Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Discussion (b)

I like the proposal that Moni3 put forward in discussion #Discussion (a) but one of my concerns is administrators who [dis]likes another editor (unconnected with the current dispute) jumping in to attack or protect the editor in the dispute brought to ANI. I think that a useful addition to a system such as Moni3 (22:11, 7 February 2012 ) has suggested is that for the initial

• "ONE admin uninvolved with the dispute... thereby taking charge of it:..."

If an administrator has been in charge of a previous dispute involving either of the parties to the ANI in the last six months then they are considered to be involved. (adjust the period to suit).

-- PBS (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but then we see borderline-involved admins getting to warn off everyone else. That was part of the problem in the Civility Enforcement case, in my view. Any proposal must be looked at in the light of actual wiki-culture, including factionalism.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Except in specific narrow circumstances (e.g. Afd closure), it is not the role of administrators to be in charge of disputes. It is the role of administrators to use specific tools to enforce community consensus when other means have failed. Nobody Ent 12:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a legitimate concern, having an admin who has spoken out against an editor in the past handling an editor's complaint. But also a concern is the fact that some editors perceive any criticism, even constructive content-oriented criticism as evidence of factionalism. And there's no surer way to create a clique than by repeatedly accusing other people of being against you.

But to overcome this concern, let's momentarily imagine the entire admin corps is a petty vindictive group that RfA never catches and there are admins who will be fair only if they've never encountered you before. Some ways to get around this, in bits and pieces:

• A limited number of admins, say 20, do a three- or six-month staggered rotation at ANI (meaning they don't all begin and end at the same time). This may make it less possible that the same admins respond to the same editors repeatedly. Unless an editor makes prolific complaints within a 3- or 6-month period, there's a smaller chance that admins form unfriendly relationships with complaining editors. This also increases the chance of ANI being more a process and function than a forum with an atmosphere created by the same participants over an extended period of time. It will also give slacker admins like me a chance to become familiar with technical aspects of ANI and such that I'm unfamiliar with, and more technical admins a chance to work on content when they're not working a rotation at ANI.
• The original poster is allowed only one request for a different responding admin, and has a list to choose from in the 20 admins working ANI. This may cause threads to move more slowly, as an editor may choose an admin who is not awake or otherwise available to respond at the time of complaint.
• If the responding admin does not resolve the complaint to the satisfaction of the original complainant, the original complainant can request an appeal of sorts: basically a call for, say, three to five admins working ANI who back up the responding admin or make suggestions as to how else the issue could have been handled. This part may be difficult; multiple admins disagreeing with each other over how to apply guidelines and policy creates confusion. ANI should be a place to minimize confusion as much as possible. It should also be a place where admins make decisions much like doctors considering if what they're doing may harm their patient. Instead of "Do no harm", the mantra at ANI should be 1. Protect sourced content, 2. Retain experienced editors and welcome new ones, and 3. Respond to complaints promptly and professionally. Some editors may need to get into the swing of ANI, especially if it's overhauled significantly, and may need a brief learning period where they watch what goes on, are allowed to make mistakes, and aren't grossly criticized for making them. A limited number of admins backing up the responding admin or suggesting other actions s/he could have taken does not overwhelm the responding admin nor does it make Wikipedia's or ANI's goals unclear to the original complainant.

Thoughts and suggestions welcome as always. --Moni3 (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not really comfortable with the idea of the same admin handling a previous dispute constituting some sort of "involvement". That sort-of goes against the idea of institutional memory, which is composed of multiple individual memories. Contrary to Nobody Ent's statement above, I think it very much is part of the role of an admin to be "in charge" of a dispute, because the best way to avoid bitter disputes is to head them off early, get people focussing on substance and talking calmly, researching sources, using other noticeboards for specific facets of the dispute, all before a thread gets opened at AN/I. This is actually the role of any experienced editor, but can often be better carried out by admins because they 1) have resort to tools to back up notes and warnings; 2) may have a natural tendency to look for problems to be solved/interested in that sort of thing; and 3) get paid twice as much. So if a complaint is lodged on AN/I about some new dispute and I say "I'm already handling this", I think that's a perfectly valid outcome (provided I actually do handle it). Similarly for long-running disputes and long-running behaviour problems, I see a diadvantage to having someone new look at it each time. The familiar admin can just tell someone "remember last time, when you were asked for sources and didn't have any?" and the other person already knows what they mean. Requiring a rotation will require all sorts of relearning, all previous diffs must be presented, the previous admin will have to prove out their last decision all over again, we'll get "judge-shopping" and inevitable appeals. I don't say that people should have no way to get past an admin they think is histile to them, but this doesn't seem like the way. Franamax (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Completely agree with Franamax. There might be a brief note somewhere saying that an editor can request that another admin handle their current flare up, provided some good reasons accompany the request (diffs showing clear negativity from the admin regarding the editor or the POV of the editor—stuff like an edit summary of "rv moron again", not stuff like previous discussions where the admin explained why the editor was wrong, possibly with blunt language). However, there should be no bureaucracy that attempts to define the conditions under which a request must be accepted. Let's assume the worst: a rogue admin decides, for personal reasons, to stop an editor. If the editor (after some discussion) just accepts what the admin says and moves on to another article, the outcome for Wikipedia is an overall benefit. Perhaps the rogue admin has stopped a good edit from being made, but if other people agree with the victimized editor, the good edit will be made anyway. Reducing drama (even by protecting the wrong version) is a good thing—that is what is needed to retain good editors. The hypothetical rogue admin would soon be brought to account after they stopped several good edits—an editor in good standing will notice, and the matter will be raised at ANI, where the rogue admin can be instructed to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thinking about this some more, and as a wild idea incorporating those of several othera above: what about a mechanism where (bloody better be) experienced volunteers, be they admin or non, can shut down an AN/I thread with an I-am-handing-this hat with a how? field, and then follow up at the appropriate pages. Part of the followup would be informing editors how and when to file a further complaint (done without a flashy template please) if they appear to be still dissatisfied. This could be useful with newer-type editors (or good but haven't-been-through-it-yet) who are not familiat with the blood-sport of AN/I. I do completely buy into the idea of full scrutiny at AN/I, but I don't really enjoy watching editors get chewed up when I can tell right away they're unprepared. Franamax (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt I did not understand your comment. There would be no "admins getting to warn off everyone else" instead if another uncivil complaint was brought to ANI then another admin would "take charge". Franamax you wrote "That sort-of goes against the idea of institutional memory, which is composed of multiple individual memories." this proposal does not mean that, because there is no reason why an administrator who "took charge" at a previous ANI of a named party should not contribute to the discussion, just that they do not "take charge" of it. Moni3 I think that your response it too complicated (KISS). -- PBS (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. After implementation and some tweaks, my system seems more simple than simple. Unless by simple you mean let everyone respond however they wish and sit back and watch the chaos unfold. Because I hope not.

The problem of institutional memory loss did occur to me, but I thought it something to overcome in a future discussion. I can foresee that it would be possible for an editor to return to ANI after a rotation has been completed to get different answers from a different set of admins. Perhaps better records and archiving at ANI would be able to make this a less significant concern. Problem is, I'm mostly unfamiliar with how ANI is archived and how it could be done better. What's the biggest concern of abuse in institutional memory loss? How can procedure overcome that? --Moni3 (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What I mean by complicated is not "A limited number of admins, say 20, do a three- or six-month staggered rotation at ANI (meaning they don't all begin and end at the same time)" when all that is needed is an uninvolved administrator to "take charge" or rather "take the lead". -- PBS (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Next phase of discussion

My reading of the above is that there is support for a change at AN/I, but that formal bureaucratic changes such as gatekeepers (especially) and a new class of clerks do not have consensus. The preference seems to be for more active and consistent application of the existing rules. If others agree with my reading of the discussion, maybe we need to discuss how the existing rules and those who apply them can be made to do a better job. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Rules? On ANI? No rules! If there are rules, I haven't seem then suggested nor enforced. How about these? It would also be good if there was an actual documented policy on the use of archivetop, and hat should be abolished (as mentioned above). Nobody Ent 00:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Nobody Ent/Simple civility principle - that is an essay well worth reading. Thanks for the link. Manning (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Good essay. Just apply policy and redact off-topic or off-policy comments. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I didn't have a chance to !vote or comment on the various proposals, and I'm not really going to do so now, given that there's already been a summary, and people seem to be moving on. But I would like to point out that it is unclear to many what exactly should be reported at ANI and what should be reported at AN. ANI has a full-width box on what should be reported and how it should be done, whereas AN has a side box called "Using this page", and the only thing it says is: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest." But that's not really accurate, is it? If I understand properly, requested topic bans go to AN. How is anyone supposed to know that, and doesn't that require administrative intervention? In fact, before the shit hit the fan recently, I was going to raise this issue, which was triggered by a comment by User:Fram on AN: "sanctions (apart from immediate blocks to deal with an acute situation) are not handled on ANI, but on AN." But I didn't get around to it.

