ched :  ?  11:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
RAA. or RAA-General, but the question is then if it would get requests that belong on the other boards instead. It might do that, because the procedure here is informal and at some of the others is rather complicated, DGG (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
What about a tabbed top interface, like this:
Please select the closest request from the following categories.
You will be taken to the appropriate noticeboard:
Biographical article
issues ("BLP") 		3RR or edit
warring 		Ongoing
vandalism 		Page
protection 		Civility
problems 		Sock-
puppetry 		Arbcom ruling
enforcement 		Content
issues
For all other requests and specific problems, use this page.
FT2 (Talk | email) 11:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that table looks nice. "Requests for administrator assistance" would be my first choice of name, obviously with redirects from the alternatives.--Kotniski (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree - much more intuitive, and likely to be more noticeable as well. — Ched :  ?  12:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The table is very nice, It would keep things a lot more neat and tidy on there rather than it looking like a piled up mess! Harlem675 18:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
But AN/I is not just for administrator assistance, it's also for reporting administrator behavior that might be problematic. Powers T 13:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, problematic admin behaviour requires admin assistance, too. That, or you go straight to arbcom. --Conti|✉ 13:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
A user who has a problem with an administrator will tend to look for other administrators for help. In any likely issue, wording like "requests", "help", or "assistance" may be better.
(Also, technically, a search covering multiple pages and archives is not hard to do nowadays; we don't need all pages to start "Administrators' noticeboard" to make that possible.) FT2 (Talk | email) 13:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Owing to an offshoot in this thread on my talk page, I've made a new redirect: WP:KERFLUFFLE. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I came here expecting to be grumpy and harrumph about putting lipstick on a pig, but I think that Drilnoth is right here. RAA, as it might be called, seems more appropriate that AN/I, which is a little more of a hold over from our original hierarchy. I support the rename generally, but I don't want it to be named 'the civility noticeboard'--RAA is much better. Protonk (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, 3RR and AIV noticeboards are requests for Admin assistance too ... so is UAA and so on... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that in addition to being sort of ridiculous, a rename would really screw up a metric shit-ton of archives, links, and so on all over the project. I do like FT2's tabbed interface, and would support heartily it being at the top of each AN related page. Would certainly cut down on misfiling over time, keeping things neat and orderly. And because people have to reassess where their issue belongs, it might even cut down on the hysterics. ThuranX (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

  • The rename is an excellent idea, and I don't understand your point about archives. Links to WP:ANI#some section are breaking every day anyway, and links to proper archive pages won't break. Anyway, we should try to design something user-friendly, not worry about backwards compatibility too much (even if there is a little breakage). Kusma (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirects would be left in place; links to old archives would just go to links to new archives. Moving large numbers of pages (e.g., the archives) isn't too hard for an admin (can move up to 100 subpages with each page move) and AWB. I'd try and focus on the name itself, not backwards compatibilty, as it should mostly remain intact. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the rename, and in addition have another suggestion: Instead of calling the old pages "archives," have a daily log like XfD. This way the links are permanent. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Rename is a good idea and daily log for the archives would make a lot of sense - and we certainly have the volume to justify it.--Kubigula (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I assume that "like xFD" means posts are logged by the date they were opened, and the master page lists dates (or sections) with open/unresolved posts? FT2 (Talk | email) 23:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
LiquidThreads will make this unnecessary. Coming soon to a wiki near you... :D Happy‑melon 21:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
"Soon" as in "probably this century", I presume? :) --Conti|✉ 21:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Personally I'd prefer keeping the name (and thus hierarchy) the same and doing proactive moving of wrongly placed sections. However, KoH's suggestion about the daily log page is a good one. –xenotalk 19:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The tabbed interface is quite nice and would probably help with the noticeboard confusion. I also support the "Requests for administrator assistance" (RAA) suggestion; I think it better defines the purpose of the page. JamieS93 21:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I like the tabbed interface as well.
  • I'd support this renaming, but even more strongly support a more aggressive farming out of discussions to more suitable forums. This goes well beyond merely sending sockpuppet problems to SPI etc:
  • most personal disagreements should be sorted out on user-talk pages, relevant article talk pages or RFC/U;
  • formatting/style disagreements should go to WT:MOS;
  • most policy disagreements to the relevant policy talk page or WP:VPP;
  • most of the rest can go to various wikiproject and regional noticeboards or specially created discussion subpages.
This approach has the following benefits:
  • discussions take place closer to the seat of conflict and are easier to find in relevant archives if they resurface in the future
  • this page becomes truly a request for administrator attention - editors ask for attention here, admins assist at the discussions
  • discussions have less chance of blowing up just because of the centralised location leading to drive-through resurrection of old grievances
Ideally, "requests for administrator assistance" should just be a comprehensively-linked centralised list of admin-assisted discussions going on elsewhere, a note of which admins are assisting and a quick summary of the outcome ready for archiving. Knepflerle (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time to Rebuild

Above there are requests to rename WP:ANI, and my request to institute structured cases. There's a concern that ANI can't be renamed easily because it has so many revisions.

Why don't we create a replacement process for ANI? It could be created as a new page with an appropriate name. We can work out the best possible process and test it thoroughly, as we did with WP:SPI replacing WP:SSP. Once the testing is done, the new page/process can be launched, and the old ANI can be shut down. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That would probably be a better way to transition. –xenotalk 14:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree and I was going to suggest something myself! Perhaps use this as an opportunity to look at all the ways available of contacting an administrator, and streamlining them into more intuitive and usable systems? Jeni (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The archives contain about 4-7 days' worth of entries - how about the future page uses transclusions like wp:afd but with weeks instead of days, e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for administrator assistance/2009-08-24/2009-08-30 and Wikipedia:Requests for administrator assistance/2009-08-31/2009-09-06? That way no archiving needs to be done with bots, internal links aren't broken, and it's easier to find a thread if you remember the date but not the correct keywords. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-08-20t13:09z

Warnings and discussion before blocks

What do admins (and lesser mortals) think about requiring a warning and discussion (or at least a warning) before blocks are issued to content contributors editors working in good faith? I thought that was standard practice, but recent experience says different. It seems to me that blocking should always be a last resort, and that an admin who can't be bothered to try and resolve issues amicably and respectfully has no business doing a fly-by block. Violators would be required to get consensus before issuing blocks on content contributors. Thoughts? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Define "content contributors", especially in contrast to those who could get immediately blocked. Furthermore, how much content do you think must be contributed in order to earn a mere warning for behavior that would get a fairly new editor blocked? Can a long-time contributor go on a vandalism spree without getting blocked, and for how long? Must the spree be allowed to go on until appropriate consensus is reached, perhaps after a day or so? Are there editors with whom is is difficult, if not impossible, to "resolve issues amicably and respectfully"? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I made that distinction because I didn't want to make dealing with vandals and non-content contributors making trouble onerous. An exception for clear cases of vandalism is fine. Basically, in cases where there is a history of good faith contributions, there should be discussion unless its a clear case of vandalism. I'm more inclined to offer protections for regulars, since I think I am one, but noobs shouldn't be bitten either. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't intend for the original post to go on the talk page. Should it be moved to the main page? It doesn't matter to me. But I think the need for this reform is clear. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I would disagree with this. As a courtesy, its a good idea; as a requirement, it adds another point where users can game the system. Unlike noobs, regulars should know what's a blockable offense. But by making a warning a requirement, this essentially gives regulars a "free pass" to do whatever they want, until they get a warning. This would just add another technicality that blocks could be overturned on, further reducing individual responsibility of users to act in accordance with community standards, and putting it onto the users who want to enforce the standards. Mr.Z-man 20:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that some admins block without any discussion at all. Certainly a note to a user should be a prerequisite to a block in cases other than vandalism. I don't see how it's acceptable or civil to block before saying "please don't do this because..." or "I will block you if you do this again because..." Some communication must be required. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how that addresses my concerns in any way. You seem to have just restated the basis for your proposal... Mr.Z-man 02:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how you, Mr. Z-man, are addressing CoM's concerns in any way. Administrators are as open to gaming the system as anyone else, and blocking without warning is one extremely easy way to do so. While ironclad rules on warnings could never address all situations, WP:BLOCK policy very mildly suggests that it just might, possibly be a good idea to warn even an experienced user before lowering the boom. I realize that the very idea that a bit of talking to someone doing the wrong thing rather than stomping the shit out of them is anathema to the WP:DICK-swinging, cojones-carrying, testosterone-loaded contingent of junkers who like to loudly proclaim (a) that extremism in defense of The Sacred Wiki is no vice, and (b) assume that any admin who proclaims he is on that mission can't lack virtue, but nevertheless, The Sacred Wiki might still be preserved if admins recall that they don't actually need to always use the clubs provided to them, and even their manhood might not be in question if they don't display how very mighty they are, something not always fully realized by those new to manhood. (I'm not referring to anyone in this thread; and of course not all of our junkers are males of a certain age, so if anyone's offended by my agism and sexism, let me duly note that in advance, feel free to register your outrage and let's just get on with the discussion.) Again, somewhat stronger suggestions in the language of WP:BLOCK to remind trigger-happy admins that warnings are useful in solving problematic behavior without alienating contributors would probably be the best thing. Some of the less stupid admins would absorb the clue. The result, even among perpetrating editors who should know better, would be better behavior, although it would be a bit less fun for certain types of admins. I believe in the field of criminology they call it something like "discretion on the part of law enforcement officers". They've even invented written warnings. No, really, they have. And not just for people who didn't know they were violating a law or regulation. -- Noroton (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't need to address his concerns. I support the ststus quo (warnings being a recommended courtesy), the job of convincing others falls on the person suggesting change. I would support a stronger suggestion, just not a hard requirement. The easiest way to not get blocked still remains to just not do things that might result in a block. Making a warning a requirement is pretty much the opposite of discretion. To expand on your comparison to law enforcement, a hard requirement for a warning before a block for everything except blatant vandalism would basically be the equivalent of requiring a warning on the first offense for everything short of murder. Mr.Z-man 12:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure you need to address his concerns, because another opposite of discretion is foolishness, which is the huge underlying problem CoM is suggesting be ameliorated. To say The easiest way to not get blocked still remains to just not do things that might result in a block is the equivalent of saying The easiest way to not be the victim of police brutality is not to commit any crimes in the first place, which (a) doesn't address the problem brought up and, (b) leaves out the innocent victims who get a block on their record. Somehow there are always characters at AN and AN/I who will point out that having a block on your record is no big deal, and somehow there are always at least as many characters who point out blocks on editors' records. You can exaggerate either way with this: Not to have at least a lot more guidance for trigger-happy admins is like allowing them to draw their guns and fire at jaywalkers. An ounce of guidance is worth a pound of AN/I recriminations after the fact. -- Noroton (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As has been said in the past, warnings are a courtesy, not a requirement. I disagree somewhat, mainly because I've yet to see a policy that says that but admins are quick to say it none-the-less so that makes it law around here. I believe at least 1 warning should be implemented. No requirement for discussion is necessary as that can take place between the warning admin and the user on the user's talk page. I also think the spirit of blocks should be visited. It's pretty much an after-thought these days that blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punishment. Blocks have become purely punishment, especially against regular users. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, WP:WARN should be updated accordingly. Some won't be surprised that I've said any of this but there are many well documented instances of this. The difference is who is interpreting the the block and usually, the admin will win that argument by status alone. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 20:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
If bad behaviour is happening right now, and it's clear that the user knows they shouldn't be doing what they are doing, I don't have a problem with block first, talk after. If you're talking about a user doing something blockable out of ignorance, then, yes, I would be worried about an admin who blocked before talking to the user. Is that what you've been seeing? If so, then I think the cure is education, not regulation. Can you give us specific examples of the behaviour you'd like changed? Regards, Ben Aveling 21:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Rules are not a substitute for good judgment. Each situation needs to be weighed when deciding whether to block or warn. There's no single right answer that fits all situations. Jehochman Talk 02:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I propose that the following be added to WP:BLOCK policy:
Everyone was new once, and most of us made mistakes. That's why when we welcome newcomers, we are patient with them, and assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. We also ask that newcomers make an effort to learn about our policies and guidelines so that they can learn how to avoid making mistakes.
Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behaviour conflicts with our policies and guidelines. A variety of template messages exist for convenience, although purpose-written messages are often preferable.
Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking. Users who have been made aware of a policy and have had such an opportunity, and accounts whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sock-puppetry, obvious vandalism, personal attack, and so on) may not require further warning.
We could put it in a section called Education and warnings. Just a thought. -- Noroton (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • My common sense tells me that a warning is suitable for first offenses and violations of the same nature. Naturally, you wouldn't warn at every single repeated violation from the same user. Nobody would teach someone forever. I also agree with Jehochman than a case-by-case approach is the best approach.
Now, I appreciate Noroton's suggestion although I am not sure what is new in that (Noroton, could you please highlight your additions? I believe the same 'Educating' section has been there for years) but I see that it can be only applied to newly integrated users. You cannot educate an established user every single time —just after the violation— when that same established user claims being an educator themselves. In those situations, warnings turn into long non-ending debates and sometimes probably turn into subsequent problems because the warned established user would believe that the admin knows less than what he knows (that could be true but that would be irrelevant in cases of repeated violations). Simply put it... there's no single approach, each case is different. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 07:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid that if I highlighted the changes I proposed, it would dissipate the irony that we already have a policy that addresses some of what's been said and I didn't actually suggest any changes. But now that I've thought about it more, it seems useful to could strengthen the language (as I said in a later comment, added farther up in this thread). It's useful to have wise suggestions in the language of policies, not just descriptions of what can and can't be done, and we do that all the time (we do it all over WP:BLP policy, for instance). It would be an improvement if we tacked on this sentence to the bottom of that section (although tattooing it backwards on the foreheads of admins so they could review it every time they looked into a mirror might work even better): In many cases, a warning is preferable to a block and can achieve the same goal of stopping the bad behavior. This still leaves discretion in the hands of the admins, where it belongs, but it gives some guidance. It seems to me that the real problem is the attitude of some administrators, and this would be one of the best ways of addressing it. Even better would be a cultural shift in which more admins indicated they preferred discretion and warnings over cojonery and quick blocks in many situations. You say it can only be applied to newly integrated users Not at all. It is very useful to remind a misbehaving, well-integrated user that he could be segregated with a block. I don't think an admin is then forced to get into a long discussion after the warning -- in fact, silence may well be a better idea, or, in some cases, a suggestion that a discussion wait a while, after the other party has cooled down. A warning is often an excellent incentive to cool down, and a block is often an excellent way to increase anger by hurting an already angry editor. If the admin understands policy less-well than the misbehaving editor, it's time to bring in a different admin. -- Noroton (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a faulty assumption that discretion is working. The point of requiring some form of communication is vital not only because it is courteous and allows for corrective action to be taken without having to bludgeoning an editor, but also because admins frequenty mess up because they don't have all the facts. So communication is very important. Fly-by blocks by know it all admins who don't engage in discussion are a serious problem. Direction to communicate with editors before engaging in gunfire would be very helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • OTOH, there are instances when someone is doing so much damage so rapidly, or the offenses are so awful, that warning is clearly unnecessary and even detrimental. I am thinking of WoW and the time an editor replaced the front page with the goatse image. I see no reason to warn such extreme cases, and taking the time to follow unecessarily anal rules would allow Wikipedia to be harmed further, and possibly considerably. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Name formatting

See also: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion § Name formatting, and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship § Name formatting

I am proposing the following page moves of the administrators' noticeboards and other administrative request pages.

