Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishonen (talk | contribs) at 21:33, 1 November 2010 (not sensible). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

What kind of community actions can AN/I enforce?

As part of a user RFC, we are considering the next step, whether to elevate to ArbCom or possibly seek a community ban; the latter seems more appropriate in the nature of this case as there's strong evidence of a behavioral problem, a large number of editors backing that up, and the user is refusing to participate and yet maintain their course of actions. (As this is just a general question on process, I am neither naming nor informing the user about this AN question). One question that arose is exactly what extent could we seek community action should we end up going that way. Community blocks/bans happen all the time, but we're looking at something that involves escalating blocks for repeated behavioral problems that would eventually end up at a ban - something that is often given as a remedy at ArbCom but best to my recollection I've not seen at AN/I. I would think that as long as the solution requires admin action (either as an uninvolved admin to review, block, and/or ban), then it would be an appropriate community action. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this from WP:AN (though I originally mistakenly though it was WP:ANI, so AN was probably a little more appropriate than ANI, anyway) since it's discussing the functions / limitations of ANI. Please revert if I was incorrect to move this here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, discussions on AN/ANI can basically lead to any restriction except for desysopping. An escalating block restriction could be confirmed and filed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, so that would seem fine. NW (Talk) 13:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Community bans and restriction proposals should generally be posted directly to WP:AN, since they aren't incidents in themselves (prior discussion). –xenotalk 13:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason an AN discussion can't specify 1RR, enforcement by any involved admin, blocks to be logged, etc. just like most arbcom sanctions do. The last topic ban I authored used language I borrowed from arbcom rulings. About the only thing that's straight out is desysop, but the implication was that arbcom will look carefully at handling such by motion if community support for desysop'ing is appropriately strong. Jclemens (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Community bans happen at AN. Other editing restrictions may happen there, too, but usually not ANI. ArbCom deals with desysopping decisions and some bans/restrictions. AN, however, would probably be faster in some cases (but not appropriate for other cases). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin noticeboards can result in any sanction necessary. Some have even resulted in desysopping. They can't do so directly, but I recall cases from ANI where there was a strong consensus, and Arbcom desysopped by motion. Other discussions have led to systems similar to Arbcom discretionary sanctions on topic areas (see WP:GS). In theory, just about any sanction can be created by AN or ANI. For complex issues, the slower-moving AN is probably better, though. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral changes made to this board's editnotice template

Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up this board (ANI)

AN/I is next to useless. It is bloated by complaints that belong at other areas, snarky/inappropriate comments, and whining about problems that need to be handled by talking to the user in question first. It is difficult to find a discussion that actually needs prompt attention, and the whole board in general is being treated like a giant forum... which it shouldn't be.

I'm proposing the following, to try and get this back to some usable format. Should any editor do the following after repeated warnings, they may be banned from participation at AN/I, enforceable by block, for a period of time (specified later on):

  1. Making nonconstructive comments
  2. Making requests best suited to another forum (see the box in the editnotice, or "Are you in the right place?" in the page header; this most especially applies to areas that benefit from easy-to-find records like SPI)
  3. Registering complaints against other users without first speaking to the user about the issue

On the first offense, a user may be banned for 24 hours. On the second, 48 hours; third, 1 week; fourth and higher, one month. Indefinite bans may be issued after the tenth such offense or following discussion of at least 48 hours on WP:AN. Again, these bans are enforceable by block by any administrator.

Comments/concerns/pitchforks and torches? Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Proposal