Also, in keeping with some comments above about more strictly enforcing the rules, ANI says (in bold), "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." I'm fairly certain that's rarely enforced - the requirement that is almost always enforced is to notify the user of the discussion itself, but not to "discuss" it with them. Some of this may seem like less important detail (I often focus on the small stuff), but as a non-admin, moderately experienced editor, I find this stuff confusing. I can only imagine how these boards are interpreted by editors less experienced than I. Oh, yeah, one more thing - it's generally a bad idea to make signicant structural changes in times of crisis.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but in cases of harassment, there is obviously no requirement as such to try to discuss that with the other party. In those cases, (in all cases, really) the poster surely must have at least one diff to present as evidence. Those things ought to happen on ANI, it oughtn't to need clerking, if that can be achieved by enforcing consistently the reminders to the page, including a decent level of civility and relevance when commenting. NewbyG ( talk) 05:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• One problem I see with AN/I threads is that the OP and the respondent (or sometimes 3 or 4 people) get into a huge thing of post/counter-post, essentially rehashing both the behavioural and underlying content dispute. Onlookers just sit back and watch (which I can understand from the "let 'em get it out of their system" and/or popcorn approaches) but the thread ends up long and difficult to review before anyone can actually assess it. Is there any way to cut that back? I don't mean a 500-word limit (or maybe I do, I dunno) but succinct statements and single rebuttals would be better IMO. Not everyone who caomes to AN/I especially is exactly sure what their exact problem is, so rather than just having the disputants replay the argument, can we get them to formulate things better (and shorter)? Franamax (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That's actually a very good point. Often you feel the need to let the discussion develop in order to see what it's really about, or the "litigants" may make many pro/contra posts before you have time to read all the diffs. And, by then, as you say, unless you've been following it, the thread can be a mess. I'm not sure how that can be prevented, unless limits are imposed, and I don't like that idea for the type of incident we're talking about. If it's a real mess, I guess the first experienced user to respond can summarise it, but that's an onerous task sometimes, and you couldn't insist on ordinary responders doing it. Maybe the answer is to just not stand by so long, but reply and "take charge of the incident" early, and "tease out" the info really needed, keeping it neat and orderly in the process. As said, though, that increases the task for the responder. Clerks could do all this, but if you subscribe to the "admins just need to regroup and take control of ANI" school of thought, then it fits there too, I guess. Begoon ^talk 05:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Wild possibility: create an ANI/Preparation page. The ANI notice would suggest that reports by editors who are unfamiliar with ANI procedures should initially be made at ANI/Preparation, and people watching that page could suggest that reports be refactored (to eliminate unnecessary detail or inappropriate emphasis, but particularly to provide evidence for the claim). A report posted to ANI could be moved to ANI/Preparation if someone (who!?) thought the report needed work (with a sanction—topic ban?—for those found to have inappropriately moved reports after a warning). Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• in considering the Franamax (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC) comment, I find myself in complete agreement. Perhaps moving off topic, or poorly formatted comments to a talk page could be a consideration. IDK - just throwing things out there. — Ched :  ?  14:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This was (for a short time) the practice of both Tony Sidaway and myself: Move discussions to either user or article talk, leaving a link behind. I'd like to see this done more often, as opposed to just "closing" off-topic wall-o-texts. Similarly, rather than just saying "this should go to Board:foo," actually move the item there and leave a link?- Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • That is a good technique, though it seems to me that it requires the mover to sort-of adopt the dispute or at least to leave very clear instructions to parties on a way forward. I was thinking of something much more crude, like collapsing protracted bickering with a heading of "Debate your positions inside this box, post a single summary outside of it" or something. Then keep moving further back-and-forth edits inside the box when the instruction gets ignored. Parties need to focus on their evidence, not on how much they dislike the other editor or other editor's ideas. An added benefit there is that if idle bystanders wish to add baiting comments, they will have to do it inside the collapse box. Franamax (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

      Collapse box comments still have to load. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• The perceived improvement at AN/I is I think due entirely to timely and appropriate action by the (mainly admins) on the board. I am unsure that (or even how) clerking would work, AN/I needs to be accessible to newer users who may not have the time to study process if they feel a matter is pressing. Recent attempts at pseudoclerking—refactoring discussions, removing stuff deemed (by the pseudoclerk) to be off-topic, and some rather prissy censorship of the word "bullshit"—have all failed miserably to achieve the stated goal of reducing drama.
  More clueful first response is what's needed, not a nanny. pablo 09:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

New noticeboard?

I think the drama at ANI (and sometimes AN) is sometimes because people have nowhere better to go. Let's make that place that's better to go.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A POV fork of a noticeboard is an interesting concept. What would the purpose of this "better" place be? Resolute 03:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This place would be far less visible than the current ANI and AN. It'll solve the problem of drama getting in the way of real reports like reports of NLT violations and mass vandalism.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

How will we decide what goes where? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI is for urgent matters, not dispute resolution of any kind, in my opinion.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Some disputes need urgent resolution. I think you'll have to be a lot more specific in your proposal before we can make any sensible decision. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's just a rough idea. Only NLT, mass vandalism, and e-mail spamming etc. (things that need the urgency of AIV but are not appropriate for AIV) can be used at ANI in my view. If one user thinks the other is POV-pushing or making personal attacks, the proposed board would be used.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There should be a way to easily move POV pushing allegations to content dispute resolution first and keep gross personal attack and vandalism issues here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

In my view there's a bit of a problem with too many avenues already, not to add further to the confusion by opening another one. But I take the point that some things can (and should) be dealt with quickly and uncontroversially - NLT and mass vandalism are good examples. I'd propose that rather than having a separate noticeboard for the stuff that needs more discussion, we fast-track and deal with the urgent stuff as soon as it crops up. Longer more discursive complaints/reports that need some digging and investigation can stay on the board for as long as it takes, within reason. What I wouldn't support is further toleration of dramaahh by creating a new place where it's OK to behave badly.

As it happens I've been experimenting with closing AN/I discussions with the {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} templates top make it very clear when a report has been dealt with. I did this with every report I could yesterday and I saw other people starting to do the same. This might have the same effect of having a two-track system, but only on the one board if we did it consistently. I saw other editors using the same templates too once a solution had been reached - maybe simple little changes in behaviour like that have a part to play? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, for the love of Dog, not another noticeboard. Also, kudos to Kim for the recent flurry of tidy-up, this is a trend that's come and gone a few times and always seems a effective while it lasts. (With the caveat that such "closes" are viewed as normal edits and thus open to reversion.) - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on ANI

• ANI should be service oriented. It will attract the lost and hapless. They should be respectfully, kindly, and firmly directed to the correct place, not sniped at. Nobody Ent 13:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Humor, snarky comments, "trouts" et. al. are disrespectful of the OP and don't contribute to resolution. Nobody Ent 13:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• The ANI is a usability disaster, a dense wall-of-text. Complaining about users not reading the tome before posting is counterproductive. Time and thought should be given to a simple, clean redesign. Nobody Ent 13:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Lack of good faith about users not notifying other editors is counterproductive. On the internet banners are insivible Nobody Ent 13:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• It takes less time and is more helpful to post a ANI-notice then to bitch at an OP who fails to do so. Nobody Ent 13:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Beware policy fallacy. Nobody Ent 13:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What the heck are you going on about? Don't refactor the comments of others based on your interpretation of policy when that interpretation of what should be removed is not correct. Doc talk 13:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the comments on the "notifying other editors" part. Sometimes people post first then notify after, sometimes they forget, perhaps get caught up in something else, etc... Its like some Hammer of Mortal Sin gets dropped on their head for something that is relatively minor. Tarc (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have typically always notified first before posting. That way there's no chance of forgetting! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Observations and Suggestion from basically uninvolved user

I don't think I have ever posted much at AN/ANI, except maybe once or twice, that I don't remember. I don't really understand the boards because they basically make no sense between the top box instructions and what you read below.

You need to give examples of what belongs where and why. And don't use Wikispeak and abbreviations (eg. what's a diff? - I know - but we are talking about users who can go a long time without ever having to produce one - make it easy and provide alternatives). GIVE GUIDANCE.