This format will be more organized than the previous format, and will be less confusing. --Mythdon talk • contribs 06:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The crucial question is, what's wrong with the current system? —harej (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Because it isn't organized enough, and I wish to make it organized enough. --Mythdon talk • contribs 06:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
This change would make all those pages a subpage of the Wikipedia:Administrators policy page. I find it undesirable to have noticeboards as subpages of policy pages. I think that rather makes things less organized.--Atlan (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Organized enough... for what? Powers T 20:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There is already an imminent page move which the above changes would impact with. Discussion of this name formatting would best wait until after the move to Wikipedia:Requests for administrator assistance has taken place. There's a suggestion that the move takes place in a structured way which may suggest the move may take a little while to implement. SilkTork *YES! 09:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving to Wikipedia:Requests for administrator assistance

FT2's suggestion above to move "AN/I" to "Requests for administrator assistance" appears to have support. The hesitation in implementing the new name appears to be concerns regarding linking and archiving - though consensus is that any breaks can be fixed on a case by case basis, and that progress should not be held up on that account. But then things appear to have stalled. However, a Wikipedia_talk:ANI#Time_to_Rebuild new suggestion has come out, and that is to have an overhaul of the whole process while a page name is taking place. That does make sense. But that is a slightly different proposal to that originally proposed. Added to which, we have Wikipedia_talk:ANI#Name_formatting another proposal to restructure the admin noticeboards]. While we have a general acceptance of moving "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" to "Requests for administrator assistance", we now need a wider consensus for pausing implementing that move while creating a brand new page - perhaps called Wikipedia:Requests for administrator assistance - which improves what AN/I does, and perhaps brings in related requests for admin assistance. I am closing the old ANI rename discussion and opening a new one here to be advertised on {{Cent}}. SilkTork *YES! 09:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Break archiving? We need to be able to search the old archives easily, if that's a problem, and hopefully it isn't, then it needs to be solved before a move takes place. Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
On another note, do we have to have a redlink on WP:CENT? Can't we just say "moving AN/I". It's very distracting, especially as the title is so long, and makes it look like the notice is incomplete. Greg Tyler (t • c) 20:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, cool. Drilnoth's done it Greg Tyler (talk • contribs) 21:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)!

Note -- I asked the bot approval group for thoughts on the search and archive issues. Some comments were posted here. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to add my late support for the proposal to rename the AN/I page. I agree that it would encourage ease of use (especially for newer users). I thank FT2 for this fine suggestion. As an additional point, the bot group link that FT2 put in the above comment does not appear to currently link to the intended discussion. I will attempt to locate the correct link later if I have time... Matheuler 01:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to support the proposed rename, in the hopes that a page framed explicitly as a venue for help requests would encourage more to-the-point threads and less dramatic miscellany. It might also drive a lot of the traffic at AIN to community fora such as RfC and the Village Pumps, thereby combating the extremely unhealthy authoritarian tendency to have administrators function as a ruling class.  Skomorokh  22:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't help wondering if two pages would be good idea - one for high priority stuff, and another for "can you have a look at this" type problems...83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree – prior to this reorganization, the informal division of AN and AN/I topics along these lines seemed to work. Flatscan (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a solution in search of a problem. The name is fine, and a renaming of the board without changing its function would serve no purpose except to confuse thousands of established editors that use these noticeboards. --Jayron32 05:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment To recap the previous discussion, this is about making Wikipedia more accessible to users who didn't grow up within its arcane terminology.

The title "Administrators noticeboard/incidents" seems to cause some confusion among less experienced users unfamiliar with administrators, who may need help. Clarity of title and more intuitive titles tend to be helpful. ANI was named long ago, and although most users seem to find it, it may be somewhat arcane unless one is familiar with wiki terminology.

The aim of the rename, and the reason it was supported, was that it might remove some mystique, and also make it more directly intuitive to seek admin help when appropriate. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"confuse thousands of established editors"... I really think our editors deserve more credit than this. It's not exactly rocket surgery. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The tabs are great. But I share Jayron32's concerns and I don't see why pages should be moved. I'd have no reluctance in supporting a proposal to redirect the new name to ANI - I think it's a fair compromise. Would there be any objections to that? If so, why? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • What would that solve? --Conti|✉ 13:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • The red link; editors could get to the same venue by typing the "more intuitive" title. Also, it would solve the needless potential disruption and needless potential confusion to established contributors that would be caused by the rename. Contributors need to become familiar with wiki terminology at some point; perhaps this is a more effective way to do so (than currently, or as proposed) is what I was thinking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I've just seen another good reason for the move: "I'm not an administrator; am I allowed to comment here?" I read questions like that now and then here, and I'm always wondering how many people are not posting because they think they're not allowed to. We really should think about not scaring the newbies away instead of thinking about potentially confusing the established users. Any kind of moderately big change is going to potentially confuse the regulars. But that doesn't mean that we should never do any kind of moderately big change. --Conti|✉ 21:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm not saying there should be no change at all, otherwise I'd have opposed. I recall endorsing the proposal to change the usage of "wikistalking" to "wikihounding" last year - yet, I can't ignore the fact that many established contributors are continuing to carelessly use "wikistalking", even just a few weeks/months ago. I still endorse that move, but it signals that we shouldn't make changes of even that nature unless they are compelling. Here, I'm still not convinced that the effort put in to make such "a moderately big change" is going to be truly worthwhile, even for the newbies you're citing. How many are we talking about really? How often do newbies really wonder whether they can post here? Are we just talking about a small handful? Did they read the instructions at the top? Wouldn't bolding the "Any user of Wikipedia may post here" be sufficient for most of them? I think answers to these questions would help, but I hope that in asking these questions, I haven't asked for a repetition of details which have been posted elsewhere. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It would only help the few times people typed in Wikipedia:Requests for administrator assistance or WP:RAA, to navigate them to ANI. But all posts, all diffs, all section links, would still have the old (confusing) name in their links, users would see "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" on the old ANI page title on all cites, sections, archives and diffs (plus a small hatnote "redirected from RAA"), and most users citing that something went on at that page would still say (based on the visible page title) that there was something going on at "ANI" as the page location. Non-starter I think. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The issue is to make Wikipedia's processes as of 2009, much more transparent and accessible to users lacking arcane insider backgrounds. This means revisiting assumptions and sacred cows, to ask not what we understand, but what newer users would find helpful. (The usability program is another example how seriously we take this.) Asking for help is crucial, especially when there is a problem with another editor or an issue. There are campaigns in a number of countries that emphasize "plain English" and see it as important to write for the audience. That goes for project pages as much as mainspace. Asking what a newcomer makes of "Administrators noticeboard/<Anything>" will get a fairly common perception that it's a page for admins, not non-admins, whatever the small print says. Or that it's confusing or arcane. It's an unnecessary barrier; anecdotally and by ordinary thoughtfulness, it seems likely to many people that a significant number of users might benefit, if the title reflected the aim in plainer English. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • FWIW I oppose the rename. "Requests for administrator assistance", in my mind, won't be intuitively searched for either. Plus, the new name is going to widely expand the scope of the page, or mislead people into thinking this page is the appropriate page to request any type of assistance. I know we have notices saying "Problem X belongs at page Y, not here", but those have been consistently ignored. I don't see why renaming the page to be more misleading is going to do anything toward fixing that. Efforts would be better spent making WP:HELP more useful. ÷seresin 19:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I'm also on the oppose side. I don't see why we can't just make "Wikipedia:Requests for administrator assistance" a redirect. Plus as seresin said above, do we really want a deluge of newbs flooding ANI with irrelevant questions instead of the new contributors help desk where they ought to be? -- œ™ 01:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Lukewarm Support. As a jaded Wikipedian I concur that current ANI name is confusing. This proposal represents an improvement. But it might be more useful if Help:Contents had a link labeled "Requests for administrator assistance" that linked to the page - irrespective of the page's name. Perhaps I'll go boldly there and add it... Williamborg (Bill) 22:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose We may need a clearer name, but I agree with seresin that the change will be counter-productive. There may be a problem, but this won't resolve it. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

This proposal seems to have fairly obvious support... indeed, this second section wasn't meant to become another !vote, I think. Rather, it is to discuss implementation of the move. So, how would moving the pages break archiving and the like? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

>600,000 bytes

Resolved
 – (ANI manually archived) Guest9999 (talk) 600,000_bytes" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">03:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I know this is a bit of a dead horse but surely there must be some way to prevent the page from becoming this large, splitting, faster archiving, subpages etc.. If 150k articles are considered problematic I don't know how those with slow connections can even view this and it doesn't exactly help with navigation. Guest9999 (talk) 600,000_bytes" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">21:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not happy

While I apologised to Friday for accusing her of being friends with Frank in the wrong I am not entirely happy with things she said on the admin noticeboard. I make a complaint about an admin giving me grief. Friday would not address my complaints and then stated that "I would suggest just letting this drop, and refraining from giving editors warnings in the future. You don't appear to know when a giving warning is or is not appropriate." I have been using Twinkle for years, have done thousands of reverts, with only a single other incident (when I had only been using twinkle a couple of weeks) where someone questoioned my use of it. I provide a great service to wikipedia in reverting vandalism for free without any pay. I know Friday and other admins also offer a great service here without being paid. Friday makes a judgement call on me, a very experienced wikipedia saying essentially I am an ignorant user who can't be trusted to use twinkle.

Friday then went on to say that "I just want to agree here with Frank that "leave me alone" is a useless, inappropriate response. Anyone who says such things is probably not well suited to a collaborative project." I found this to be very nasty saying I am not suited to a collaborative project, meaning I am useless and should just leave wikipedia, assuming she meant wikimed/wikipharm projects. I found Friday's comments insulting and demeaning and very judgemental for someone who has never met me before. Is it any wonder I became suspicious that there was an alterior motive going on or conflict of interest?

I am sorry but I just have a bad taste in my mouth about all of this. I have had prior bad experiences from this admin noticeboard. I once reported a banned sockpuppeteer who was without question being disruptive and an editor followed me to an article I was editing and exploded with aggression using four letter words beginning the letter F and "harassed" me for a day or 2. I never reported this instant to admin noticeboard, I just hoped that he would "go away" with time which he did. Other incidents include similar to this admins making judgement calls on someone's behaviour based on single instances without knowing anything of the complex background to some things. I have had banned sockpuppets make bogus lying reports about me on admin noticeboard, people take the lies of a sockpuppet seriously and jump to conclusion that I am lying and the sockpuppet is telling the truth and end up in an argument. I am sorry but I cannot recall one positive experience on this board. I hope this message is used for the good of wikipedia and you take on board my complaints of how this board is run. I will be avoiding this board to the best of my ability in future.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that I will not get a favourable response from this posting, I expect some sort of justification for my complaints about why it is ok for contributers here to launch into four letter tirades, why i t is ok to jump to conclusions and character assassinate people with no background knowledge of situations. I am happy to just leave here making my point and hoping people take it on board for future issues on this board and also happy that my problems with Frank sorted out (that he won't be back on my talk page).--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is impossible to read through large walls of text. If possible please try to keep remarks brief and to-the-point. Thank you. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Julian, I had several quotes followed by comments to make and also was summarising several previous incidents that I wanted to raise. I don't think that I can shorten it. Only thing that I can think of is by using diffs. Shall try that.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
"Anyone who says such things is probably not well suited to a collaborative project." -- I agree that part was uncalled for. Everyone has at one point or another wanted someone to leave them alone, collaborative project or not. However he's right that your request was probably useless. On Wikipedia the proper way to get someone to leave you alone is to just drop it yourself, rather than asking the other person to do so. This a lesson I've learned over a rather long experience though, and I wouldn't necessarily expect everyone to realize it, at least not to the point of actually berating them and suggesting they don't belong here as a result.
Unfortunately ANI is an inherently heated place as the complaint department (despite the disclaimer). Many admins who participate in it regularly are understandably inclined to give flip responses, considering what they have to deal with regularly. Many of them should probably take a break from it and remove it from their watchlists temporarily, though I would never suggest that to their faces (but maybe I just did).
Personally I've found that ANI is best suited to reporting clear-cut policy violations, and that's it. You're by far not the first person to point out ANI's problems. Some have gone as far as to call it one big civility violation. The problems could perhaps be corrected somehow, but until then, it's best to just use it for what it's good for, and otherwise avoid it. That's what I do. Equazcion (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback Equazcion. I do acknowledge and understand that admin noticeboard has to make quick decisions and cannot be expected to spend hours going over countless diffs and talk pages stretching back often weeks, months or years. I agree completely that admin noticeboard is best for clearcut policy violations, it is the worst place for he said she said or complex drama with lengthy background. That was why I asked that the admin noticeboard not try to pass judgements on an article which is under arbcom rulings, not normal admin guidelines. Unfortunately my request to stay on topic was ignored and admins started doing a reassessment of drama and treating the article as if it was not under arbcom (special rules). I never even did get a chance to collect diffs and put forward my actual complaint but never mind, not gonna drag the drama back up again. You are right that dropping it was best way to go.
Ok here is my tip, if an admin is judging an isolated event or incident or they are ignorant of the background, judge their incident, do not do "original research" and start imagining or guessing to the reality of the situation and passing character judgements and guessing if they are an overall "good guy" or "bad guy". I am glad that you seem to have taken on board my concerns and addressed them. This is why I said that Frank may be a good guy and having a bad hair day and was cautious in how I worded my suspicions of user Friday (although I was wrong and apologised for that inaccurate suspicion) being friendly with Frank. I think that I was imperfect in all of this as well and acknowledge this eg blurting out that I thought Friday was on friendly terms with Frank and was "sticking up for a friend". I do not mind if this is winded up now or marked as resolved. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't look bad to me. It's clearly constructive critism. People who want to be left alone are not suited to a collobrative project, I think that's self evident, and saying it isn't a personal attack. Also, saying "don't give warnings because you've given a few bad ones" certainly isn't an attack, although I certainly wouldn't have reccomended it. As you can see on Friday's userpage, no personal attacks doesn't mean no critism allowed. I hate to say this as I've felt insulted by someone saying it before but you need to grow a thicker skin.--Patton123 (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your views, however, you misinterpreted the situation. I do not want to be left alone and I welcome interaction and feedback with wikipedians. That comment was only directed to a user when they started distorting what I or others were saying. The actual advice I have received from this admin board is I should have either archived or ignored the comments which is the same result as saying leave me alone but just a better way. Now I seem to be getting the opposite advice. Few isn't quite true, I have two questionable uses from twinkle including this one, out of the thousands of times that I have used it. I am not insulted by your comment about growing a thicker skin, it is constructive criticism. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Great :-). Sorry I didn't look int the situationa t all only read your post. Yes well if someoen is making bad posts to your talk best to just delete them..--Patton123 (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Have a nice day Patton. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC) I should just be clear, not sure if anyone is misinterpreting this section but the reason and person that I came to this project in regard to was not Friday. So it was not Friday who was making bad posts to my talk page. If someone wants to mark this section on the talk page as resolved it might help (want to put everything behind me), dunno if it is appropriate for me to do it as a non-admin.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive bot troubles