Its a good start, but what we need more than that is admins willing to apply WP:BOLD and take care of the non-controversial issues without discussing them to death first. We also need admins to be willing to actually enforce these rules, even against other admins or influential editors. I would suggest that bans made for this reason be unable to overturn, except with an explicit consensus. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of sounding rude, isn't this thread inviting forum-like discussion? Basket of Puppies 02:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with 1 and 3, pitchfork 2, as many new users use this for ambiguous situations, or out of a lack of understanding of the process. In emergencies, this is where people go, even if there might be better options. Sven Manguard Talk 02:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see that, but there are multiple places telling you where the correct place to go is. First, there's {{noticeboard links}}, which links to every conceivable board we have and may other pages besides; second, there's the "Are you in the right place?" section in the header, which lists 11 of the most common problems we get at ANI; and if someone missed all of that, there's the edit notice which pops up at the top of the page when they go to post their complaint. I don't feel there's a lot of room left for ambiguity or misunderstanding there, and if posted in the right place, many emergencies will get quickly handled as well (AIV, for example). Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's pretend that it's in the right place. No one reads talk pages unless they are already looking for something. Posting it there would be useless. 03:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
    • That doesn't work. You can't start a discussion about the problem of people posting inappropiate threads here...by posting your own inappropiate thread here...that just defies logic. Exxolon (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You realize that this is ANI. Who said anything about logic. That is blasphemy right there, whihc happens to be part of the origional poster's issue. Let it stay, it's not like it's going to kill anyone. You're making this into one of those bureaucracy stifling progress moments. Sven Manguard Talk 03:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fairness, I do completely understand Exxolon and BoP's concerns - this does belong here on the talk page, and as such was a bit hypocritical, but I posted it on ANI originally because 1) as you said, talk pages aren't frequented much and 2) these rules aren't yet in force, so 3) IAR/common sense said to (at the time) post it on ANI. Now that people have commented and will presumably check back/invite comment from others, I don't mind as much that it's here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to 1, that is already dealt with via extant policies. Disruptive, insulting, whatever.. easily handled. Repetitive unconstructive use of AN/ANI as a forum is covered under WP:NOTFORUM (and occasional off-topic comments are often needed to bring some levity and ratchet down the drama). The third is somewhat tricky.. sometimes attempting to discuss a given problem with a user merely makes the situation worse; I could point to several ongoing examples. All in all, it's better if this is handled on a case-by-case basis. As to people posting here when it belongs elsewhere, that is a 'teachable moment' and should be used as such. I see where you're coming from with this, but AN and ANI are far too amorphous (and frankly are the only pages that are widely enough watchlisted to guarantee that any attention will be paid) and too many situations are sui generis for hard and fast rules to really apply.
  • I would pretty much think this boils down to: "Pay attention to the 'should you be posting here?' list. And if you do post here, don't fuck around."
  • I also agree with comments above that what is really needed to make ANI a little less bloated is admins actually getting into situations and dealing with them instead of merely ignoring them. Again, I can point to several current and recent examples where if admins had--or were to--intervened quickly they would have been dealt with much faster and with less drama all around. → ROUX ₪ 04:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To respond to the first bullet, I'm certainly not asking that we enforce this rigidly, especially not immediately after this were to start; as I said, it's after repeated warnings, which provides the chance for those teachable moments, etc (perhaps with the warning templates proposed in #2 below, more likely a more personal note tailored to the situation). If after those the user is still Not Getting It, then we can ask/tell them to step back for a while. This essentially does boil down to "read the header, kthxbai", yes... but as many people clearly aren't, we need to do something about it. And doing so, I think, will help reduce the response time to problems, which is what everyone wants. Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest that some users might not treat or use it in the way that was intended, or that it will carry the intended effect, particularly when it is against some people's nature (when I say that, it's not necessarily something that they deliberately do or are conscious of; it's just part of their nature, irrespective of how the instructions/remedies are presented). All noticeboards encounter this problem in one way or another. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clean up ANI I recommend that it be returned to its original conception. Use it as a means of communication between admins on ongoing incidents. To prevent it from degrading again, keep it on permanent full protection. Since there is sometimes a legitimate reason for a non-admin to report an ongoing incident, let the non-admins do that by substing a template on their user talk page that describes the problem, and then admins can patrol a category rather than having this vast and unwieldy page full of rubbish. --TS 20:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Counter proposal

I move that we treat inappropriate comments on ANI as a warnable offense, and create the following:

  1. A single concise guideline for what can and cannot be posted here, to be elevated to policy and attached as a link to:
  2. A set of five (levels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 4im) uw-anivio templates for warnings

That way, this offense will be brought in line with other offenses in their handling of by the community, and will not be arbitrary.

Sven Manguard Talk 02:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Counter proposal

  • What Beeblebrox said. No. → ROUX ₪ 04:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warning templates, maybe, but as I said above, it'd be better to write personal notes that can be more easily tailored to the specific problem ("Hey, FYI, that sort of report goes here." "ANI is not actually a forum, could you refrain from posting unless you have something to contribute?" "Please talk to so-and-so first before going to ANI", etc.). And a hard-and-fast policy thing already exists; it's called the noticeboard header. We don't need anything more than that, we just need to have people read and stick to it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And we're not really into "punishing" either. Blocks/bans/editing restrictions, etc are done to protect the project form damage, not to hurt somebody. I know they often get their feelings hurt anyway, but that is not the reason we do these things. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem only really comes from people who serially comment unhelpfully on things they're not involved in (for whom a community ban on ANI comments on things that don't involve them should be considered more quickly). All else should be considered part of the dispute resolution that ANI provides; formalising that for unhelpful comments is likely to be actively counterproductive. Rd232 talk 08:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was under the impression that the punishing would be reserved for clear malice, rather than say, confusion. There are some posts that amount to "You are an ass hat" that clearly are not constructive, and for some reason, on ANI we don't punish them, even when they verge on personal attacks or dance around incivility like mushroom faeries. I'm not for punishing misguided or noobish behavior, only the really bad stuff that ANI ignores in a misguided attempt to cut the drama by tolerating other drama. Sven Manguard Talk 18:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

See above, Hersfold is right, in principle with his points 1 and 3 - exactly what I wished to discuss, but phrased much better. This page is about "incidents". There is no value in creating multi-kilobyte multi participant threads. There is no value in having editors who's hobby is hanging out on ANI, effectively insulting the community by making non-constructive comments here and there. The way I see it there should be two types of report:

Urgent

- pretty much current extensive and fast damage to the encyclopedia. This should state:

  1. What's happening.
  2. What steps have been taken by the reporting editor if any.

Response - one admin responds "I'm on it" - checks that the report is valid, makes sure the reported parties have been or are notified, issues block, protects etc as needed, reports back. The issue is then dealt with on the appropriate forum.