There are basically two kinds of dispute - 1)content and 2) conduct. Conduct you can handle. Content you can't. Your first job should be extricating and separating the two. Send content to WP:DRN or the other such content focused Dispute Resolution. Will that always be easy, no, but you're smart people.

Suggestion: For anyone who has never filed a case at DRN, please go there and click on "Initiate a New Discussion" Note how it focuses the user. How it gives a sample report. How it explains what the board is for and how the "clerks" can and will be helpful, even if you are in the wrong place. Think how you might modify that to make it useful here. Above all, look at this board as if you have no idea how to use it, or the other dispute boards. Explain and make them fit together in a user friendly manner. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, imagine a page with a dropdown list that, when you choose the TYPE of report, it directs you to a pre-load page for the correct noticeboard ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Orderly ANI

Wow. Check out ANI. It's tidy and focused and professional. And sort of quiet. Just getting on with business. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No dramah today then - thats good. Youreallycan 15:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair bit of irony there, now that Anthonycole is edit-warring with several editors regarding my use of the dastardly "bullshit" word in the Selina unblock discussion. I haven't done a count to see how close to 3RR this is getting, but off the top of my head I'd say it is close. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever dispute you two might be having, your comments should be allowed to stand as they are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the inherent problem with trying to make ANI better by having admins as a whole take a firm hand. There is not even close to a consensus about what is acceptable and what isn't, so different admins will enforce their own version of acceptable, and then meta arguments will ensue. What (IMHO) is needed instead is to have a parallel process where people who choose to can go and have a grownup conversation. Knowing in advance that more than meeting CIVIL and NPA will be expected. And having the page moderated by people who are widely judged to have sufficient judgement, whose decisions will not be too lenient or too draconian, but also whose decisions will not be endlessly questioned. I forsee this "keep a firmer hand at ANI" idea above turning quickly into "don't disagree with me, I'm an admin", and "that was uncivil. no it wasn't. yes it was. no it wasn't" cycles, and premature shutdowns of legitimate requests for help under strained claims that the person you disagree with is uncivil. This is just moving the pendulum from being too far to the left to too far to the right, when what is needed is decreasing the arc of the pendulum. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact the comments that should be removed are the off topic jokes / comments about how well things are going et. al. Nobody Ent 16:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. I do see the irony. I just couldn't sit there and watch Tarc screw up an up-till-then collegial and professional atmosphere. Floquenbeam, I understand there will be occasions where things may/may not cross the line of civility, and on those occasions it's probably best to let such comments go. But no one with an understanding of the term would mistake "that is the bullshit I was talking about", in reference to another's comment, for civil behaviour. Tarc was uncivil. The community needs to decide whether it wants that to be normal behaviour at ANI.

We're talking about Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive739#Editor redacting another's comment on this board. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Most will agree that there have been issues of rancor and bad blood on ANI of late but I really doubt that many, if any, will be willing to lower the bar as far as you seem to desire. Me saying the word "bullshit" was not uncivil. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There isn't a word on earth that is uncivil. Behaviour is uncivil. You were uncivil, not the word. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If that were the case then you would've removed the entire passage rather than focus on a phrase containing a naughty word. I think you're letting a bit of the bad blood form the Muhammad Arbcom seep over into other areas, as I highly doubt you would be doing any of this if it were someone else that said what I said. Just drop it, and move on. Tarc (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, guys! Can't you both see the irony of continuing the drama on a thread that is dedicated to running AN/I in a less dramatic way? I beg, plead and request of you both to not try any further to get the last word. You are NOT going to get the other to see the error of their ways, on AN/I, AN or here. Let it go, now, and let us get on with the work here. Please. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, funnily enough, and this is the god's honest truth, I was just scrolling down the red text looking at recent changes to ANI, after starting this thread, when I saw your edit, but had decided I was going to redact it before I scrolled down to the signature. A little gleam did come into my eye, I admit. But it would have happened regardless of who had signed that comment. I was quite annoyed that someone was screwing up a good productive day at ANI with an incendiary, belligerent, uncivil comment.

I disagree, Kim. I think what's happening here is right on topic for this page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• just watching to see who is going to be the bigger adult and be the first to drop the WP:STICK... and that's not pointing a finger at anyone .... yet. — Ched :  ?  17:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(another non-admin comment) Please, I really want to get back to fixing typos in articles, but I am still following this particular matter. What has happened? ANI getting more focused? Threads less difficult to follow? Less sniping? Looks like something good indeed is developing! ‘’ let's embrace this new world of AN/I.’’

Second point- the terms that user:Baseball Bugs agreed to allow comment where that user is already specifically involved, has commented re the user:Selina Kyle unblock, (with a very gracious support) so, no foul there.

To reiterate: summaries, and reasonable closing of threads is a great grounding for further improvement, and, well, Peace, really. Cheers NewbyG ( talk) 21:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Spilt the combined AN / ANI talk page into separate ones. Nobody Ent 16:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I was going to just do the deed per WP:BOLD, but noticed that the redirect was fully protected. I left a note for the protecting admin. here — Ched :  ?  17:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Seperate pages should have seperate talk pages. GiantSnowman 17:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I support this: every time I have clicked on the talk page for AN/I, I have wondered why it is redirected rather than is its own talk page. Acalamari 18:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Supposedly because the volume is so low that combining them was warranted. Subpages usually have their talk page redirected to the root talk page. — Edokter (talk) — 22:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

However, that means an editor with only ANI watchlisted will not have their watchlist updated when someone makes a comment about ANI. Nobody Ent 23:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - I didn't evemn know there was a talk page until I started watching AN as well. GiantSnowman 09:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What would be done with the current talk-page archives? Deor (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That makes way more sense. Even just last week, I was at WP:AN/I, clicked "Talk" to see what was on there, then clicked "Project page" to get back to AN/I, but was actually on WP:AN and mis-filed an incident report there, which was not noticed or acted upon until I realized the error and reposted it to AN/I, by which point the canvassing campaign, and poll-stacking with meatpuppets, that I was reporting had already done their damage and derailed the target poll. Two noticeboards should not share the same talk page. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 22:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a need for a separate talk page? Volume does not suggest so. And ANI is a subpage of AN, which usually have no separate talk pages. — Edokter (talk) — 23:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

archivetop and collapse tags

What are the criteria for editors applying "archivetop" and "collapse" tags on ANI? Nobody Ent 19:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The collapsing of noticeboard threads should imo not be done unless there is a very strong reason. Collapsing the discussion removes it from Wiki search returns and is the second best way to hide it, next to deletion. Youreallycan 16:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Concur; it also breaks table of contents if the section has subheadings. Nobody Ent 18:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The internal search engine does index the contents of collapsed discussions, at least it did the last time I tested it. What does happen is that when you click on the link, you have to search a bit to find what the search engine indexed (since it's inside a collapse box somewhere). Franamax (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not getting any results for my test search - Youreallycan 20:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And yet this search does find a (somewhat notorious) collapsed discussion. Remember the internal search engine only reindexes once a day or so. Franamax (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

My test search was for a comment in a hatted (collapsed) thread from last year. Can you link me to which one of those is the collapsed discussion that includes your search phrase - Youreallycan 23:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's the top result when I do the search, WT:RFA Archive 214, this section has the collapse box. Where is the one you were searching for in your test? (I showed you mine... ;) Franamax (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 9#Annoyed. - Youreallycan 00:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I already just found it uncollapsed in a different place by fiddling with the search: [1]. I'll look at your location now. Franamax (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

And the collapsed version you link is also visible in my search results, on the 2nd page. Go figure... Franamax (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You are doing a refined search, yes? I am doing a simple search with no parameters or direction at all. Youreallycan 00:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, for some reason refined search seems to give different results with the same parameters. Perhaps that should be noted at WP:SEARCH? Note that your plain search doesn't find the uncollapsed text in the other archive I found either. Franamax (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So, as I am a plain searching type of guy, I am unable to find any content that is hatted via a simple search. Where-as, you being a defined, refined, type of search guy are able to find some of the hatted stuff. Very interesting, thanks for your input - regards - Youreallycan 01:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well nooo, didn't I just say that your search doesn't find the unhatted exact same content either? Have you actually looked at any of the links I've posted? Franamax (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I raised this question over a month ago and no one seemed interested in discussing it ... now we're having edit wars. What gives a single editor the right to decide the community has nothing further to discuss [2] ? Nobody Ent 18:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