Resolved
 – Archive bots working again. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The size of ANI is up to 515K, which is not normal, but seems to be due to stoppage of bot archiving, due to Wednesday's MediaWiki update. See a note at WP:VPT about it. People who often work on such things will hopefully have suggestions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Google search results that point to a vandalized version of a page

I see there isn't a separate talk page for ANI (which make sense), so I *think* this is a good spot for this. If not, sorry, very open to a better idea. :)

WP:GOOGLEPURGE - was just created by User:Hersfold. Is it worth adding to the header at ANI with something like:

  • If you are here to report that Google searches return a "bad" version of a Wikipedia page, please see WP:GOOGLEPURGE.

- Sinneed (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

On several recent article edits I made, the new versions showed up in Google in under 5 minutes. It's like they had a direct feed. If this doesn't always work, perhaps there's some way we could improve the process instead of the painful WP:GOOGLEPURGE process. UncleDouggie (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI: The "thin geeky line" perpetually saving Wikipedia from imminent destruction!

Check out this TED talk from Jonathan Zittrain, from the 10:24 mark on. Well-meaning academic saying Wikipedia works because there are so many people watching the dramaboard wanting to solve problems!  Skomorokh  20:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We're people in a little "windowless back room"! Hilarious. — Oli OR Pyfan! 21:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I like 10:00 - "Stir fried Wikipedia" heheh -- Ϫ 00:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
10:23 - Wikipedia stir fried with pimentos. *THERE we go* (do not hit me)- Sinneed 01:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sub-pages

While I'm currently stuck watching the entire page for one little conversation, I wanted to start a topic about avoiding that problem altogether. It seems clear to me that this board receives at least as much traffic as (and I would say more then) WP:AFD, so why aren't we using sub-pages here? I would think that moving to a sub-page system would assist significantly in privacy and archival issues, as well.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Amen. For some reason, this is a WP:PEREN idea that never makes it past the discussion stage. I'm 100% behind the idea, but I guarantee it will never take off. Last time I remember seeing a discussion, I believe it got tripped up over people not being able to watchlist one single page. It seems to me one of those ideas with 10 advantages, that always gets hung up because it has 2 disadvantages. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I just looked up the actual implementation as it is currently accomplished on WP:AFD, and it's dead simple to do. Best of all, the current conversations could be completed without interfering with a move to sub-pages (once the current conversations are old enough they will simply be archived, and the only items left will be the newer transscribed discussions). Usually the type of "opposition" that you're describing above is caused by a lack of will to implement rather then "real opposition", but I don't want to step on any toes here by assuming that my perception of the situation is 100% correct.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
As far as the advantages and ease of implementation are concerned, you're preaching to the choir. I can't recall in which archives I ran across the discussions, but I know for a fact that multiple people in previous discussions were not only skeptical about implementation, but were actually dead set against the idea even if it was easy to do. I think it always ended up with a slight majority in favor, but never a consensus. Consensus can change, so we can hope, I suppose. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
So... should we try it and see how it goes? Start canvassing (the Village pump, for instance) to generate a wider discussion about it? Start an RFC? I'm not really in any sort of hurry about this (I can see how the above questions could provide the wrong impression), but there's no obvious reason to er... "equivocate" either, that I can see.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
There, I posted an ad on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Sub-pages for AN\ANI.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to know what the "10 advantages" are, as the watchlisting issue is a fairly significant one IMO. Mr.Z-man 01:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I've started combing through the archives here (which, incidentally, the inclusion of the ' character makes difficult), and I don't really see much discussion that is really on point. There is quite a bit of discussion about a certain user, and I see sub-pages mentioned quite a bit, but I don't see any direct discussion on the issue *(yet).
I do see the "watchlist 10 pages" issue brought up, but I don't agree with it. AFD and RFA have successfully used sub-pages for a while now, and I don't see that as a significant barrier there. If you wish to follow multiple discussions on a sub-page platform (like AFD, for example), simply browsing the root page is much more effective regardless. That way you can have specific conversations targeted through watchlisting, yet maintain the "view of the forest" as convenient.
As for the benefits, here are some quick ones: No need for bots to perform archiving; Keeping conversations "walled", for some privacy; Giving watchlisting some added utility (you're not distracted by posts to other issues); The ability to classify sub-pages with categories and other markers; The ability to have "permanent" links to old discussions (links to discussions that have been archived currently simply bring you to the main page). I'm not sure how many benefits that is, and that's not an exhaustive list, but it's a decent start.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The major difference between AN/ANI and RFA/AFD is discussion length. AFDs and RFAs last for a week, so its not really a problem if you miss something for a couple days. Discussions on ANI may only last a day or 2. To respond to some of the suggested benefits:
  1. How would we not need bots? Wouldn't we still be transcluding the discussions onto the main page (like AFD/RFA)? Presumably we would still need a bot to remove the discussions once they end. For RFA, there are few discussions, so manual archiving isn't an issue. For AFD we just start a new page every day.
  2. If you want privacy, ANI or any public noticeboard is not the place to go. Posts are made to ANI so that they get lots of attention. "Privacy" would seem to be more of a negative on such a page.
  3. Yes, your watchlist only shows the discussions you want; but you have to find them and manually watch them first. For people who only care about one specific discussion this is good. For people looking for discussions to comment in, this becomes a pain.
  4. Easy links are nice, though you can still mostly replicate this with "permanent links" to a revision.
Mr.Z-man 03:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's see, I'll reply to each point as that should be easier (I re-factored the points into a numbered list, I hope you don't mind).
  1. AN(/I) could certainly still use bots (as the AFD and RFC processes do), but it wouldn't be reliant upon them. There's a subtle distinction there, but it's important since significant bot downtime could (theoretically) just about cripple the functioning of the current AN\ANI system (in reality there are plenty of people to perform manual archival operations, but that doesn't really address the reliance of the current set up on bot ops). Anyway, the transclusions and the new pages are performed by the MediaWiki software (through the use of Magic words), not by bots. Take a look at the current structure of AFD and you'll see what I mean.
  2. I agree that theirs nothing at all private about AN\ANI, and there really shouldn't be (I'm sure that there is a better word I could use, but it escapes me at the moment). There are occasions where discretion is called for however, and that is currently performed by using the blanking kludge and\or (in extreme cases) utilizing the oversight mechanism. What I'm really addressing though is the "spill over" phenomenon inherent in many of the discussions using the current setup. I'm here for one specific conversation, but while I'm here I see many other conversations occurring. More then simply seeing them, in order to track the conversation that I'm actually invested in I must also see all changes to every other conversation. Therefore, the likelihood that I will comment on another discussion (which I was probably unaware of prior to coming here) is greatly increased. I've seen it mentioned in archived discussions that sub-pages may engender continuation of discussions, where they would currently be archived, as well; but the point here is that this criticism cuts both ways. We could easily specify a 7 or 14 day "limit" to AN\ANI discussions (with liberal exceptions) if the "unending" nature of sub-page AN discussions turns out to be a real issue, but the benefits and risks of using sub-pages are not at all lopsided when it comes to this point.
  3. This criticism is countered easily by two points. First, notification that other users are being discussed here is already a central rule, so the potential for conversations being "lost" is very minimal. Second, the continuing ability of AFD, RFA, and other sub-page reliant processes to function easily refutes the ease of tracking criticism (I would hope that this would be obvious, but I am willing to expand on the point if asked).
  4. Using actual permalinks is certainly possible, but it is an extra step for users to take, and involves some work. Why should we be burdened with extra paperwork when the software can take care of it for us?
I should state that I'm not completely dead set on this, although it should be obvious that I'm very much for it and am ready and willing to personally do the work involved. To be blunt I'm not completely sure if the objections here are FUD related or are truly significant, but either way I'm very willing to continue discussing the issue.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
A few replies:
  1. I'm not sure what you mean wrt AFD. While magic words are used to generate the list on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/current, the actual AFD "log" pages are still reliant on people adding transclusions manually (or using a script).
  2. "Therefore, the likelihood that I will comment on another discussion (which I was probably unaware of prior to coming here) is greatly increased." - Again, more eyes on a discussion is typically a good thing.
  3. I wasn't really referring to people looking for discussions about them, more about admins and other users looking for discussions that need assistance or that interest them.
  4. While it is annoying, AN/ANI discussions are not the kind of things that needs to be referred to often after the fact. They may be cited in RFCs/RFARs, but I can't really think of any other uses. You also have problems with naming. RFAs are named after the user, AFDs are named after the article. ANI discussions may not always refer to an easily definable "thing." If you don't have a consistent naming scheme, it makes it more difficult to find old discussions, as you still end up digging through the archives.
-- Mr.Z-man 04:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
←Replies to your replies!
  1. It is conceivable that I'm missing something fundamental when it comes to the system that AFD uses, but it looks like it's completely Magic word driven. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/current hasn't been edited since April, and that was a relative minor adjustment. More importantly though, looking at the page source there reveals the underlying reliance on Magic words rather then bots. Perhaps AFD used to rely on bots to change things (I don't know, I'm honestly asking here)?
  2. I see your point, but I was thinking more of the quality of participation rather then the quantity. Having a number of eyes is obviously important, but which eyes is just as important. I'm not at all suggesting that we should actively hide anything, but lessening the noise from the "peanut gallery" in some cases could be a net positive (and I'm willing to speculate that this effect will be muted if at all observable, which is both a supporting and an opposing viewpoint). Regardless... see below:
  3. As with AFD, those who have an interest in "seeing the big picture" (tracking multiple conversations) can easily follow "current" discussions through transclusion. The main AFD page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Current discussions) and the log pages (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 26 for example) are a perfect example of this. The "Current discussions" page could even transclude each of the log pages with ease to make it that much easier.
  4. I hear what you're saying when it comes to the possibility of name collisions, but I'm not sure how to objectively evaluate the potential problem there. AFD name collisions are probably not as much of an issue as they could be with AN\ANI, but the issue is not non-existent there either. They seem to deal with it by using "(2nd nomination)" and the like as disambiguators. To be honest I'm not that intimately familiar with the AFD process (mostly for... ideological reasons), but I am aware of the fact that they do deal with the name issue there effectively. Anyway, I also hear the criticism with regard to the "need" to link to past discussions, but I submit that you may not know what you're missing. I can easily recall many instances of running across a link to an old ANI discussion and needing to search the archives to actually locate it. The actual requirement for me to do so (other then for my personal enlightenment) is decidedly questionable, but I don't see any real reason to actively make it difficult.
I don't know, I hear a lot of subjective "fear" response here, but nothing really meaty, if you know what I mean.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Replies:
  1. I was referring to pages like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 26 - look at the history. Its full of manual and script-assisted transclusions, there are no magic words involved.
  2. I'm starting to become convinced that you really don't understand the purpose of this page. We want comments from as large a cross-section of the community as possible. All useful comments are welcome. We don't want ANI to become a page where a handful of "power users" make all the decisions.
  3. Yes, people can look at the page, but that means that they have to actually navigate to the page to read the discussions, they'll only see the initial transclusion in their watchlist and if we switch to date-based pages like AFD, they won't even see that. As I said before, AFD and RFA have the benefit of longer discussions. You can check them once a week and its almost the same as checking it once a day.
  4. Collisions aren't really an issue, these can be handled the same way as AFD/RFA. The issue is naming conventions. Not every ANI discussion has an easily assignable name, and if names are just arbitrarily chosen (like they are for section headers now), then finding an archived discussion isn't much easier than it is now. Looking at ANI right now, there are 23 sections. Most of them could probably be switched to a standardized name (though you would lose some information in the process), but I see at least 3 that refer to multiple users. AN has several threads that can't clearly be tied to a specific user or page.
No, I don't know what you mean. I am however, rather offended that you would ask me to characterize my own opinion as substance-less "fear". Mr.Z-man 23:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Links to previous discussions:

There may be more; I stopped looking when I found the two I was thinking of. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh good, two conversations that I haven't read! :)
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that allowing more admins to ignore more of AN/I than they already do is a good idea. When I post at AN/I, it's because there's something wrong that I can't fix without the buttons. It's reasonably common that it takes half a day for someone to notice an undramatic request for help, and it seems like this might make it take longer.—Kww(talk) 23:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm fairly sure there are more discussions about collapsing the size of the admin noticeboards through sub-paging and transcluding - neither of the discussions linked by Floquenbeam has my participation and I recall I was fairly active in at least one of the big ones. Notwithstanding my reluctance to provide links, I would assure Ohms law that unilateral change will not be popular; there were a few instances about a year or so ago that large sections (relating to Giano and Betacommand, seperately) were placed on subpages - linked to the main page - which drew criticism as the discussions then collapsed into a few diehards <*/me waves!*> repeating our mantra's - new voices and opinions were discouraged by it being split off from the main page. Also, as I understand it, transcluded sub pages do not save space - a major reason for the discussion of years back, when memory and processor issues for editors pc's seemed more important than it does now - so this will not allow the boards pages to load more swiftly. I'm not saying that this is not a worthwhile goal to pursue, but there is some history of folk not wanting the status quo upset. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    Oh good, more history! 16px
    I don't want to push through anything that will be actively resisted, but pushing is generally the only means of accomplishing anything around here, these days. There are enough people in our loose community that any suggestion from anyone is bound to receive criticism, so waiting around for unanimity is not productive.
    Anyway, I don't see page load times as being the main issue here (although it can be one). The primary issue that I see is watchlist overload. If you post something on AN\ANI, just about everything else on your watchlist ends up being swamped since (especially ANI) receives more then 200 edits a day. AN\ANI have a real, and somewhat serious, usability issue. Between the watchlist issues and edit conflicts, it's a wonder that ANI doesn't collapse in on itself! Maybe those of you who visit here habitually are simply used to it all? I don't know, but I don't find the situation at all acceptable.
    Aside from that, I'm willing to bet that those of you who rely on these boards don't even realize what you're missing. The ability to have a permanent link to older conversations, not needing to worry quite so much about edit conflicts, Generally making it easier for interested parties to follow conversations, etc... the benefits far outweigh the minor "negatives" (which are mostly negative simply due to their being different).
    Regardless of all of that though, if anyone is willing to stand up and say no, then I'm done with this. Again, I hear a lot of FUD comments, but no one has said "no" yet. Also, take a look that the reference implementation at User:Ohms law/Sandbox/AN.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    You're hearing FUD, I'm seeing comments by someone who doesn't appear to know how ANI is supposed to work. Funny how perspective works. I asked for the "10 advantages" claimed above, I got 4, one of which could be considered a drawback (fewer people reading and commenting in discussions). Mr.Z-man 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I saw this discussion first go up, and I was waiting to see what people were going to say. Since few have participated in this discussion, I'll note that this is something that you'll need a large, strong consensus to do. It's a pretty big change, and there are many who have previously opposed it. hmwith☮ 22:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


I didn't see this discussion going anywhere, so I bailed out, but since I went to the trouble of making this list before I decided to drop it, I'll add it here, in response to Mr. Z-man above:

Advantages

  1. Watchlist pollution
  2. Far easier to follow if you're interested in only a portion of the threads
  3. Archiving saves the edit history too, instead of cut -n- paste
  4. Permanent link to discussion, doesn't need updating when it's referred to elsewhere.
  5. Loading time:: Don't have to load all of ANI to participate in shorter conversation (and doesn't harm load time if you want it all)
  6. Server: Entire large page doesn't have to be saved every time someone makes a comment (I know, don't worry about performance)
  7. Prevents people from using templates in the title (a feature, not a bug; template in headers break goto section arrow)
  8. Fewer situations where accidentally editing an old version removes other people's comments from unrelated conversations (happens daily)
  9. Easy to resume a discussion if it flares up again; simply unarchive and proceed
  10. Yes, I know I said 10, but that was just a number I pulled out of the air; I said "one of those ideas with 10 advantages,..." as a generic description. Frankly, I'm surprised I came up with as many as I did.

Disadvantages

  1. Can't watchlist whole thing at once (could possibly be solved by a bot)
  2. IP editors can't create a new page: this is the most pressing problem; there's an easy work around, but care would have to be taken to ensure it's simple for the IP to do

--Floquenbeam (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Hi guys. I've basically "retired" from Wikipedia, but I wanted to specifically come back here and say that I apologize for any hurt feelings that I may have created with this, as that was not at all my intent (Sorry Mr.Z-man. I definately didn't intend to "insult" anyone, least of all you). Anyway, I was just trying to help out, so I wanted to say something to anyone really feels that I somehow did wrong by them here. Best wishes to all.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Notices

Dear fellow Wikipedians, in the past few weeks I've been trying to get a bit more involved in the "inner workings" of wikipedia. To that extent I've been trying to "clerk" for ANI by making sure loose ends are tied up. Specifically, I look for threads about users and I take a brief period of time to make sure that everyone has been properly notified of the existence of the relevant ANI thread. After placing the proper tag on their talk pages I put a simple one line Procedural Notice on the ANI thread. Recently I was asked not to do this and instead was told that it may be "disruptive". I am genuinely curious to know if my WikiGnome attempts are improper and what may be suggested as an alternative. Sincerely, Basket of Puppies 23:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Link to diffs to illustrate please?--Tznkai (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
See his/her talk page. It is often helpful to know that a user has been notified, as it saves everyone else having to look it up. Perhaps you could remove the boldface and just make a normal comment to the same effect. The boldface might come across a bit like using  Clerk note: icons, which tend to distract from the business at hand on pages like this. Procedure is usually a distraction around here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you think it would be best is I used the small font so as accomplish this but be out of the way? Basket of Puppies 23:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I commented the same at your talk page. A small "Notified user(s) of discussion" is enough. No bold necessary. –xenotalk 23:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I did wonder if a small font would look equally out of place, or even get missed, but it might not. It's used in the {{resolved}} comments, but then that's always placed at the top of the section above the text. Now there's an idea. Anyway, my vote would probably still be for a normal plaintext comment, in the chronologically appropriate place. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Procedural comment: blah blah blah. Ta da.--23:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so that I can live with myself through having raised this here; what is gained by a note of any sort, and any font, being posted on ANI to say, "I've notified the users," – I genuinely do not see the benefit. If the thread-starter notifies them, as they should, they don't announce the fact... ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 07:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see this from both points of view. A short unobtrusive note (none of this "Procedural comment" stuff - almost everything at ANI is a procedural comment) is fine, but so is omitting it. If someone is concerned the subject(s) haven't been notified, they can click thru to the talk page and see that they have (or haven't, and do the needful). –xenotalk 14:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
All else being equal, more information is better than the lack of information.--Tznkai (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe the implication is that this is mostly done where the thread-starter has not notified involved parties, and as such others (clearly at least one) feel they should have been. Think of it like the little messages in AfDs notifying the relevant WikiProjects - The nominator probably should've done it, but so be it; now everybody knows it has been done - no harm no foul. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 18:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Amory, you explained this just as I'd have. It doesn't need to be huge, it doesn't need to be tiny. It doesn't even need to be said, but it's fine if it is. If you wish, just mention it, and the discussion should continue just fine. hmwith☮ 21:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Invisible notice board

Is there a noticeboard for administrators that is invisible to normal users? I know of a few pages that non admins can't see, but are there any forums for internal discussion between admins? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In theory, if (a big if) such a board was needed, admins could use something like Wikipedia:Administrators' hidden noticeboard, by adding a comment and then immediately deleting the page. Admins could read the deleted content, and if they wished to add a comment they would need to restore/add a comment/delete. Cumbersome and lots of potential for edit/delete conflicts! I think that there is an IRC channel for admins only, but I've never used it. BencherliteTalk 11:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
We like to keep things transparent and on-wiki. However, if it's very important that something be kept private (i.e. personal information, etc.) contact a specific admin off-wiki, via email or IRC. hmwith☮ 12:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The closest you'll get is #wikipedia-en-admins. decltype (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
If there is one, I'm not aware of it, and I would generally speaking be against it. There are some recurring problems I think might deserve a communal briefing packet for new admins, but the costs seem to outweigh the gains by far.--Tznkai (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any particular need for such a venue. It might be convenient for all experienced editors to have a forum where they're less encumbered with having to explain things (which might still be an elitism problem). But I don't see a particular need or benefit for an admin-only forum. Though maybe if I were an admin I'd feel differently, who knows. Equazcion (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"I know of a few pages that non admins can't see" - Can you give an example? I'm an admin and I've never heard of any. Manning (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple of special pages - Special:Unwatchedpages. There are also a number of special pages you need specific permission to see; "private" edit filters, for example. But there's no "normal" pages, no standard wiki pages, set up this way. Shimgray | talk | 09:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
All admins can view private abuse filters. So that would be another good example. — Jake Wartenberg 00:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Not yet... –xenotalk 00:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
All users can contact each other in private(irc, phone, email, in person etc). Having been an admin here for over 2 years now I can tell you that if there is an on-wiki discussion board for just admins to read and post to, then I have been excluded from knowing about it. Chillum 00:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I misunderstood, I thought you were all talking about a board for invisible notices --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Cute :) Equazcion (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't mind me, I'm not here... BencherliteTalk

The best idea ever!

There have been problems in the past related to this: If a blocked user's conduct is being discussed on the noticeboard, normally the blocked user is unable to contribute directly to the AN or ANI thread and is forced to post pleading, "somebody please read this"-esque messages on their talk page.

So I had an idea- I know that GA reviews and possibly FA reviews are normally transcluded from their respective subpages to the main talk page of an article. So if it was possible to transclude the AN thread to the blocked user's talk page, they would be able to discuss the issue and defend themselves more easily. At the same time, the "New messages" bar would allow the blocked user to monitor their thread.

Obviously this technique would not be appropriate if the user was blocked for a reason that meant allowing them to comment on the thread would only disrupt and stall the discussion. But in any one of a number of other instances, it might be useful. Comments? A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 20:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We not-infrequently transclude talkpage sections of blocked users over here for just such a purpose. → ROUX ₪ 20:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh... I'm sorry, I hadn't noticed. I didn't see it used in the last User:ObserverNY thread or the recent ChildofMidnight case. In short, I'd never seen it used before, so I thought I'd throw it out there... :P A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 21:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused. Roux, you say we frequently transclude user talk page sections to ANI? How do you transclude just one section of a page? I've never seen that, and didn't know it was possible. Also, someone would have to do that every time the user responded -- so the OP's idea would still have merit, if it allowed the blocked user to participate directly and add comments to the discussion himself.
However, the problem with the idea, ALI, is that you cant edit transcluded content from the page you're transcluding it to. If I transclude ANI to my user talk page, I would still need to edit the ANI page in order to change its content. I couldn't just edit my user talk page.
I still would like to know how to transclude just a section of a page though, if someone could tell me. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Transclude the whole page, but use noinclude on everything except the section in question (or onlyinclude on the section, or something similar, I forget the details. I leave them as an exercise for the reader). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Not as exciting as I thought it would be, but thanks :) Equazcion (talk) 09:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

In some cases, it seems likely temporarily unblocking the user, on the understanding that the only page they may edit (other than their user talk page) is ANI, would be a simple solution. This does not seem to be practice, though, perhaps because of the difficulty of judging when it is necessary/appropriate? Rd232 talk 09:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed this at WT:BLOCK#Temporary unblocking to respond at ANI, without opposition so far (or much comment). Rd232 talk 13:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't seem difficult to me. And if this sort of thing goes on "not infrequently", it might be applied to User talk:Die4Dixie, who is block while an ANI thread relating to them is going on. A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 22:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Going back to what I said above, this doesn't seem possible currently. You can't edit pages while you're blocked, except your own talk page. Even pages transcluded to your talk page would still be uneditable. Unless I misunderstood and you're suggesting a technical addition to the software. Equazcion (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not. What I'm suggesting is transcluding a talk page discussion to the noticeboard, so the main discussion would take place on the blocked user's talk page, while the "edit" tab on the noticeboard would link to editing the section on the user's talk. Comprende? A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 13:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC).
I guess that would work, but it would upset the Search Archive feature of ANI (unless someone takes responsibility for eventually merging the user talk section to ANI, which seems dicey). Rd232 talk 13:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:27 Juni

Moved to WP:ANI#User:27 Juni. If ANI stays semi-protected, feel free to comment here and I'll check in from time to time to transfer comments there, but the talk page isn't watched much, and I think you're not going to get much of a response here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that ANI was just barely unprotected... Until It Sleeps T • C 15:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Help please

Resolved
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppet_accusations - two users seem intent on belabouring a thread to make a WP:Point. Despite numerous requests to show an actual, and actionable, problem exists they seem intent to simply allege issues without merit. This, unfortunately is not the first time DC has done this to other editors although I have no evidence they are actually working in concert with Cameron Scott. Could some uninvolved folks have a read and see if this could be closed? To me this seems only an exercise to publicly flog and is both unneeded and unhelpful. -- Banjeboi 03:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at the slander in this in regards to me. - this is not the first time they have done this to other editors please be specific, *which* other editors are you referring to? Where? when? You can't name any, because you've just made it up! I have no evidence they are actually working in concert. which is an attempt by you to try and suggest (once again with no evidence) there the CIA, wikipedia review whoever are pulling my strings. Again, let's see the evidence, evidence you can't produce because it's in your head. Piss in the pot or get off it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, you feel maligned because you think another editor has accused you of something unjustly. That seems to be exactly the issue with your and DC's behaviours in the thread that I am seeking other eyes on. I have amended the statement to more accurately reflect what I meant. You would do good to follow your own advice in this situation. -- Banjeboi 11:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I thank you for making sure that your statement is now factual (although I know very little about DC's conduct with other editors so make no affirmative statements either way in regards to that). --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem. In the thread itself another editor has outlined some issues with DC's past actions. -- Banjeboi 12:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think David Shankbone's comment is terribly relevant or accurate, but it must be gratifying to have a renowned editor like David Shankbone speaking up for your best interests. This is already at ANI, why is there a separate thread opened here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A simpler format?