Non-urgent

- somebody did something they shouldn't have done, and seem likely to do it again, but not imminently. This should state:

  1. What's happened.
  2. What steps have been taken by the reporting editor. (Should at least have left a message, and allowed a reasonable time for response.)

Response is the same, if less hurried. Except that in this case there is unlikely to be a need to issue blocks, protect pages and so forth.

In neither case is there a need for people to chip in (not that there is now) who are unaware of any of the details, who have a partisan approach, or simply have ANI as their "hobby".

Rich Farmbrough, 19:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

However, it is natural for editors to congregate at a "community forum" (which ANI should be renamed to) in order to launch complaints or engage in one another, (meta)discussion, etc. Hence, I'm starting to consider it unreasonable to demand that people not take their demands to this centralized forum. –MuZemike 18:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death by sub-paging

 – GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SInce I've seen this happen in a few different cases, I thought it was time to bring it up here. I don't think noticeboard threads (here, or on incidents, or on other official noticeboards) should ever get sub-paged. We have good archive templates to close discussions (including collapsible ones), and at extreme need a thread can be manually archived to remove it from the main page. Sub-paging is an unusual and aggressive action which almost always feels like a form of commentary, as though the sub-paging editor is trying to hide the discussion from view. Plus, I suspect that sub-paged threads never make it into the noticeboard archives, which makes finding and recovering them later at need a bit of a pain in the you-know-what. Can we find some consensus for setting a hard-and-fast rule against thread death by sub-paging?

I don't have any particular issue with either of the incidents threads that were sub-paged this morning being closed, mind you, I just object to the sub-paging process as a general principle. --Ludwigs2 18:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The archive search box at the top of the page searches all pages that have "Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard" as the prefix, which includes these subpages. So "finding and recovering" shouldn't be especially difficult. That doesn't mean your other concerns are misplaced, just that these pages should be as findable as the archives are. --RL0919 (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't being moved to be closed, it's because for those editors who are not on high-speed connections, it significantly delays downloads (and makes editing the page a LOT harder in some browsers). SirFozzie (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's nice to know about the search function; that removes my main concern. I still think that closure and manual archiving would be better than sub-paging. Sub-paging feels like consigning a thread to purgatory (like saying: "You can still talk about this if you want, but no one cares, so we're sweeping it into a corner where we don't have to listen"). It goes against my personal preference for brute honesty. Couldn't we just stamp it with: Archiving: Point made and noted, nothing meaningful left to say, move on.? I mean, that's likely true in most such cases. why leave it open to being drawn out further if the topic has reached the diminishing returns stage? Anyone who wants to continue discussing it can take it to talk. --Ludwigs2 19:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes that is what sub-paging means (not the intent, but the outcome). But other times discussion continues apace. For AN it is less of a concern but ANI can reach ~1mb of text pretty easily if there are multiple long running threads. That's totally unacceptable for most users and slow for people on cable or dsl. Protonk (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is closing preferable? Why is it all right for any user, including those in the grip of COI, to essentially say "Everybody stop talking right now because I've decided there is nothing meaningful left to say?" If I wasn't so tactful, I could mention the names of some particularly inveterate thread closers, who plonk down their miserable "archiving" templates in the middle of a lively debate; you probably could, too. Closure is a frequently misused action. It should only be done when a thread really has reached the diminishing returns stage. Couldn't we just stamp threads we're tired of with: I think people have talked enough, I wish they'd stop, and, after this civil plea, leave the thread open? Bishonen | talk 01:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
That's the winner's curse. For any thread there is always someone who wants it closed the most. And for as many threads we can remember prematurely closed we can also recall threads which dragged on for lack of some third party willing to take an earful in order to shutdown an unproductive discussion. Nobody likes being told that they are doing something pointless, hence there are few people happy that their threads get archived or closed. But it sometimes needs to happen (and sometimes doesn't). Either way this is a bit orthogonal to the sub-paging question. Protonk (talk) 06:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New template, sample below: {{Enough}}

I think people have talked enough; I wish they'd stop. Jehochman Talk 17:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a pretty WP:BITEy, not incredibly civil template; I suspect it was originally suggested as a joke. The likely result of this template is that threads will start getting spammed by the template and it'll be used as an attempt to silence others. Closing a thread is usually a legitimate action; if not, it'll soon be reverted by others in good faith. The {{enough}} template is simply disruptive. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 17:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a surprising and not incredibly sensible remark. Disruptive? Man, that is one misused word around here. Jehochman's template/my suggestion are certainly less bitey than the order-giving of the standard archiving template: "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." Er, which of the two is more an attempt to silence others? And I just don't agree that a close "will soon be reverted by others in good faith" if it's not legitimate. I wish it were so, but people seem more inclined to complain about illegitimate closures than actually reverting them. IMO. Bishonen | talk 21:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=394250870"