See this discussion, closed ~24 hours ago. It was opened by the same editor for the same reason. No admin action was required there, and there is no admin actions required in the current thread. ANI is not dispute resolution, that was clearly established several threads above. If there is no admin action required to handle a dispute, then it needs to go through dispute resolution. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The top of ANI clearly says This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors -- it does not say "only items requiring admin action." Perhaps other editors have thoughts regarding ARS they'd like to contribute. In any event Drmies (the previous closer) edited across the tag and Rklawton removed the tag -- so where is the consensus? Nobody Ent 19:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the kinda situation where I take a dim view of non-admins closing ANI topics. Same with XfDs, if there's even the slightest bit of contention with a non-admin close, then it should be undone immediately. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I read that statement to include non-admin, experienced editors that recognize to judge what admin action is necessary - though incapable of spelling it out - or if there is a more urgent problem (eg edits that suggest a suicidal editor) that they can recognize and know how to deal with. ANI as "incidents" implies some urgency to matters so those that are capable of assessing and deciding on a quick resolution are encouraged. Anything that really is a dispute is not going to be solved by a quick resolution and thus shouldn't be on this page. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a procedural matter, because three editors have now edited across the archive tag I've reopened the thread. I pretty much agree with Tarc on this one; if we're going for a new-look, more professional and businesslike ANI it might be helpful to leave closing threads to the admins who the threads are directed at and who have to decide whether or not action is required. EyeSerene^talk 19:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI is for incidents requiring admin intervention; if someone wants to discuss ARS, they should start an RFC... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Rushing to archive threads is disruptive in itself - all this civility push discussion should be closed down - its causing edit wars and disruption - the wheels are not dropping off - I am sensing (interpreting some users comments) that some users wanting to go back to the good old days when we all knew each other and got on - the wiki has grown and moved on from those romantic memories - threads are best left alone - often, almost always, there is no need at all to archive them. Exactly the same low level disruption occurs on article talkpages, are these raised standards to be applied to them also? Youreallycan 20:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think ANI is benefiting from fairly robust archiving and will continue to do so, as long as care is taken that directly relevant discussion of the thread subject is not stifled. Per Salvio, off-topic stuff, irrelevant comments, or wider discussion of the broader issues is better redirected elsewhere. We've no shortage of pages for discussing editors, edits or policy but not many where an editor can hope to get a focused, timely, and on-topic response from someone with the wherewithal to take action (if necessary) on what, to them, is probably the single biggest issue in their wikiworld at that point. I wouldn't support the same approach for all pages but I do believe ANI, because of its intended function, is a valid exception. EyeSerene^talk 20:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

At User:Nobody_Ent: You only have two rights on Wikipedia: the right to leave and the right to vanish. Neither one says that you have the right to have your opinion heard in every topic that hits ANI and prevents the topic from being closed. Get over it, Wikipedia is not a democracy.--v/r - TP 21:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What does "v/r" mean? Nobody Ent 23:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Very respectfully, I believe. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

@Nobody Ent - Message received, thanks. I guess things have been a little stressful lately.--v/r - TP 23:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I started using the {{archivetop}} templatye yesterday almost by accident, then found I had archived most of the board! Some people have said to me that they found the result was helpful; it did seem to me that yesterday the board was calmer but of course that might have to do with entirely different factors and not my archive-fest at all. I agree with YRC that rushing to archive a thread is disruptive. But a timely closure that prevents an issue becoming a needless drama-magnet might be helpful. Equally disruptive are reports where it's clear nothing is going to be done, but where they remain open for endless walls 'o' text. The key of course is twofold: (1) the judgement of the closing editor/administrator and (2) the consent of the rest of the community to accept those judgements. I suspect what we have here is a natural experiment and in a few days we'll have more idea whether this is helpful, unhelpful or irrelevant. If it is helpful, then we may also have a clearer idea of when (and when not) to close. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect it'll take some time to work itself through, but even if it ultimately falls apart I think it's a worthwhile experiment. For the present I'd have no hesitation in archiving the obviously resolved threads (by an admin or experienced non-admin) and would prefer to err on the side of caution—and possibly require admin closure (per XfD)—for the rest. Hopefully this can all happen without having to develop a ruleset but I admit to some pessimism there... EyeSerene^talk 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI is only for incidents needing admin intervention -- except when it isn't Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive731#Bell Pottinger, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive731#Harvard/Science Po Adverts. Nobody Ent 23:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: It is unfortunate that too often Wikipedians do not appear to be interested in discussing concepts like this in the abstract and a specific example is needed to spark discussion. It is not my intent to imply any criticism of specific individuals here.

• I obviously did not start a discussion on Jan 8 in anticipation of protesting a particular close today. My point is that close tags are applied without consistency or apparent rhyme or reason, and I have to date found no documented guidelines anywhere on when they should be used. (From my observation it seems to depend on the issue, the popularity of the poster, the size of their cabal, and the amount of admin bashing going on.) They are sometimes reverted, edit-warred, sometimes edited across, and frequently ineffectual (as in this example -- the close yesterday obviously didn't resolve things). They are subtly rude -- the functional equivalent of "shut the fuck up." The goal should be closure, not closed.
• If it is the goal of the sub community to improve the functioning of ANI it should include a discussion and convergence on discussion on the use of closing tags, or it just going to continue to be a source of conflict.
• The justification for using ANI for the Bell Pottinger incident was that it has > 5000 watchers. The concept that a single editor -- 0.02% of that population -- can declare a discussion over -- just seems really off to me. Nobody Ent 23:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The goal should be closure, not closed. - well said Nobody Ent. Youreallycan 23:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • D'oh, if you think that's bad, I guess you haven't paid attention to my evil plan. As with any process, some appeal mechanism is desirable. Insofar, I think that a polite request in the ANI thread itself works well enough. If that's not bureaucratic enough, we could try my evil plan. Then you'd have to file a WP:AE appeal to reopen a thread on ANI. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's a problem and getting out of hand. We've got several users running around locking up discussions a very short time after the most recent comment. We have 24 archiving for a reason. To allow all timezones to continue to contribute to a discussion if they wish.--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Some tentative conclusions?

OK, I was going to try and summarise the key areas we've covered in the last 48 hours but there has been so much useful and constructive discussion it would be a disservice to try and condense it. I'd only miss out on something worthwhile. So I will try and summarise where I think we have got to in the last few days.

For the time being it looks like AN/I is working reasonably well. What seems to me to be helping includes:

1. Concise and relevant information from editors bringing reports
2. A significant drop in the noise to signal ratio - less backchat and sniping, more policy, diffs and AGF
3. Prompt closure for straightforward and uncontroversial complaints
4. Complex and/or controversial complaints being left open for discussion to develop
5. Editors/admins making closures being able to tell the difference between 3 and 4 above
6. Reports being very clearly closed by use of the {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} templates as soon as it is clear a resolution has been reached
7. Closure being accompanied by a clear, reasoned and politely phrased summary
8. Admins and others familiar with policy and practice taking decisive, assertive action in a timely way

I think it reflects well on everyone at AN/I this week that so many have commented on the improvement. However it would be foolish to think we've cracked it. There's been a lot of attention here the last 3-4 days and as soon as our attention wanders the dramaaahhh will be back. Those who have been reading this thread need to carry on providing the leadership by example. This focus may be all we need, or it might just be the start of some more fundamental changes. Some things that might help and may need further discussion would include:

• Is waiting 24 hours without a response the right way to clear the board? Should reports that have been closed have a shorter wait before they are taken off the board? In fact should any report go 24 hours without someone taking responsibility for it?
• Should each new report have someone (experienced editor or admin) take responsibility for it and marshal it through? (This would include deleting it and reposting to another board, if appropriate)
• Would it make sense for the more visible closing using {{archivetop}} templates and a cogent summary to be standard practice (perhaps noted on the board itself as procedure?)
• Is there any benefit to having a 'make new report' button which opens a more helpful template to guide inexperienced users?
• What do we do at the next outburst of off-topic snarking or foul-mouthed name calling? Do we start refactoring, or is that asking for trouble?
• Does the format of the board, the instructions etc, need revising? Could it be streamlined?
• We started discussing a clerking system but this seems to have been receiving less attention - are we saying that's a 'no' for now?

That's enough wall 'o' text from me for tonight. At some point we need to wrap this discussion and get back to stability but maybe we have a little more we can still achieve before we do... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

When I checked yesterday there were ~5000 ANI watchers and ~3000 AN ... so I'd like to reiterate the suggestion above ANI gets its own talk page.

It would be a good idea to have Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Instructions codify whatever is decided.

The instructions at top of ANI are a usability mess -- unfortunately I don't have sufficient Wiki-time to address myself anytime soon.