There ought to be a simpler way to organize AN and ANI. Currently, linking to discussion on AN/ANI is a mess and you have to search the archives. Perhaps the WP:AFD format could be used here, where each ANI discussion takes place within its own template, and those templates are displayed on the AN/ANI pages. Then, when it is archived, the template's link is still good, because it points to the template, not the entire AN/ANI page. This is just a suggestion to get the ball rolling.--Blargh29 (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I think that is a damn good idea. It would also cut down on the annoying problem of getting in an edit conflict and suddenly having all of ANI in your edit window. That drives me friggin crazy. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The idea has been suggested and discarded several times in the past. But LiquidThreads will take care of the problem, hopefully soon. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive Issues?

Is it just me (and my work computer acting up) or are some of the recently-archived threads going missing. I had a request on my talkpage to find one for someone, and it shows up in searches, but the links don't work. Again, it may be a temporary 1-of situation ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Anietor

Catholic Church has been in active discussion (let us say) for some time now, about issues that appear both in the header and in the first section. Anietor has been reverting for some time, to suppress an effort to tag the section either in general or in particular; in fact, he has made no other edits. He has argued that it requires consensus to add tags, which seems to me, and to others, to be nonsense. Please have a word with him; diffs follow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

8http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church&diff=322225119&oldid=322223907 22:22]

Did you mean to post this somewhere else? This is the Talk page for Administrators' noticeboard. You might try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it will be going to ANI shortly. Considering how long the diffs have taken, this is just as well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI sidebar

Why is the sidebar in the edit window for ANI below the editing interface?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI is overburdened, Proposal for ANS

I am concerned that things move too quickly on ANI for it to be of use in discussing community sanctions. How would people feel about splitting out a board for discussion of community-based sanctions (bans, topic bans, restrictions). The proposed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Sanctions could do the following:

  1. Relieve some of the pressure on ANI caused by long threads. The page is frequently more than 500k, which severely damages usability for people on slow connections.
  2. Allow discussions to continue for several days before archiving.
  3. Allow structured discussions, such as we have on WP:AE, where each discussion has separate areas for involved and uninvolved editors, and a conclusion by a closing administrator. This would make it much easier to assess consensus.

Thoughts? Jehochman Talk 10:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  • (ec) Strong oppose. Although improvement may be intended, it will not happen by enacting this proposal - rather, it will cause further problems and drama (and a larger number of unresolved disputes) for Wikipedia as a whole. This example, and the most recent ANI I filed, provides ample evidence that no such overhaul is needed of the system. It is perfectly useable, even for people on slow connections, and any further discussion would not have been useful. Most importantly, that certain users refuse to or are uncertain as to how to use ANI properly, and impose sanctions properly, does not necessitate another WP:CSN or version of AE. The problems rest with certain users, and the way they choose to exercise their judgement (foolishly) - not the system. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Ncmvocalist, but you're being oblique. Who are you talking about? Jehochman Talk 13:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • We're here to provide adequate closure (one way or another) for your proposal. I don't intend on sidetracking the thread in a manner that would fail to achieve that goal (much in the way that you suggest ANI fails to provide adequate closure on certain proposals). I'm also not interested in wasting further time on the problem when SandyGeorgia's comment already suggests excellent remedies. In other words, I being as plain (or direct) as practically possible, Jehochman. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The point, Ncmvocalist, is that some types of cases work on ANI and other types don't. You refer to two cases that worked for you as though that is proof that all types of cases work. This thread is about the types that don't work on ANI as it is currently set up, and need another approach. --Geronimo20 (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The way in which you, Geronimo20, inappropriately interjected between a threaded discussion [7] is an apt example of the problem being certain users, rather than a certain system. I've now put your response (and this one) where it should be. No where does this proposal or its background make reference to types of cases that work or don't work - it attempts to summarily revamp the system as a whole, as the proposer already indicated [8]. I opposed as it was unhelpful and counterproductive to this project, and does nothing to address the underlying problem. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Sanction discussions on ANI do more than address their specific issue. They also create the precedents that become policy. for that reason alone we should be taking more care, not to mention the direct effects. While some discussions already go on for too long, others are dealt with so quickly that time zone-challenged editors may not get a chance to participate until after the issue has been resolved. And lengthy discussions make this active page harder to navigate. One alternative suggestion would be to use WP:AN instead. That page has no clear purpose and comparatively little traffic. One complication is that sometimes threads start out as mere complaints or reports of "something fishy", and turn into sanction discussions as they progress. Maybe instead of "sanction discussions", which assumes the outcome, it should be something more like "editor complaints" or "policy violations noticeboard".   Will Beback  talk  10:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
How about Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Editing abuse? These may lead to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Jehochman Talk 13:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Strong endorse - Bravo... an overdue wakeup call. At present An/I often leaves content editors feeling like impotent idiots if they try to get an obstructive editor restrained so they can get on with actual content building. I once thought the core function of admins was to facilitate the process of building Wikipedia by enabling constructive content editors. Having some recent experience of these boards, I see that I actually have no idea what admins think they are here for. At times they act as if their role is to draw destructive practices out as far as possible, preferably accompanied with optimal levels of wiki dramatising. Some inhibition is acting on the admins, who just sit on their hands when something needs to be done. Nothing constructive results from such An/Is. This doesn't need to be spelt out. The recent Skipsievert An/I cases are classic examples. The result is that many involved content editors are losing respect for Wikipedia administrative processes, and losing energy as content builders. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

How will what be different? --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
How is ANI different from the old noticeboard? People vote for banning on ANI too. It's the same, except that ANI allows less time for discussion, and generates more drama. On top of votes for banning, we also have rush to close and archive. That has made matters worse, rather than better. I do not see how splitting an overburdened noticeboard is going to be harmful. Anybody who is interested may watchlist the new page. Jehochman Talk 13:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I see it as harmful though, and I don't appear to be alone in that view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose for three reasons.
  • 1) I don't think ANI is overburdened; I think it's encumbered by childish and unhelpful responses, which will occur regardless of the board. A recent thread was derailed several times by tangential and unnecessary remarks; this should be curbed, and I think that thread provides a good sample for reflection. ANI is viewed negatively precisely because of the unnecessary, unhelpful and childish pile-on responses that occur there, and there were many in a recent discussion of editing restrictions.
  • 2) ANI is the most widely read admin board, and any shuffling off to other boards will result in diminished readership, leading to the same problems that occurred at WP:CSN. The discussion of editing restrictions deserves to have the widest possible readership and feedback. RFC/U does not get the amount of feedback ANI does; an RFC/U there is currently languishing because no one can be bothered to come by and weigh in. RFC/U is not the panacea it is thought to be.
  • 3) The reason discussion occurs too quickly at ANI is that admins are always trying to prematurely close threads and shuffle them off elsewhere. People feel that they must respond as quickly as possible, before the thread is closed. Allowing sufficient time for important decisions should help curb this trend. Considering the much longer and often contentious and tangential discussions I have to read through at FAC, as I wait for consensus to form, I am surprised at the impatience of admins when dealing with important matters affecting productive editors.
    • Solution: responsible, mature admins should work to curb the childish responses and tangential remarks that occur at ANI. The recent thread provides an illuminating example of those. The discussion of editing restrictions on an editor who makes excellent content contributions should be accorded the gravity it deserves, by the very admins the community trusts with the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There are 4,000 editors watching ANI. That's both good and bad. Good because it encourages wide involvement. Bad because it's the best place for trolls and attention whores to play their games (big audience, big lulz). There are several frequent participants at ANI who do nothing but inject noise into every discussion. In theory it would be great to ban these people, but if we do, new pests will take their places. Have you been to Times Square? I used to live there. It's full of con men, crazy people, and tourists (the latter being the most objectionable). It's fun on New Year's Eve, but otherwise it's just a traffic jam and a lot of noise and grime. The solution is to break it up, to remove the incentive for trolling and grandstanding. Furthermore, a 500kb+ page is not manageable. We're killing tons of bandwidth and server resources for no reason, and we're discouraging people on slow connections. Have you ever tried to pull a diff from the ANI history? Nightmare! Jehochman Talk 14:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I understand the problem, but the thread in question saw even editors who should know better going off on tangents and introducing unhelpful elements. I suspect that if mature admins weighed in and began to crack down on this sort of thing, it might be curbed. My bigger concern is that the importance of the decision being made in that case deserved the widest possible readership-- which it won't get anywhere else-- so dealing with long threads should be of less importance. Bandwidth is less important than decisions about one of our most productive editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • (ec) Addendum: of course, FAC has only 900 watchers compared to the 4,000 at AN/I, so what I deal with is on a much lesser scale, but the overall problem of ANI being a cesspool needs to be systemically dealt with. Comments like "why don't you all shut the fuck up" do nothing to advance an important discussion. I have means at my disposal at FAC (like moving tangential and unrelated commentary to the talk page, and encouraging reviewers to take on editors who make unproductive commentary) that are less workable in the volume of response that ANI gets, but some effort should go into curbing the long-standing problem of ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • We don't have any structure for the discussion, which is a big part of the problem. I recently helped introduced a system at WP:AE that has done wonders to keep things on track, to avoid the damaging tangents you mentioned. I'd very much like to have some structure at WP:ANI, but we can't yet because there are too many different types of requests mixed together. We need to separate the streams and handle each type of request with an appropriate process. Merely imploring people to be clueful and mature will not work. Of course these cases deserve careful attention. We need a separate board, watched by many people, with cross postings to AN and ANI to advertise discussions. The new board can have it's own set of rules and processes to maintain decorum and prevent discussions from being hijacked or otherwise disrupted. Jehochman Talk 14:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • But we've seen that separate boards don't get wide enough readership, and important decisions are made based on limited feedback. The thread I referenced deserved the widest possible feedback. RFC/U is broken, and ArbCom recently hasn't solved the problem of disruptive editors who make otherwise good contributions. If the community is to have a say in how the community is affected, the discussions have to occur where the community is most represented. I see that Ottava has now initiated a case before ArbCom. His contributions are at a much higher level than those of a different editor, on whom ArbCom did not place sufficient restrictions to curb the problem, so I'll be watching to see how the arbs deal with this case, relative to the other. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think I'm qualified to opine on that because, frankly, I avoid the cesspool of ANI as much as possible. My point is that the cesspool affects all discussions there, and many editors and articles, not just cases of editing restrictions on a productive editor. The problem of ANI needs to be dealt with, but I don't want to see important discussions shuffled off to where they won't get wide feedback. More specifically, if the arbs don't or can't or won't deal with disruptive behavior from otherwise good contributors, and if the ANI threads are shuffled off elsewhere, we will likely see the discussion dominated by the core group of advocates who surround the editor in question, with limited feedback from the broader, affected community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The system is broken. We can't fix it without making some changes. If you oppose all changes, then the system will remain broken. Our first order of business is to split ANI into two or more pieces and establish some structure on the requests being filed to prevent wild tangents and disruption of the discussions. Jehochman Talk 14:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I have been known to change my position when shown the benefits (secret voting on arb elections).  :) If I see a workable solution to the ANI problem, after broader discussion, I'll surely endorse it! My other, broader concern is that there are other similar (and even more difficult) cases "brewing", so I'm watching to see if the arbs have learned anything. If they haven't, I'll fight hard to make sure these discussions occur where the community has the broadest possible impact, and discussion can't be dominated by a core group of advocates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Sandy here. The culture at ANI encourages shallow immaturity and discourages productive discussion. ANI has 4,000 watchers because people can't get enough of melodrama. Drama at FAC flares up occasionally, but on much less frequent basis. Creating a new board to discuss matters that address sanctions is meatier if you get what I'm saying, than what goes on ANI, will be a matter of time before 4,000 watchers are onto a sanctions board and editors start making fun of complaints and complainants.
I would suggest for 21 days, as the Hebrews say that's how long it takes to instill a habit, that 5 editors start to cut down the chaff at ANI. Remove remarks that are distinctly unhelpful, added for laughs, address personalities rather than problems, and make a solid conscious effort to make ANI a professional board where issues are dealt with quickly and concisely. I don't watch ANI. There are probably a great many issues I should know about, but I can't get through the crap in order to read what is important. --Moni3 (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure Moni3, why you have the confidence to express this view, since, as you say, you "don't watch ANI". If you did watch ANI, then you would know that the problem is not merely "to cut down the chaff". This recent ANI moved initially with some precision and a high degree of consensus. It started degenerating into discursive comments only towards the end, when it was becoming clear that, yet again, no action was occurring. The problem with cases like this is that admins do nothing when some resolution should occur. The participants are just left dangling, without even some advice on how the issue might now proceed. --Geronimo20 (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
In many cases, the problem at ANI is that "dangling" is measured in minutes or hours, when days are more appropriate for important decisions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Geronimo20, if you want insight into my experience with content and editor disputes, which have formed my opinions of the way things tend to work, feel free to ask about it on my talk page. I do not wish to go on about here because it shifts emphasis on real issues, such as yours. Regardless, though you may not have confidence on my judgment, I surely do. ANI is rife with ill feelings and distractions that add to a lack of professionalism in the entire page. It gets overwhelming; good editors see that it is not wise or economical to spend time trying to make themselves heard; useless banter attracts others who feed on drama; the cycle perpetuates itself. Yours is a compounded issue, Geronimo. Editors come to ANI expecting swift action to take place when it's not particularly clear what action, if any, will take place. Decisions are impacted by "slacktivism", or editors who weigh in because they like or dislike the one complaining and I would guess many who !vote don't take the time to read through all the diffs presented in a problematic case. I don't think these issues would go away with a new board. --Moni3 (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Phew, after the bollocking Ncmvocalist gave me above, I'm now not sure whether it is okay to insert this comment here (my offending insertion above, Ncmvocalist, was placed below the comment it referred to, and additionally indented in such a way that didn't break the thread). Yes, SandyGeorgia, but in other cases, such as the one I mentioned above, the problem is not one of time. In these cases, admins seem inhibited, and are failing to make interventions that are needed to resolve these cases. Extending the farce for a longer period of time just makes a more drawn out farce. There is not a single issue solution to ANI, such as stomping on dramatists. I agree, Moni, that "slacktivism" and other forms of diversion, are, and probably always will be, a real problem. But even if those issues were solved, it would not be solving the type of case I have been referring to. There are a number of problems, which change with the type of case being presented. I don't know what the answer is, but the status quo is seriously dysfunctional for some cases, and needs to change. As Ncmvocalist points out, the current ANI works fine for many types of cases. Jehochman has suggested yet another board that might handle the currently dysfunctional cases, perhaps where community-based sanctions (bans, topic bans, restrictions) are involved. This discussion has not yet really looked at Jehochman's proposal. Is an additional board really a workable solution, and if so, how might such a board operate? --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
This may be helpful: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (second nomination). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
That page was most unhelpful. If a process is broken, it is better to understand why, and try to fix, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Jehochman Talk 18:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that what we're doing? :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
As a relative newcomer to “boards” I would reiterate those comments above advising caution about board proliferation. The drama would surely follow the board. I was initially concerned about what could be perceived as censorship (suggestions above relating to curbing childish input). On reflection, if there was an appointed moderator who could mark such comments (putting an invisibility cloak over them) together with some structured rules (perhaps similar to those enforced by the clerks on Arbcom discussions which limit threads within comments) then you could begin to kerb the over-enthusiastic contributors by making their contributions either less visible or more structured. It could reduce some of the flyby postings and generally instill better discipline without limiting debate. The assigned moderator would have to be uninvolved – possible a clerk. Just a though…... Leaky Caldron 17:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion: make it easier to punt things from ANI to WP:RFC/U. This may need more thinking about, but it could for example involve allowing an uninvolved admin to declare an issue "referred to RFC/U", which waives the usual "two involved editors" certification requirement: one editor can create the candidate RFC/U on the basis of the ANI issue, and any uninvolved admin can certify the RFC/U as "ANI referred" (basically certifying on behalf of the community, rather than claiming personal knowledge). Rd232 talk 23:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