I really like the idea above about moving the truly lost editors requests to the appropriate place, and think we should adopt this.

We should have a {{previouslyclosed|xxx}} template so when a close is BRDd the closer's comments can be preserved.

It's frequently best just to let the bot move threads to the archive -- the bot is impersonal and just less likely to escalate situations.

The ARS discussion is a really good example of how letting threads go longer is better in the long run -- premature closes end up functioning like the bell at the end of a boxing round rather than resolution.

I advocate agressive removal of off-topic comments -- the more boring ANI becomes the better off Wikipedia will be. On the other hand, per current standards, attempting to remove on-topic comments because we don't like the phrasing used causes more trouble than it is worth. Nobody Ent 22:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that "agressive removal of 'off-topic' comments" is going to be far more trouble than it is worth. Editors refactoring and removing others' comments because they deem them to be off-topic is not going to work. What are your, or anyone else's, qualifications for deciding this? Where is your mandate for doing so? pablo 23:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A comment that a reasonable person would not consider as addressing either the specific issue at hand or a larger related Wikipedia issue is off-topic. The mandate comes from the conclusion of this discussion per consensus. Nobody Ent 23:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

And the community trusts you (for instance) to judge this ... why? What if a comment is in fact related, but you cannot see how, either because you are not familiar with the situation or the comment is badly phrased, contains a malformed diff etc? I think the approach of licensing editors to remove posts that they think that a third person (whom they consider to be reasonable, whatever that means) might feel is off-topic is going to create more problems than it solves. pablo 00:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Have a read of #AN/ANI reform: Alternate proposal #2 above. This tries to deal with the broad topic of "unconstructive" comments and poses some possible solutions. The mandate would come from the community, on the two assumptions that (a) this eventually gets drafted into a policy proposal, and (b) the community then accepts it. Manning (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As an editor who is not in the main time zone of the rest of the english speaking world, this rush to close discussions is excessive and unnecessary. Unless it's something clear cut like "editor A was vandalizing, he's blocked, done" fine. But locking discussions up with an hour of the last comment because one random person thinks it should be done isn't appropriate.--Crossmr (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm very pleased with the way this is heading. I fully support the aggressive removal of off-topic comments. One thing that worries me is the over-aggressive use of thread closure and the suggestion that one admin should own a thread. That needs more thought. Anything but "snow" cases should be kept open for 24 hours to allow input from all timezones; and that a self-selected editor should have ownership of another's complaint is dangerous. Most issues brought here would benefit from thorough, focused, civil deliberation of several editors, and to formally rule that out would be a backward step. The problem this step tries to solve will be solved by keeping discussions focused, professional and civil. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

For simple vandalism and disputes involving relative newcomers etc ANI works fine. But I do not see Kim's summary working for the sort of problems I described in the section #Discussion (a) that editors with high profiles bring to ANI discussions. -- PBS (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

But Anthony–surely your recent attempts at removing other people's comments at AN/I have shown you that this approach is itself controversial, resting as it does on the opinion of the remover on what is "suitable"?
And an increase in aggression in order to supposedly keep the peace seems ... wrongheaded. pablo 09:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• “Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity”.

Alarbus (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Pablo, everybody was surprised by what I did, I agree, and three editors reverted me. But the discussion I opened about it was only open for two hours, so I don't think you can infer much from that.

Your observation that incivility is in the eye of the beholder troubles me. You say it as though that's a problem. It isn't. Fortunately, most people can recognise uncivil behavior, like most people can recognise beauty. There are borderline cases where opinions will differ, but on those occasions we can err on the side of tolerance. The same applies to off-topic comments.

Aggression? I wasn't aggressive, I just removed an aggressive comment. I don't think that makes me aggressive does it? I certainly wasn't feeling aggressive at the time. I was in fact trying to cool things down by removing a belligerent, inflammatory comment. Tarc responded aggressively to that but, so what? He'd just referred to another editor's reasonable and civil comment as bull shit. Removing uncivil comments isn't forbidden, you know, it's just not usually done. I'd like to see it done more often, and believe the administrators' boards are a good place to start. Thank you for your thoughtful and very pertinent comments. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well Anthony, yes - I can recognise uncivil behaviour, no matter what language it is framed in. I can also recognise that genuine issues do not have to be couched in language that I suppose you would term as "non-potty-mouth". Forgive me if that is incorrect; I am not really familiar with what may be the correct nursery euphemism in the circles you inhabit.
Now we've got that cleared up, here's the thing. It is the message which is important in communication. Not the style, the vocabulary, or even the language. There is a responsibility on both parties to a communication, and focussing on language does a disservice to each.
Speaking of which, you said, and I quote,
"I fully support the aggressive removal of off-topic comments".
As far as your own actions go, maybe you didn't think that you were being aggressive, but you must admit that, given your recent history with that particular editor, it would be easy for an observer to construe your actions as such. In which case, if they were of a mind, they would legitimately undo your edit. In which case you would perhaps want to re-revert blah blah blah.

Tell me again; this reduces drama how, exactly? pablo 22:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for using "potty-mouth," it has misled many into thinking I was objecting only to the word "bullshit." That is not the case. As I said to Tarc, I was objecting to his behaviour. (It is perfectly possible to use "bullshit" in civil discourse but not when it is directed at your interlocutor's civil and reasonable contribution – especially when that interlocutor is a stranger. Chat between friends is governed by different norms.) Had he used "lies," "foolishness" or "deceit" in place of "bullshit," it would still have been uncivil. Adding "shit" to the mix just adds to the level of disrespect.

I'm not sure you do recognise uncivil behaviour. In the example we're discussing – one editor calling another's reasonable and civil contribution to a discussion bullshit – I'd say that's clearly not civil (polite or courteous, polite and formal). Obviously. I wouldn't have removed it if I'd had any doubts. You are in no doubt it is civil behaviour and quite appropriate in professional discourse. One or both of us is wrong. His behaviour is either clearly uncivil, and you are wrong, clearly civil, and I am wrong, or borderline, in which case we're both wrong.

I suspect that I am right, that his behaviour clearly meets the definition of uncivil, but that some editors think that WP:CIVIL should be ignored. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"You are in no doubt it is civil behaviour and quite appropriate in professional discourse" Am I? I say that where?
What I am reasonably sure about is that aggression is uncivil, and "aggressive removal" (those are your words) can, and will, increase drama. "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others", as the civility policy has it. pablo 12:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK. So, do you think his remark was uncivil? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well according to you, I'm in no doubt. Please see 2(e). pablo 13:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for misunderstanding your position. My last question was an attempt to clarify your position, but I don't understand your response. I'm not sure whether you're answering my question with that link, or making a comment. In either case, I don't understand its meaning. At any rate, I'd prefer to leave this instance behind, if that's OK. You're telling me that editors in a discussion should not simply redact uncivil behaviour. When an editor is being uncivil, what should we do?

With regard to my use of the word "aggressive." When I said I support the aggressive removal of off-topic comments I was using "aggressive" in the sense assertive, bold, and energetic, the way it's used in medicine (aggressive treatment), not in the "hostile" sense. Though, when I use "aggressive" when describing incivility, I'm using it in the latter sense. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

May I try an answer to that question as well? When I think an editor is being uncivil I try (and will try harder) to say so at their talk page. Sometimes other editors chime in and agree with me, which makes the point to that editor that I am not alone. [3] is not a great example, but it's the most recent one I could find. Note that I say "When I think someone is being uncivil..." I think incivility is dependent on how it is read; another editor can argue with "You were uncivil" but they can't argue with "I thought you were". I think this, rather than redacting AN/I comments, may be more effective. (Having said that, I could imagine certain kinds of hate-filled rant that I would redact at AN/I but hopefully these are few and far between.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Your response was nicely pitched. I completely agree that the ideal response to such things is a quiet word from several editors and, if that ethos emerges here, it's a good start toward making Wikipedia suitable to people of normal sensibility and manners. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That is certainly a more sensible approach, and indeed the one recommended in the civility policy. As far as removal goes, yes, there are times when it will be the best choice to remove a post. But it's necessary to make a distinction between comment about edits and action, and comments about editors. There is a world of difference between "User:Example's post is bullshit" and "User:Example is shit" for instance. pablo 20:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no. There is a difference but not a world of difference. Both are grossly uncivil. As I said above, I'm not sure you do recognise uncivil behaviour. Was this edit summary an example of civil behaviour? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary is certainly not an example of civil behaviour; it probably comes under "belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts", as does this.
I find it somewhat bizarre that you would equate both of the examples above as 'gross incivility'. Makes me wonder what adjective will be required to describe worse. Can I suggest therefore, that next time you spot something that offendeth thine eye, you either take it up with the editor in question on their talk page or via WQA - you know, like the civility policy recommends?
To return to the instance that you'd "rather leave behind", according to the civility policy "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them " is uncivil. Maybe I should redact some of your posts. In point of fact, if one were to wikilawyer one's way through just about any talk page armed with the civility policy and the delete key there wouldn't be a lot of meaningful discussion left. pablo 12:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware I'd quoted someone out of context, please point it out and I'll redact.

I'd like to see such comments as Tarc's, yours and mine deemed rude and inappropriate for this site (except between familiars on user talk pages). The reason is, I'd like scholars and grannies and, well, people who adhere to normal standards of politeness, to feel comfortable here. We've created an ethos where it's cool to talk shit to strangers. We feel comfortable with that but normal people view such behaviour as repulsive, and won't collaborate in such an atmosphere. We need to make the boards and common talk pages an environment where most people could enjoy working and engaging, not just those who either don't recognise offensiveness, or don't think it matters. The present autistic ethos is impeding the growth and functionality of the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I see three problems with many typical ANI threads; often all at once. They are: #1: various snarky gadflies, who should be removed from the board; #2 aggressive actions by non-admins that are often disruptive (ex; their removals of posts and closing of threads is often ill-advised. It amounts to RfA prep-work; "thought you already were one"); #3 too many edit conflicts in heated discussions which only leads to more heat and less thought-out posts as editors seek to get their now-semi-out-of-date comment in after multiple {ec}s.

I would caution about granting too much license to non-admins as that will in many cases lead to more aggressiveness, not less.

• Another idea

Alarbus (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Snarky or unconstructive gadflies need addressing directly as to their behaviour.
2. Let's not focus on non-admins here; there is reason for concern about over-zealous admins too.
3. That's purely a function of traffic levels. Your idea of periodic timeouts is interesting.
    pablo 12:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sixteenth alternate proposal

The goal of most who post (I hope) is to get at least one fully-uninvolved eye on a complaint. Suppose the first "totally uninvolved person" who thinks they can reasonably and fully investigate the complaint hats the initial post (not precluding any others from also thus reading it and responding to it, but making clear that the hatter will investigate the issue as fully as he or she can). The result of the independent investigation then gets posted unhatted underneath the orginal post asking for it. Discussion following this post then shouold be restricted to the findings of the editor or admin, and not be based on any other factors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What I find difficult about this, is that when an editor is blocked, the first likely to notice are those who have his talk page watchlisted. So admiring but not actually involved admin comes in, takes jurisdiction before anyone else notices, and follows his heart.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

And since the material is still on the board, so can any other admin -- the hatting would not preclude others from entering in - it just would make the use of extraneous comments far less likely until someone has a solid statement to make. Isn't that where the real problems lie? In comments by "somewhat involved" editors, muddying the initial issue posed? And, of course, humourous asides would then not make the "serious responses" hard to find in the jumble. Note that "block reviews" would not get hatted, to be sure. Collect (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No. hatting discussions inevitably kills them. The excessive hatting needs to stop. We've already seen it derail one thread where there is genuine cause for concern, and it caused all kinds of issues over continued discussion because people got confused by all the hatting.--Crossmr (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I may have this wrong, but are we talking at cross purposes here? As far as I can see very few threads are being hatted - by which I mean collapsed so that their contents are invisible until the section is expanded. However we have been making a more consistent use of the {{archivetop}} template (which, confusingly, does not archive its contents at all....) Which are you uneasy about, Crossmr? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

{{Hat}}ing should be avoided not only because it can be misused, but when archived, hatted text is not usually available to searches. As an alternative {{discussion top}} gets over the archive problem but not the inappropriate use. If its usage is linked to Moni3's administrator taking charge then it has its uses (as does {{tick}} and {{cross}}, {{done}} and {{sorted innit}}). -- PBS (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Sorted, innit pablo 10:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again, hatted text is available to the internal search engine. It may or may not be available to external search engines, but NOINDEXed pages most definitely are not. Please choose your poison. Franamax (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hatting breaks the table of contents and adds no particular value over archivetop. Nobody Ent 12:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an idea worthy of consideration. It is far better to have one admin investigate an issue carefully than to have many make superficial comments. Geometry guy 00:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hatting certainly breaks within-page browser searching. Wikipedia's own internal search engine is so poor that when conducting civility research, I was unable to determine if hatting had any effect. So I went for reading long slabs of AN/I archives. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It boils down to this: Premature closing of discussions as has been going on does far more harm than good. If some immature user is running around making snide comments, deal with them directly. Closing discussions after an extremely short time has a great potential to damage user relations. No discussion should ever be closed before 24 hours has passed unless it is something that is very trivial, like a random IP vandalizing pages, or someone withdraws a complaint. It's a community and discussions happen. Large communities generate a lot of discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Some discussions are unproductive, such as forum shopping; forum shopping while an ongoing process is still in action elsewhere; wrong forum; SNOW-close; off-topic; disruption; and banter distracting from the topic may need more rapid closes. Some of those will need clean re-opening below the problematic discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And doing so has the potential to do far more damage than simply leaving them open and dealing with he causes. If something is in the wrong forum, move it, and leave the little moved template, we have that. Snow-closes shouldn't be made as fast as they're being made unless there is a gargantuan amount of people weighing in very quickly, but closing something after an hour because 5-10 people agreed in one direction isn't time to snow something. If someone is making off-topic or disruptive posts, deal with them directly. Closing discussions and then re-opening them kills them. It confuses users, and poisons discussions like the one we just had about Jasper. Rather than discussing the point that needed to be discussed we instead got side tracked with a bunch of process wankery because half the people showing up didn't seem to understand I was trying to continue the discussion that was continually being jammed closed every time I looked away.--Crossmr (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Data collection to assess how effective ANI is at responding to complaints

I apologize right up front here. I will be unable to do this because I simply don't have the time, but I'm hoping this idea will spur on someone else who does.

To be better informed about how effective ANI is at responding to editor complaints, those who are participating in this discussion should be aware of how ANI operates on a daily basis. If I had the time, I would chart the success of each thread at ANI going back at least three months. I would rate each thread on a scale of 1 to 5, much like the DEFCON ratings:

• 5: Thread is succinct. Admin action taken quickly (including the original poster blocked or warned per WP:BOOMERANG). Admins are polite and understanding to new editors.
• 4: Thread is short. Original poster told to go elsewhere or not answered. Admin replies incomprehensible to new editors (using multiple/frequent acronyms or Wikipedia jargon--such as "Diffs?", NPA, BEANS, etc., without links/explanations); Thread is archived or collapsed without the original problem sufficiently addressed.
• 3: Thread is longer than necessary because of admins or other editors arguing. Original poster's concern overcome by decreasing quality of communication by multiple participants in the thread. Admins are dismissive and/or rude to original poster and/or each other.
• 2: Thread has more than one section; admins arguing with each other; multiple accusations of personal attacks and incivility; original complaint forgotten.
• 1: Thread is absolute chaos, resulting in one or more of the following: multiple sections; discussion is sidetracked multiple times; an argument involving two or more editors moves from some other page to ANI, each of them accusing each other of the same behavior that brought them to ANI and it escalates; person performing this review cannot discern what the problem is or what solution is being offered; edit warring in thread; wheel warring in thread--or elsewhere because of thread; some unforeseen factor(s) that I cannot list but results in dissatisfaction by original complainant and multiple participants in the thread.

A: "Sidetrack" means any instance someone inserts a comment irrelevant to the original complaint, including attempts at humor, comments about responding admin(s), accusations that one or more responding admins should not be participating because they are involved, or something else that does not address a solution to the stated problem.

For whoever may take this on, and I really hope someone will, my DEFCON rating system here is based on my experiences at ANI. However, if you see fit to tweak or change the rating method, it should follow that any changes still rates each thread's success rate on:

1. How well the original complaint was handled,
2. The register of language in the thread: polite and professional, informal, rude, dismissive, or abusive (which I know is subjective, but I hope you get the idea).
3. The overall efficacy of how editors--and admins in particular--communicated and applied Wikipedia's standards to whatever the original problem was.