NB The punting should include a link to the RFC as soon as it's available, to assist in drawing editors from the much-watched ANI to RFC/U. Rd232 talk 23:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The thing is, sanction discussions cannot (and usually should not) be referred to RfC/U, particularly when they are reviewing what others perceive as an existing sanction. Unfortunately, it was an "uninvolved admin" who attempted to do that at the thread referenced by Sandy, which was highly problematic given the way the ANI was framed to start off with. I also don't think the details from an ANI can be quickly put be onto an RfC/U. I'm also not sure if there is an inherent need to relax the certification requirement on this front - an uninvolved admin should have tried to communicate the concerns with the user and attempted to resolve the dispute at the user's talk page. If that did not work, then the admin would be able to certify an RfC/U anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I think there are some cross-purposes here, arising from the framing of the "Community Sanction Noticeboard". The sort of discussions which could be punted from ANI to RFC/U are those which occasionally arise where broader discussion is needed about a user's behaviour; where any initial sanction demand has been rejected or has no consensus, but it's recognised there is a problem that needs exploring. Too often these kinds of threads just die without any followup. RFC/U would be suitable followup but it often doesn't happen because the issues are too broad to easily be framed as a single dispute; partly as a result, these ANI threads grow and linger, festering unproductively in an unstructured way. Drama at ANI for these things could be reduced, if there was an agreed way such discussions could be moved. Rd232 talk 09:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I think I understand what you are saying (you mean like the ANI from this recent example, except it was one of the ones didn't die down). I'm more open to considering that because what you say about extra drama lingering on ANI is true. But at the same time, I'm not convinced as some admins cannot tell the difference between the way things at ANI are framed - this is an example of reverting a counterproductive closure. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rather than trying to shuffle this to a new board, which I can see has severe disadvantages, can we not just impose a structure on this one? If you look at the WP:AE template, we have a division between comments of uninvolved and involved editors, a clear statement of the sanction requested and supporting diffs. That makes it a lot easier for someone to come along and yield a neutral opinion, and a structure gives admins the "power" to enforce aspects such as the layout of comments, their removal, etc. in a much easier fashion. If we could agree to such a structure, admins could actually impose it if someone makes the more common informal request for sanction that happens here at present. I'm not suggesting an all-in-one structure for any and all possible ANI requests - just those that involve imposing a community sanction. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I very much like this idea. The structure could include not only separate sections forf sanctions, but maybe also a section showing links to the existing RfCUs. John Carter (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you all think of trying this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to try it. RFC/Us are currently not so common, I think, that it would swamp ANI. If it's too disruptive, we could use a WP:CENT-style summary on the page. Rd232 talk 14:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
User:jehochman just created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/List and added it to WP:AN. Rd232 talk 15:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Additional benefit, you can watchlist that List page. Jehochman Talk 15:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not like ANS because it in my mind it is associated with the well known joke about Uranus. Ruslik_Zero 14:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess that rules out Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User sanctions. Jehochman Talk 14:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong endorse AN/I is simply not set up for claims and counterclaims. While Wikipedia does not have "due process", a structured AN/I as envisioned: increased longevity, a means for organizing claims and responses, etc., would go a long way to organizing disputes which today are presented as long stream of consciousness punctuated by multiple and deeply nested recriminations. Involved parties having their say in an organized fashion allows for others to better understand the nature of the dispute. All too often AN/Is originate as efforts to remove editors from content debates as opposed to being reports of genuine editorial misbehavior. Improved organization will help highlight those cases, as the accusing party may also be the guilty party.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • My thoughts on the matter are largely here. I can dig out other earlier comments if needed. In passing, I'd like to note that I have in the past also strongly suggested that ban discussions be held at WP:AN, not at WP:ANI (and modified the header to point this out to people). In practice, the distinction has been largely ignored. Carcharoth (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Ottava Rima is not a problem. He is one of the Wikipedia mascots – highly intelligent, capable editors, with even more talent at spinning relatively harmless drama. These mascots do not generally interfere with the ability of content editors to develop Wikipedia, which should be the ONLY matter of concern for admins. These mascots perform an essential service to that part of the community that is compelled to lurk at the admin boards, awaiting the next display of drama. If you are not interested in this stuff, then don't read it. It really is that simple. But there is a sub-community of drama-addicted administrators and their retinues who are dependent on Ottava Rima and others for their next fix. They would be bereft without them, and might then themselves become problematic. There needs to be a barnstar for constructive wiki dramatists.
Of more concern are block happy admins, who have never made any real content contribution, and yet feel it is their business to block established content editors. There are even admins who think it is appropriate for them to block editors of the calibre of Ottava Rima, indeed, permanently block them. This is the other great, unwashed issue, which this thread is not addressing. There seems to be a growing divide between admins and content editors. Admins are not always supporting content editors trying to improve Wikipedia, and more seriously, some admins position themselves as a class above content editors, with the right to muscle them with the block threat. I don't know the answer to this, but some admins are bullies. Why are admins not reviewed, say every three years, and why is there is not a board dedicated to admin abuse? However, I don't want to be associated with the intemperate attacks made on admins by certain dramatists, and I want to state unequivocally that most admins, in my experience, do s great (and at times difficult) job. --Geronimo20 (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Jehochman's proposal to create a noticeboard to deal with behavioral matters requiring discussion has merit. Because ANI is set up to deal with concerns requiring fast action, it cannot easily deal with more complex cases. A new noticboard created for this purpose would be a boon, IMO. The form this takes, what we call it, and whether it involves initiating a user conduct RfC seems secondary. What we need is a process to deal with this kind of conduct problem. Sunray (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My close of Malleus discussion

Per Wikidemon's questioning of my close of the Malleus discussion (and despite the fact that s/he removed it almost immediately), I'd be happy for there to be further reflection about such closures.

I don't intervene much on WP:ANI, but my closure was influenced by recent suggestions that the noticeboard should be more carefully stewarded, so that discussions don't get out of hand.

I recognize that there's a sometimes fine balance between allowing discussions to run their course, and damping down flames. It does, however, seem to me that on the whole there is much less of the latter than there is of the former.

So while I recognized that the discussion of Malleus's block could have continued, my observation was that more heat than light was being generated. The lessons learned by the discussions seemed obvious enough. Hence I closed the debate.

Again, I'm happy for there to be further reflection about what I did. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think in this particular instance, this was correct. Whatever personal misgivings we might have, Malleus has not requested unblocking, and the block is relatively short. If we let the discussion continue as it was, there was no emerging consensus, and by the time one might have emerged, the block would have expired anyway. ANI is only for discussing administrator actions that are required immediately - since it was clear an unblock was not forthcoming a close is fine. More wiki-philosophical discussions about the application of NPA should not take place here. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
My impression is that many closes like this end up generating more heat than letting it run for a while would - but that's an observation, not a belief that such attempts are wrong or necessarily pointless or counterproductive.
It may not work, but I think it was fine to try. Things "allowed to run their course" on ANI in the last few days have produced a great deal of abusive behavior, which has been very unfortunate. Perhaps closing like this will help end that cycle. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the past few days have been perhaps especially messy on ANI. Meanwhile, I also realize that premature closes can fan the flames further. This is one reason why I decided to open discussion here, so that people could reflect upon this particular instance--and certainly, question it if they wish. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
In some cases it would be helpful for such closures not to be undone, but rather for a new section (or at least subsection) to be opened with a summary of previous discussion focussing on outstanding issues, to reduce the WP:TLDR factor. Not sure how that can be made to happen though. Perhaps we could try and require someone re-opening a closed thread to explicitly document it - who closed it, when, and with what rationale (this is sometimes lost/buried); and when the re-opener did so and why. Rd232 talk 12:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What I've seen is that once a thread gets beyond a certain length, uninvolved editors will not bother to read it. Then the existing participants will just continue to argue with one another, producing only heat, no light. When that situation is recognized, I think it makes sense for an uninvolved administrator to say so, and refer the disputants to dispute resolution. It is often helpful to state that WP:ANI is not for dispute resolution. If there is no emerging consensus by the time a thread gets to a certain length, that's our cue to shut it down. The editors may then use WP:M, WP:RFC or WP:RFAR as the case may be. Jehochman Talk 13:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a templated message would help, for the closer to add to the thread, acknowledging that the issue isn't resolved but that it's now clear that ANI isn't the place to resolve it, and explaining the options on moving forward. Rd232 talk 14:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
That would be helpful, perhaps {{ANI-tldr}} could say this thread does not appear headed towards consensus, please choose an option from the WP:DR menu instead. Jehochman Talk 15:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. Including optional paramater directing user to a different venue. Hipocrite (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Good. Perhaps we could come up with some guidance for usage (in the /doc) sooner rather than later though - this will surely be necessary. Rd232 talk 15:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. My concern was the combination of a bold close and a summary that seemed likely to embolden some of the participants (and thus undermining the administrative action that was taken). I generally respect closures, and removed my comment out of respect for administrators prerogative to manage their own administrative board and so as not to perpetuate a not-very-productive ongoing discussion. Stewardship would be a great idea, but I think it will have to be more active and selective than merely closing heated debates in the middle. There really ought to be some rules of decorum, civility, good faith, and sticking to the subject at hand. Conflict resolution meta pages should not be places to rehash other disputes, to blame the messenger (except in the obvious cases where the person filing a report is doing so in bad faith, or is themselves a cause of the problem reported), or to try to stymie administrators from acting by launching accusations against the administrators or debating the merits of the policy being enforced. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
"Conflict resolution meta pages should not be places to rehash other disputes." Ha! So true. Meanwhile, yes, the kind of stewardship that, for instance, SandyGeorgia is suggesting above would need to be much more active and interventionist. Unfortunately, I think it would take a sea-change at ANI before we see that. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Current requests for comment on user conduct

I notice there is a new section at the top of ANI transcluding user conduct RfCs, added in this edit. Has this been proposed somewhere; is it a good idea?  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of, and I do not believe it to be a good idea. Shereth 17:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It was mentioned briefly above. As an alternative to the current approach (ugly and intrusive) I made {{RFCUlist}} from {{Cent}}. This will fit neatly in the WP:AN header next to the Cent transclusion. It requires more adaptation from that template than I realised though, and I don't have time at the minute. Rd232 talk 18:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Done now, and implemented at WP:AN. Rd232 talk 20:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Though it might be better placed in the header of WP:ANI? Rd232 talk 21:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I did that. (along with Cent). Let's see if it sticks. Hipocrite (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Mmm, I wouldn't have moved Cent - it's too far from the "user conduct" issues which justifies putting the RFCUlist into ANI. Giving RFCUlist the full width of the header would also make the height less (unlike with Cent, because the RFCU descriptions are longer). Rd232 talk 07:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Fine by me. Changed. Hipocrite (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The page size issue

Seeing the above discussion over page size, would it be better if the ANI page threads were all subpages of the ANI page? Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a perennial question and should probably be listed at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. The short answer is that subpages can only be created by autoconfirmed accountholders. A significant minority of ANI threads are started by non-autoconfirmed or non-accountholders, who would therefore be excluded. ➜❝Redvers❞ 12:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

May one ask ANI process questions here?