You may have to ping my talk page to get me to respond here if you have questions. Please consider taking this on, and again, I apologize for not being able to do this myself. --Moni3 (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Moni - a very worthwhile exercise, but obviously not the briefest of tasks. I think I'll get started on it, though - I'll use an Access database here at home. I'll do one archive file, let you see the results and then we can tweak the approach before tackling any more archives. Manning (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, props to you Manning I didn't think anyone would go with this. One suggestion I have; could there also be an alternate way of scoring a 5: Thread is lengthy and stays open for a comparatively long time, but evidence is gathered, a consensus reached and a confusing situation becomes clear. Short and quick is not always the way to go and occasionally it's the right thing to let a discussion run, as we have seen in recent days. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Kim - this is what I do for a living, so it's not entirely unfamiliar. I'm actually not going to try to apply the Defcon formula yet. The best approach is to gather the data first, then figure out how best to interpret it. I'll look at each thread, then each comment, and capture who posted it, what time, and mark it against criteria for relevance, tone, etc. While this last part is necessarily going to be subjective, it's better than trying to score an entire thread off the bat. As I said, I'll do one archive and then report back. You guys can also examine my scoring against that archive to see if you agree with how its being done. If either of you have MS Access available, I can send the DB to you once I've built it. Manning (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be better if data assessment/analysis was available on-wiki (and shouldn't a CC-licensed encyclopedia use a open source database? ) 02:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody Ent (talk • contribs)

Not really - anyone can use Wiki data for any purpose. While the data I am analyzing is CC-licensed, my analysis of it is not. Anyway, using MySql is much too cumbersome for this uncomplicated task. I'll certainly put the results on-wiki when I'm done.Manning (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the analysis? (mysql cumbersome? compared to MS?? You got a RS for that? ) Nobody Ent 03:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The purpose is outlined above. I don't understand your reasoning for suggesting MySql here, either you don't understand the task or you aren't familiar with the tools and their relative strengths and weaknesses. Access is the obvious choice for a one-off analytic task like this. Using MySQl (or Oracle or SQL Server) would need hand-coded forms, a web-server, etc. Far too much work for something which has a one-time purpose. Manning (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Subjectively assigning ratings to ANI posts off-line is original research and inimical to the transparent collegial model of Wikipedia decision making. Nobody Ent 12:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

But I think that this is in the nature of a feasibility study at the moment, so there's nothing wrong with a bit of original research. The time to worry about transparency is if and when it becomes usable and if there is a consensus to use it. pablo 13:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, obviously applying the skills and proprietary tools of a professional data analyst was a silly idea. I apologise for even offering to do this. Let Randy from Boise do it. Manning (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent - are you offering? In a transparent and collegial way, of course? pablo 13:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I'm unwilling to make any long term wiki-commitments. The database stuff isn't important and only meant as an aside: I apologize for side tracking the conversation. Nobody Ent 13:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Manning, I appreciate you taking this on, and I am also surprised that someone thought it worthwhile to do. More important than following my suggestions to the letter is keeping close to the spirit: ANI is a place where problems need to be solved and the highest priorities there should be clarity, professionalism, and competence. I could be completely surprised by this endeavor if Manning or others measuring the success at ANI return to report that, say, 75% (or more) of the threads there are handled competently and professionally. --Moni3 (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Moni - sorry, but I was serious in my withdrawal above. I actually spent most of yesterday building a database and a data entry framework. But the relentless nitpicking by Nobody Ent made me realize that spending effort on productive things is only going to attract the ire of these tenditious, self-righteous WP:RANDYs. So why bother? It's a lovely day and hence I'm going to the beach with my wife. Manning (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because it didn't go all your way - that's no need to personally attack the good faith opposers of your position. Youreallycan 00:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Um it went entirely my way. Instead of spending hours working on something to benefit the project, I'm now going to enjoy a day at the beach. Have a nice day. :) Manning (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Your refusal to even notice your personal attacks on a good faith user demeans you - Um, er, lol - Youreallycan 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) *raises eyebrows* "personally attack"? Manning offers to take on a monumental task and send the results to the two editors who express interest, and is then rebuffed by an editor (who has no interest in the task himself, of course) who says his method of research is hostile to WP's atmosphere, and he has no right to make frustrated comments? Oh well, experts are scum, and all that. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yea, he's frustrated, that is cool - but it doesn't allow him the right to attack good faith opponents of his position. - his good faith position should be, "hey guys I am frustrated" not , "all the people that oppose me are worthless losers from randy" Youreallycan 00:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There was no personal attack intended. The term "Randy" describes someone who is "relentless but clueless". That is a cogent assessment of Nobody Ent within the context of this discussion. His motivations are not deliberately disruptive (they are probably quite sincere), but his lack of even a basic understanding of the topic, combined with his insistence on challenging each point makes the term appropriate. Manning (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a user:Randy from Boise? Whose cell-phone is ringing? Would not wish to have to pay that monthly charge. :) NewbyG ( talk) 05:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone really ought to rate this topic. As for Moni's proposal, it sounds great to me, but then I love investigations. Manning, after you get back from the beach (must be nice down under), you should resume your task. To avoid any, uh, sidetracking issues, don't even talk about the task until you've completed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh, you're right. I clicked edit intending to respond to YRC, but saw this when I scrolled in the edit box and yup, it wouldn't help. Cheers to all, Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I conducted evidence gathering in the area of serious failures of AN, AN/I and WQA for the recent civility case; these were posted at Risker's request for evidence section. AN/I was not effective, efficient, or accurately archived. The sample period I believe was the first quarter of 2011. The method was close text reading of every archive page. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • All this civility police stuff is a waste of time for everyone - deal with it using common sense in real time - don't send your time trying to assert consensus for what all and sundry have a different position on. Youreallycan 01:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm unable to connect your contribution's relevance to my contribution; I assume therefore that you're using a second person plural you. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, my reply needed indenting and is not a specific response to you - - as for second person plural - all that in English seems a bit vague - Youreallycan 01:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I consider any perceived personal attack on me irrelevant. My concern is that editors assigning scores to ANI in a non-transparent way is subject to bias and, to the extent the results are used to make/influence decisions would be detrimental to Wikipedia. WP:V is the gold standard for article space, so I'm puzzled why we would accept less in WP decision space. Regarding the so-called nit-picking: it was my understanding this is a discussion where editors express their viewpoints in support and opposition until a consensus of the community is achieved; if a single opposing viewpoint is sufficient to veto the idea as if I was Jimbo or something (I'm not) then it would seem the proponents had little depth of conviction in the first place. Nobody Ent 03:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

OK Nobody Ent - How do you propose that we go about "collectively" analyzing over 5000 comments for a prototype exercise? Unfortunately I only have 15 years experience in this field (easily verified on LinkedIn) so I lack your profound insight.

I was going to employ the industry standard methodology of build a prototype using an assessment criteria of broadly arbitrary design, then submit that for review. From there I intended for us to examine and enhance the model and criteria until we reach something we are all happy with (all the while acknowledging the fundamental fact that bias can never be fully eliminated).

You see, I've got this ridiculous notion that until something actually exists, there won't be anything to discuss. That's why prototyping was invented, and why I said at the very beginning "First I'll knock something together for us to discuss".

But no, let's try to do it collaboratively. Should we open an RFC for each comment? I look forward to your insight. Manning (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've worked professionally in this area for some time, too, and I think your approach is the obvious one. The grading of outcomes will necessarily be a bit subjective, but if you are willing to do it, kudos to you. The tool is a matter of choice - I'd probably go with Access too at this stage, and if the will is there to turn your efforts into something "webby" long term on wiki, I hardly think exporting the data is likely to be a dealbreaker. I think this might be a useful metric, and I appreciate your offer to create the initial prototype. As you say, it will move the discussion to a stage where there is a model to discuss. We may, of course, decide it's a blind alley in the end. You know this, and for that reason I am even more grateful that you should offer to do the work. If I can help at all, ping my talkpage. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 04:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that I've already used a premier humanities methodology to concretely analyse a long run series of data, I don't see why we're seeking a qual-arbitrary typology-coding solution when the evidence has already been analysed and findings made. If you're going to produce a generalised solution that unqualified individuals can use to sample & note the quality of discussion on any Talk: or noticeboard page, that'd be more valuable. Even AN/I is vulnerable to the XfD process, or death by replacement or disinterest. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Gerard (Nobody Ent) ...I don't even know how to answer that it's so left field. And I'm not trying to NPA and all that. Any time ever you state your opinion on anything, including the merits of this data collection, which you have already done, your opinion is unverifiable in reliable sources and considered original research. But the obvious question is--how on earth does verifiability and original research apply to AN and ANI when no sourced content is at issue? WP:V and WP:OR are for article space and their respective talk pages. It's why I can't truly state my opinions about the provoking incident resulting in Emmett Till's murder, or Harvey Milk's cultural value; I wrote those articles so none of my opinions should be anywhere near them. I didn't respond previously because I couldn't figure out if your protest was a joke.