Two administrators have pointed me here, but the big sign sounds like it's not the place. The situation is an editor who has not been summoned to ANI before but once here has a process question? (If this is the wrong place, please point where.) Thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ask away. If it's a question that belongs elsewhere I'm sure you'll be redirected. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks. I guessed right enough without assistance this time, but now I won't be so frightened by that big sign up top— "or discuss administrative issues." seems to cover everything one might want to ask. :) Cheers. NOTE: I don't see people marking "resolved" here, but this one could be marked so. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification is an issue

Hi, folks! A few of us have been trying to notice when threads have been opened about other editors and when those editors haven't been notified of the thread. It's a manual process, but I think there is room for improvement. Is there a way that when a "New Section" is created that there is a blank field which is labeled something like "Name of editor(s) you are concerned about" be made? This would then automatically drop the {{ani-notice}} on the talk page(s) of the other editors. I feel it would make the process more automatic and, thus, bring down the number of instances where editors aren't notified. Thoughts? Basket of Puppies 22:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That might have the unintended consequence of bureaucratizing the noticeboard; we don't want it taking on the appearance of WP:AE. Perhaps there are alternatives which would not involve filling out special fields?  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't seem particularly bureaucratic to have an extra optional field for the username(s) of the editors you are concerned about. Does it? Alternatively, perhaps a special bot just for ANI that would scan all new threads and place the appropriate template notice on user talk pages if they were mentioned or linked to? Basket of Puppies 22:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Rd232 talk 23:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This tweak is good, and I'd enjoy to see if it helps with the notification issues. Basket of Puppies 00:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment by established editor recently surprised by notification of ANI (about him). It would seem that anyone reporting an established editor would have had to show evidence of posting on that editor's talk page before the notification: i.e., minimal evidence of prior discussion. (Emergency circumstances exception of course.) Yes, ought to be implemented in code. No drive-by ANI of established editors. (Excuse if wrong place to mention. Clearly, on my mind.) Proofreader77 (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Why? If I see that someone is discussing you in ANI, and I take the niceness route and advise you that it's happening, I'm being congenial and helpful to a fellow editor - even one I've never run into before. That's they way we're supposed to work. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone who notifies users about ANI threads, I was surprised by the sheer number of thread-starters who come to ANI and don't inform all involved parties. In my opinion, Basket of Puppies's idea would be brilliant - even if it puts me out of a 'job'! GiantSnowman 19:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ott jeff

I've been active enough on the article MonaVie that I'd love it if someone else could take a look at this user's edits rather than acting on it myself. My opinion is that this is a person with an obvious conflict of interest trying to whitewash the article about this company (this article has a fairly constant stream of employees and distributors regularly removing material from it). What I think is clear is that he's making edits that aren't consistent with the consensus that currently exists on the article. But I have a very negative opinion of this company in general, and would love a neutral pair of eyes to take a look at the thing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried the conflict of interest notice board yet? Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Very disappointed

I would just like to say that the Admins noticeboard use to be a helpful place to come to get advice and assistance. It appears that times have changed and now matters are rubber stamped and put in an archive box within minutes and people told to go elsewhere with crap all help.

Thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a natural result when traffic in a particular place becomes too much to manage; it's split into compartments. Admittedly, people could be a bit less brusque when redirecting people though. -kotra (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Was there a particular incident/thread that led to this posting? Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I suspect it was actually an AN/I thread (now archived) which prompted this discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive578#The Troubles - Editors and Admins appear to be expanding Arbcoms rulings to non troubles related articles, which was started by BritishWatcher, and quickly closed with a recommendation to go to WP:AE. The thread above it was similarly quickly closed with a recommendation to open a WP:RFC/U. Both were appropriate recommendations, but might have been closed a bit more tactfully. Horologium (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Death threat - among other things

[9] Leaky Caldron 22:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This should be reported in WP:ANI although I would just block it. MajorMinorMark (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 Blocked by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Tiptoety talk 23:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not forum shopping. Dunno where to go.

Hi. OK, so it all started with a disagreement about lowly redirects. But that's not the real issue. It involves WP:NPA, and admins relying on their own POV/biases to make deletion decisions, and a host of other embarrassing tidbits, including admins gathering together to support a POV with their buttons, even while engaging in WP:NPA and WP:SARCASM etc.... are admins supposed to use their tools as tools in an argument? I've been around forever; please don't give me the newbie's bum rush. Where should i complain about the deletion and perhaps even the NPA? Thanks. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:DRV for the deletion. WP:ANI seems like the appropriate venue to air the rest of the drama. But if you plan on going to ANI it's probably best to just state the whole case there first and await a recommendation, rather than splintering the discussion between there and DRV. For future reference, stating your view of the situation without offering any actual details about the situation won't cause anyone to sympathize. Equazcion (talk) 10:53, 23 Nov 2009 (UTC)
Ling.Nut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recent edits have to do with some global-warming issue - some article or redirect that keeps getting zapped because it's from an unreliable source. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
HI Bugs. WSJ is reliable. Saying that the site they mirror is unreliable is POV. Thanks for the input, Equazcion. As everyone always says (and admins invariably deny), I think the odds of a non-admin getting a word in edgewise amongst admins looking out for each other are zero-point-zero. I'll save my thoughts for another day. Thanks. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The question "Is [source] reliable?" or the statement "[Source] is reliable" must always be followed by the question "Reliable for what?" Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
WSJ would be a dubious source for an article on quantum physics. Jehochman Talk 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Quite frankly, I should be done with this thread. After three-plus years, I have ceased to have any hardcore hope that Wikipedians do anything other than protect their friends. However... first, we're talking about a stinking redirect. Are we sure WP:RS standards are as tight for redirects as they are (or should be) for FA articles? Second, darn it, it's the title of several articles. I don't care if the articles are RS or not; people will be entering the term in the search box. Searchers don't stop to read RS before they search. Third, WSJ is a reliable source on any and every front. I'm sure they would refrain from delving into technical details, should they ever discuss quantum physics — and if they did feel a need to go into detail, they would source their own statements. "Reliable" is NOT the same as "expert." 03:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ling, WSJ wasn't the source, it was Stephen McIntyre's ClimateAudit.org. WSJ merely provided a courtesy mirror link to the site due to high traffic.[10] Now, as far as whether the meme (and that is exactly what it is) is important enough for a redirect, I don't know for sure. The term "Mike’s Nature Trick" is the title of a blog posting on the original blog site.[11] Obviously, the term refers to an e-mail from Phil Jones. Should we have a redirect? Perhaps. Viriditas (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I reject the RS argument. See above. Second, who are the individuals who have determined that ClimateAudit.org isn't RS? Frankly, the same folks who work to deny peer-reviewed publication to those who question global warming. It's a perfect circle: these sources that agree with us are reliable because we say they are. These scientists who agree with us can be the "peers" in the peer-review process because we say they can. These journals that disagree with us should not be considered "peer-reviewed" because we say they are not peer-reviewd. Let's all stop submitting to these journals that disagree with us. Blah blah blah. I dunno why people can stomach such disgusting hypocrisy. But back to the point: who says ClimateAudit.org is not RS? Answer: Folks who disagree with it. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Ling, try to focus; None of that matters. The meme, "Mike's nature trick" appears in a full quote from the original e-mail, as quoted in several reliable sources. The question is whether we need a redirect. Why do we need one? You say, because people will be looking for the main article using that term, but I don't think that is necessarily true. If you can show that it is, then that is a good justification for creating it. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Google it. It's the title of tons of blog posts etc. It's a high-hit term these days. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying it isn't. But, perhaps someone more familiar with the justification for creating such a redirect will chime in. On the one hand, I don't see it, but on the other hand, partisan commentators are using this term/meme as a rallying point for their cause. My personal criteria would be a good news source that talks about the use of the term, or uses it themselves outside of the full quote it appears in. That would be a good reason to create a redirect. Right now, it's being used as a talking point, but hey, you're the linguist. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Meh. I'm not wedded to these redirects. It's the admin behavior that has me at my keyboard. One former admin (?) calls the redirects "malicious". A friend of his deletes them post-haste. Along the way, their comments totally trash AGF; the first person's are what I would consider a violation of WP:NPA. And using the tools to quash opposing views. And so on. BTW, the first person.. mmm, COI is an issue. he's mentioned, apparently, in the emails. Funny how he manages to become so offended and label people "malicious". SO BACK to the original question: Holy Cow, there are literally a half dozen forums, and the directions a very involved. Let's make it short: two parties, one is an admin, the other isn't. AGF. COI. Misuse of tools. Which forum do I complain at? Ling.Nut (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC) As I said, after three-plus years, I have ceased to have any hardcore hope that Wikipedians do anything other than protect their friends. Doubly true for admins. I'll save myself the trouble. End of thread. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Freshly blocked IP 70.121.37.111

This discussion has been moved to WP:ANI#Freshly blocked IP 70.121.37.111. Please delete this placeholder after a short time. –xenotalk 19:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

How to start a community ban discussion

How do you start a community ban discussion?

  • Quote from WP:BAN: "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents."
  • Quote from WP:ANI: "To start a ban discussion, see the administrators' noticeboard."

Which is it? Also, I see stuff about required sections; what's required? --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Was there prior history, dispute resolution, prior ANI/AN threads, blocks, user conduct RFC(s), that sort of thing? Cirt (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, this is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gill Giller Gillerger 2. We're sort of wondering where we go from here, as the editor blanked his talk page and shows no interest in this second RFC. I'm sure we've been to ANI before, but we'd have to dig through the archives. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
If there is no disruption ongoing during the RFC, best to probably wait til after that process has run its course. Cirt (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
But what if he never responds to the RFC? --Rschen7754 (T C) 10:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
If the user has been notified of it, not much else can be done in the interim, until after the RFC closes. Cirt (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Request change to phrasing in "You must notify others" statement

Currently the page says "You must notify any editor you discuss". I tend to think that statement is already not abided by regularly, because it is unclear by the phrasing exactly what "discuss" means in this context. On that basis, I would suggest a reworking of the phrasing, perhaps something along the line of "Should you be commenting in a negative way regarding another editor, possibly including some proposal of sanctions against them, you must notify them of that discussion." I have in fact myself regularly responded to threads on this page, and I think that I am probably not the only one who would be able to say that, simply because they commented in a thread, that does not mean that I would necessarily being following that thread. This could be particularly relevant if sanctions against me were proposed in a new subsection, as happened a bit earlier today. It literally could be the case that I or anyone else might be blocked from editing, possibly permanently, on the basis of doing other things while a thread they had earlier made a comment in evolved into a call to have them sanctioned.

I admit that the phrasing I propose above is excessively long. However, it does I hope clearly indicate what the changes I would like to see made would resemble, even if the final draft were much shorter. If anyone can think of a way to shorten it without sacrificing clarity, I would be very greatly appreciative. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No need for instruction creep; hard cases make bad law (or something like that, too lazy to look it up). If a thread escalates into calls for desysopping, blocking, sanctions, or pet-shooting of someone who commented in the thread earlier, I think it's safe to say that someone else will eventually notice they have not returned to comment, and will notify them before said desysopping, blocking, sanctions, or pet-shooting takes place. For example, today, you notified Cirt at 19:24, only 16 minutes after COM's new sub-thread calling for various and sundry heads on platters at 19:08.
That said, it's probably wise to keep an eye on threads you've commented in. For example, as you evidently did earlier today, when you commented at 19:16, only 8 minutes after COM started his sub-thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
In this case, it was during a period of my doing some really short assessments, and I wasn't really thinking of myself anyway. Someone else, particularly someone who was doing something longer, might not. And I don't think this is so much creep, as clarification. And a lot of people may comment at one of the noticeboards only intermittently and irregularly; those are the individuals who I think would be most likely to miss such a subthread. Maybe changing the phrasing to "should you start a new discussion or sub-discussion about someone, you must notify them" would be sufficient. They never forget, do they? Snoopy was invading the airspace of my house, OK? Delusional little mutt and his frickin' flying doghouse were a royal pain to everyone in the neighborhood. Arrrgh. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
There certainly have been editors blocked before being notified of discussions about them - and not always for obviously blockworthy behaviour. As I recall, the current wording (must notify...) was strengthened from the "it would be nice but don't go out of your way to notify" version not all that long ago. I agree with John Carter that any editor being discussed should be informed, to me the current wording says this already, but a stronger wording may be possible. DuncanHill (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The current wording (with which I agree) says "must notify"; the only case not already covered by that is someone who is not the subject of the thread, who then participates in the thread, about whom sanctions are then proposed after their last comment, and who then does not return to the thread. This might happen once in a blue moon; I cannot think of a case where this has actually happened. And in those extremely rare cases, really, someone is probably going to point it out.
In a sense, this requested change is saying "People are ignoring a rule. We must make another, more complicated rule. Surely they will pay attention to this new rule?" If people already ignore a giant flashing red light, putting polka dots on it isn't going to make them take notice.
The problem of people being blocked for unblockworthy behavior is not going to be solved by adding more text to the ANI header; that's a different animal altogether. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought..

We should be rejecting as premature any requests for community sanctions on another user in most cases unless one of two things happen.

A) There's been attempts to resolve the issue through existing dispute resolution channels (RFC/U, for example) B)there's a clear consensus through the DR attempts that the behavior needs to be sanctioned.

Right now, the first step of most conduct issues are the two sides posting separate sections to have the other side sanctioned immediately, and the neutrals involved flee the discussion as the two partisan sides slug it out. I don't want to make it so formal that it becomes "ArbCom lite", but obviously, the recent discussions are not useful towards the encyclopedia, and only add to the drama and ill-will. That's just my thoughts, any reply? SirFozzie (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Far too much, AN and ANI are becoming what CSN was rumored to be (but wasn't). Durova371 23:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
A good thought, and as is often the case with good thoughts, not prone to much consideration, given the givens. Nevertheless, hear hear. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I agree. You'll have a tough time getting this to change though. ANI is entrenched as the first place to go to suggest sanctions. Equazcion (talk) 04:58, 7 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Generally agree, but to play the devil himself, what about a case like User:Die4Dixie who clearly needs an indef block, but gets unblocked by a lone admin? Are we going to require a long, drawn out process to establish that which is already plain as the horns on a bull? Jehochman Talk 05:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't patrol AN and ANI with enough regularity to do it in every case, but for problematic proposals, I'm simply going to start opposing them as premature. If everyone who commented here did that with every case, thats probably enough to throw out the worst ones.--Tznkai (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan if done thoughtfully, with the occasional exception where merited. There may be situations where a jump to community ban is needed, such as if there has been egregious behavior yet a holdout administrator insists on unblocking. A community ban can help prevent wheel warring. Jehochman Talk 05:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Considering I indeffed someone earlier today without asking for a ban proposal I'd be a hypocrite to suggest otherwise.--Tznkai (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
In response to Jehochman above, Die4Dixie's case seems like not the best example of a "clear case". It was rather contentious to me as it generated quite a bit of discussion, and the suggestion here is that such discussions belong at RFC/U. A block for racism isn't the most clearcut example out there. A better example would be repeated personal attacks in the vain of "You're a moron, eat shit and die", which probably do belong at ANI. Cases less likely to be unanimous belong elsewhere. Equazcion (talk) 05:58, 7 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Are you trying to tell me something? Jehochman Talk 06:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm assuming since you perceive hostility between us, you're taking my comment as an insinuation of something (of what I'm not sure), but I meant only what I said and nothing more. Die4Dixie's case might have ended with a ban, but if your point is that the most obvious cases still belong at ANI, I might agree but would say Die4Dixie's case isn't the best example of that. Equazcion (talk) 06:19, 7 Dec 2009 (UTC)
This is a longstanding problem that developed in the early days of both the AN and ANI pages. Originally intended as a noticeboard for administrators, the page became overrun with mostly trivial complaints from non-admins, and administrators thus ceded effective control of the content of their own noticeboard. Then lax guidelines were implemented at the page heading, giving insufficiently firm pointers in the direction of dispute resolution. This waving noisily and trying to get the attention of an admin (any admin) on AN or ANI took the place of most of our dispute resolution processes.
There is a simple but effective solution: permanently protect both pages so that only administrators can use them. If editors think they need the help of an admin they can look at the list of admins and address one on his talk page, as was originally the case. In most instances the admin will point them in the direction of dispute resolution, and the constant din of accusation and counter-accusation will once again be muted. Drama will descrease and Wikipedia will improve. --TS 05:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
That'll go over like a lead balloon. A better idea would be to create report formats, as we have on WP:AE, WP:AN3, WP:SPI, etc., to separate the comments of the involved, uninvolved and reviewing administrators. The form could also require basic information such as a list of the users involved, and the names of the articles affected. Jehochman Talk 06:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh I'm not saying you don't need that (with a proper space for noting prior dispute resolution of course!) But the administrators still do need a noticeboard, and they haven't really had one for about three years now. --TS 06:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that it's Pearl Harbor Day. [Moment of silence] As I see it, there are a few editors who hang around WP:ANI doing nothing but stirring the pot, adding needless length to threads, and disrupting the work of administrators and good faith editors. The disruptive seem to protect each other. If these types could be encouraged to do something useful instead of mucking up the threads, the board would function much better. How to identify these editors and politely ask them to leave is the challenge. Perhaps we could RFC the most egregious offenders. Jehochman Talk 06:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. How easy to not remember the day. [...] I noticed this topic when it first appeared, but only when it seemed the idea had faded after its first echo ... did I add my own faint hear hear beneath. If that small sound helped ripple the waves enough for the comments that have followed, I am surprised, but will smile anyway.

As for Jehochman's comment, which I guess I am replying to since I'm indented beneath it :-), let me whisper faintly: rhetorical analysis can identify patterns; there are patterns of interaction which undermine the space of deliberation and action. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Creating a non-user space inside Wikipedia isn't going to go anywhere. Lack of transparency and accountability will fail all sorts of community approval. If you admins can't manage a case in public, with lots of feedback (see Die4Dixie, where support for a ban of a bigot was thrown by one admin because he can't bear to see anyone's feelings hurt, except of course Jews), what makes you think that anyone's going to support letting you guys pull this nonsense in secret, where we will get told 'You can't comment here, we have buttons, we'll sort it out', then nothing satisfactory happens? A place like that would guarantee D4D and his ilk will survive here forever. Remember, per Jimbo, you're no better than the rest of the editors, we've simply put enough trust in you to let you have a couple extra buttons, to better enact what the community calls for. The minute this thing goes to ranks, you're going to lose a whole lot of editors. ThuranX (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup. If there are problems with editors disrupting ANI, we are going to have to do the hard work of sorting them out. Find those who obstruct the board, and ask them not to or else restrict them from doing so. (What an opportunity, Attack on Pearl Harbor is only a B-class article. Instead of yammering here, we should improve it.) Jehochman Talk 15:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
There's a thin line between disruption, and disruption judged on the basis of unpopularity. The essence of allowing free discussion is taking the bad with the good; there's really no objective way to weed out those who are an "obstruction", and I'm not even sure what that could mean in any valid sense. This could easily turn into banning all those who speak against the majority, as they are after all an obstruction. That kind of obstruction has a valid place though, unless your proposal is to turn ANI into kangaroo court. Which I hope people would be against. Equazcion (talk) 16:56, 7 Dec 2009 (UTC)
What I was thinking about when I created this thread was several of the recent threads. In multiple cases, it was a situation where the two sides show up, and call for the "community" to restrict the other side. All this without any other Dispute Resolution (DR for short) attempts other then "Stop it.." "No, you stop it".. I am certainly not going to restrict the rights of administrators to use their tools as they feel necessary. Instead, what I want to happen is to curb the use of immediately running to AN/ANI and attempting to use AN/ANI to win content disputes, or combined content/conduct disputes. We really need to be looking at using existing DR channels. Perhaps changing the header to state that ban discussions can be discussed here, but ideally should have other DR attempts before an ANI thread is created. Just my .02, and if anyone wants me to go deeper, I certainly can. SirFozzie (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
One way to accomplish that goal is to warn or even block (for repeated or egregious offenses) those who file frivolous reports. That's what the police do. Jehochman Talk 18:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, that is one of the things we can do, (although I'm sure the Plaxicoes (ie, self-inflicted wounds where someone reports an admin for doing their job) will continue).. but what I intend on doing is if I see those types of discussions, look towards guiding them to closing the discussion quickly before it can get traction, sending them to the other forms of DR, rather then let the two sides battle it out on ANI. SirFozzie (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
re Equazcion: "all those who speak against the majority" — Let it be noted that "majority" of those who have decided to attend to a particular topic, may well not be representative of the community (who may find it not worthwhile to invest their attention in a black hole of contention, or simply some matter with too intricate a history to be worthwhile getting up to speed on given its apparant significance/triviality). I.E., in some cases the outnumbered voice may well be speaking for the community (if it felt like being sucked into aforementioned black hole. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to use mp3 audio clips of notably celebrity liners as references for a radio programs notability

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved
 – Further discussion should be at WP:RSN, not an admin topic. tedder (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please review refernces to The Full Armor of God Broadcast Armorbearer777 (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The format of the information is irrelevant. A reliable, independent source is a reliable, independent source, whether it is text or audio. As to whether celebrity liners are notable nor not, that is a separate question. In general, I would find any "endorsement" alone to be insufficient, even those by A-list celebrities. Note that some celebrity endorsements create a cascade effect which can make both the endorsement and endorsed item more noticed in the wider media, which generally equates to more wiki-notability. Examples are being listed on the New York Times best-seller lists, some major endorsements by Oprah on her show, etc. Examples of cascade effects include positive pile-on publicity, negative/comedy-effect publicity/lampooning a la fake Saturday Night Live ads, or the very public endorsement-deal-cancellations of celebrities that have sudden public relations problems, etc. However, this is relatively rare among celebrity endorsements, even those by A-list celebrities. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
There is also the point that most radio stations have "record a promo blurb" as standard operating procedure which the guests oblige with as a matter of routine. Such "endorsements" have no meaning beyond "they let me come on the air to hawk my latest <whatever>". — Coren (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The reliable sources noticeboard is the place to ask this. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Collapsetop archiving

I see that collapse archiving has been used in this edit. I have undone this, because while there are no real concerns with archiving threads, I do have some concerns that non-contentious threads with no drama should not be hidden. Especially so that when the threads are moved to the archive page that it won't be easy to search through the archives for text! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion about that action, but I just want to note that the search function searches through wikitext, not what is actually displayed to the user, so it won't be affected by the use of collapse archiving. Graham87 13:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's an example search that proves my point. The relevant section is entitled "Build a wall". Graham87 13:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
But Ctrl-F searches the rendered text =) –xenotalk 14:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Not for me on Firefox. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
By rendered text, I meant "visible non collapsed text". –xenotalk 20:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest letting the user know directly - they aren't an admin so this probably doesn't reflect regular administrative practice. –xenotalk 14:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This type of soft-archiving seems to be used frequently by non-admins on ANI, however. It is my impression that this happens on a fairly "selective" basis and is used as a method of discouraging discussion. Just my observation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

  • gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
  • ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community.

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Request an administrator intervention and assistance in editing of wp: Family Foundation School

Moved to AN/I —DoRD (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

On threats, admonitions, and pleas

Please stop threatening each other, explicitly or implicitly, in conjunction to your opposing views on the importance and nature of proccess, community consensus, and the BLP problem. Please. It is exhausting, and frustrating, and more than a little demoralizing, and reflects badly on all of us. It wouldn't help to have more respect for eachother either. A more charitable and compassionate spirit, or at least pretending to respect the dignity of another's genuine position would be nice. Its easy to be a jerk on the internet - its easy to forget that scoring points in an argument means nothing. Its easy to forget we in fact, are supposed to be working together.

It is very, very hard for everyone else, who isn't in the scrum with the rest of you, to believe that anything you're fighting about is worth it.

I for one, am done with it. Just for tonight, or for longer than that, I don't know.--Tznkai (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's high time we start cracking eachother's heads open and feasting on the goo inside. –xenotalk 01:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I fail to understand the connection! Cracking each other's head open won't accomplish anything. South Bay (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
It was a scary and chaotic time. I'm sorry for my irrelevant comment. –xenotalk 22:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Need Help Please

I posted this message last night [12] And also at an Admin's talk page I know the Admin's new and busy, anyway could someone please delete this file. Thank you Mlpearc 10:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done All set. J04n(talk page) 11:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Collapse box error

It would appear there is a collapse box error in the page -- most of the topics are hidden under "irrelevant bit". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. –xenotalk 23:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Article check

This article needs to be checked Ogorlime Mlpearc MESSAGE 03:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we do something about the biasness against religious leaders on Wiki??

On Joyce Meyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Meyer and many other pages of religous leaders on wiki there seems to be a lot of talk about their controversy and not enough about their good. On the other hand it seems that every atheist page on here from Ellen Johnson on down paints a positive picture of them. Even Madalyn Murray O'hair's board has been re-edited and a lot of her controversies have been deleted. I went to erase Meyers' controversies and it was re-added. There are some real nasty stuff written about her on there while very little good is discussed of her. It makes her out to be some monster. Can we do something about this?? I know a lot of the hate is coming from atheists going on there and editing the pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjoh249 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think there are articles on Wikipedia which are not in line with the WP:BLP policy, and you've tried editing them and discussing the issue on the article's talk page, as a next step you could consider bringing it up on the BLP noticeboard. This will attract the attention of other editors specifically interested in BLP issues. Gabbe (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is info on what the pages is for?

WP:AN prominently says much about what it is not for. But I don't see anything that says what the page is for. Am I missing it? Maurreen (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed the blue box on the top that says, "Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators. Any user of Wikipedia may post here. Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting." -- Atama頭 18:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, but I am still confused.
I see the text you quoted, "Welcome to the incident noticeboard. ..." at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
I do not see it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Maurreen (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
You're right; there's a big list that says what the page isn't for, and where particular items should be posted. However, the page's edit notice says "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally - announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest." matt (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Splitting ANI into two boards

I don't know if this was ever proposed before but, with the rapid hectic pace of incidents constantly being posted some messages get lost and buried in the scroll and may get forgotten or become stale even before a day has passed. What do you guys think of the idea of splitting ANI into two separate boards, let's say, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 1 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 2? There would be no difference between the two and users can pick whichever board they want to post to, and this would give their message more time spent close to 'the bottom' of the page, as I'm guessing most users scroll directly to the end to see the latest posting. Any thoughts on this idea? -- Ϫ 12:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

How would we direct people to one or the other to balance the load? Would not all posts just go to ANI1? ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 12:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm thinking a simple notice would do the trick. At the top of ANI1 would say something like "If this page is too long you have the option of posting to ANI2", and vice versa. Also anywhere else where there's a link directing users to ANI, right beside it we can provide a link to ANI2 such as, "For evasion of blocks, abuse of admin tools, or other incidents, please post to either one of the two Administrators' Incidents noticeboards, WP:ANI1 or WP:ANI2 (optional)", just as an example. -- Ϫ 13:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
As it happens, both WP:AN and WP:ANI aren't particularly long at the moment. Have there been cases of forgotten posts? I'm pretty sure most stuff gets seen to quickly enough. I'm not sure of the need for a split. Aiken ♫ 13:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes I'm sure there have been, furthermore, as this discussion can attest, once a discussion gets archived it truly does get forgotten. -- Ϫ 14:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

NOINDEX subpages?

ANI is noindex'd, but the subpages are not. –xenotalk 17:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

They are, through MediaWiki:Robots.txt. Amalthea 18:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Then why is the (now deleted) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Don Murphy photo the first result for "user erik wikipedia don photo". –xenotalk 18:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Huh, not the foggiest. It's not the only one either. They have both very old and very new ones. Amalthea 18:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'll leave this in your capable hands ;p –xenotalk 18:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I really don't see what's wrong, short of our robots.txt being suddenly ignored by Google. I would bring it up at WP:VPT. Amalthea 15:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#MediaWiki:Robots.txt is supposed to exclude ANI subpages, but some are still being indexed by Google?. Cheers, –xenotalk 15:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
For the record, 'twas archived without resolution. –xenotalk 13:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest ANI archives not appearing in navigation box

I have no idea how the archive navigation box works, but it's only listing links up to archive 610, even though 611 and 612 have been created. Rather frustrating since I'd assume the most recent archives are the most likely to be looked at, but the box doesn't indicate that they exist. Propaniac (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed [13]. We should really get a bot or clever parserFunctions to handle this. –xenotalk 13:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm somewhat astonished to learn this process isn't automated. But thank you for updating the box. Propaniac (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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. [[WP:ANI#Sample discussion]]. 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. [14]. 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 - Kingpin13 (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. [[Wikipedia:page#topic]]) 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)

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/w/index.php?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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_8&oldid=1232535251"