This isn't article space. We're addressing a system that was put in place by Wikipedians ostensibly to respond to user complaints, but has on observation--by me and others--turned into an inefficient board where people argue constantly, nothing gets done, and relationships between editors, admins, and each other, all get worse. It doesn't even seem as if admins and editors agree on what goals AN and ANI should have. Some people really enjoy this kind of "fuck you for coming here and complaining about this shitty site" atmosphere, and as the lowest common denominator, we expect nothing more of participants at ANI so that's what it has become. We're losing very good editors because of it. But hey, this is my perception and I stay away from ANI because it feels like swimming around in a porta potty when I make a comment there. Is my perception tinged with insanity? Who would know? Measure what ANI has been like for the past three or six months. If you don't like my system because it's too something, come up with something else. Yours will also be subjective. I was offering this as a starting point, a way to get people thinking critically about what ANI is supposed to achieve and what it actually achieves.

Manning, too bad. --Moni3 (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Moni, it's not clear to mean what your vision of how to proceed is. Let's say three months of ANI threads are assigned into the categories you suggest (skipping for now discussion of how that happens). How does that help us move forward? Nobody Ent 02:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent - I'll assume good faith here, and that you simply have zero familiarity with the topic of data analysis. Currently numerous claims are being made about what is or is not happening at AN/I, and all of those claims are unverified and subjective (essentially they are little more than "hand-waving"). Moni's proposal is to first gather and collate hard data, as a foundation for subsequent informed discussion and decisions. (And as noted, although "absolute objectivity" is impossible, a workable model which allows for bias compensation can be developed.) My proposal (which you so vehemently opposed) was to develop a prototype system for collating that data, which could then be reviewed and refined for suitability to the stated purpose. Does this explain things to your satisfaction? Manning (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

<cough>, "All the claims?" Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo - is this what you are talking about? I went looking for your analysis yesterday and this was all I could find. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Fifelfoo. If not, a link would be useful. Rgds Manning (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Evidence#Collaborative_evidence_collection_at_request_of_Risker and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Workshop#Analysis_of_Evidence_of_Reading_for_Risker_for_the_Collaborative_Evidence_Section Fifelfoo (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this Manning. As Moni mentions in passing above, WP:NOR is so clearly a mainspace article content policy that I too thought Nobody Ent's comment was a joke. I view the willingness of high-calibre, experienced editors (admins or not, it doesn't matter) to get to grips with ideas about managing ANI as very positive. EyeSerene^talk 11:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Intuition is better than synthetic statistical measures

There is no evidence the proposed approach of analyzing individual ANI threads, assigning a score, and then applying mathematical analysis to them provides superior information than Wikipedians simply reading the articles and formulating their opinion. In fact, decision making research indicates the numerical approach is likely to result in inferior results.

• "In general, rational folk who seek as much information as possible about candidates’ positions on many different issues tend to make poorer decisions about whom to support in mock campaigns than do those who follow simple heuristics"
• It’s science’s dirtiest secret: The “scientific method” of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation. Statistical tests are supposed to guide scientists in judging whether an experimental result reflects some real effect or is merely a random fluke, but the standard methods mix mutually inconsistent philosophies and offer no meaningful basis for making such decisions. Even when performed correctly, statistical tests are widely misunderstood and frequently misinterpreted. As a result, countless conclusions in the scientific literature are erroneous, and tests of medical dangers or treatments are often contradictory and confusing.
• Despite the welter of statistics at their disposal, managers often need to rely on gut instinct to make complex decisions under duress

In addition, assigning categories of ANI threads for assignment a priori increases the chance a reviewer will miss other trends or patterns. Or even a Gorilla Any editor is certainly allowed to form their opinion any way they want; however, claiming an opinion formed with the aid of mathematical analysis or tools is superior to another editor's opinion formed by simple direct review of ANI or simply experience is invalid. The analysis opinion is entitled to no more weight than any other. Nobody Ent 14:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with most of the above. I was also pretty uneasy about Manning's intention to make a proprietary, off-wiki database about ANI threads. How did he expect Wikipedia to make use of it, if he wasn't going to upload it (making it CC-SA)? If he didn't expect Wikipedia to make use of it, what was he going to do with it himself? It sounds almost like Wikipedia Review. I'm an admirer of Manning in most regards and I don't doubt his skill at the assessments he was going to do, but I'm frankly glad that he gave up on the plan. I'm not convinced that the collected ratings are likely to be very useful. But if they're really wanted, crowd assessment (I'm speaking from naivité, perhaps) doesn't sound that hard:
  • Start a project page where people can sign up to do assessments. Say there are 20 volunteers.
  • Do a "pilot run" where 10 threads are selected at random from the archives, and post the 10 links on the page. Write some "assessment guidelines", then ask each volunteer to assess the 10 threads in their user space, spending say 2 minutes per thread on average. After the assessments are done, compare them, share impressions of the experience, and use the info to tweak the guidelines. Repeat this step a second and maybe third time if it looks useful.
  • For a "real" run (this example again in the case of n=20 volunteers), select 100 random threads and assign 15 of them to each volunteer (i.e. total of 300 assignments, so each thread is assigned to 3 different people, in a randomized mix). Everyone does their assessments independently in their userspace (1/2 hour), then they are compared (manually or by plugging them into a program). If all 3 assessments for a given thread agree or almost agree (two 4's and a 3, say), it's considered a good measurement, so average the assessments. If there's significant disagreement about a given thread, examine it more closely and determine a consensus rating.
  • ???
  • Prophet!

67.117.145.9 (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I never said I wasn't going to upload it, I said I wasn't going to upload the prototype. Uploading and constantly tweaking the prototype online would have just added a lot of unnecessay hassle and effort. The final version was going to be online using MySQL and a PHP front end. Whatever "results" came out of the prototype would have had no value other than assessing the design's "fitness for purpose". The procedure you've outlined above is pretty much exactly what the ultimate plan was (except that instead of doing it via talk pages we wanted to develop a system for capturing the results... hence the prototype.) We're proceeding anyway. Manning (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused.... PHP/MySQL... you mean you're planning to host your thing on an off-wiki server? Is the end result going to be GFDL/CC-BY-SA compatible or not? If not, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of recruiting Wikipedia volunteers for it, especially through a Wikipedia process board like this one. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is the Persian AN/I linked from the English AN/I?

I don't mean to distract from the epic existential debate raging here, but I'm wondering if someone knows any reason why the Persian AN/I should continue to be linked from the English AN/I in the "languages" section of the sidebar. It's the only language there and I'm not sure if it makes sense to have interwiki links for these pages in any case. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it can be helpful to link those kinds of things. Whatever the reason may be let's say someone had a reason to go there, but their persian language skill wasn't up to snuff, they could find it easily. Maybe they wanted to cross post something for their perusal, or something like that. I'd suggest any wikipedia name spaces that serve like or very similar function should be linked. This also helps us deal with editors who don't read English. We can use it to direct them to places they can get help--Crossmr (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If I wanted to find the admin's board in French wikipedia, my first idea would be coming to WP:ANI and clicking on the interiwiki link. Idem for finding equivalent policies, cite templates, etc. This is very useful. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone-- what prompted my original question is that only the Persian AN/I is linked from the English AN/I, which on the face of it looked like either a bug or a bold addition. The parent AN does have a more comprehensive list of language links. I realize now that's probably because the other language wikis do not have an "incidents" sub-board (and I'm taking it on faith that the Persian link is correct). Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions for discussion

There are (2) issues I would like to bring up here for general discussion, and I will be disappointed if there is no discussion.

(1) It seems to me that recent events have led to somewhat of an improvement of efficiency at ANI. Is this going to dissapate now, as fatigue sets in?

(2) Where does one go to seek redress for edit warring and incivility which occurs at ANI, or in the page history of ANI? And I have examples (diffs). It would seem unproductive to take it back on the ANI board, it would seem like re-opening a closed case, which rarely has spectacularly successful results. Thank you. NewbyG ( talk) 10:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

1) i don't know.

2) one doesn't seek redress on Wikipedia, see WP:NOJUSTICE. Edit warring is dealt with at WP:3rr and incivility may be discussed at WP:WQA but users going to WQA seeking sanctions for other editors are often disappointed, as that's not really the function of the board. Nobody Ent 10:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, here are the diffs. reverts newby –

reverts doc9871 - 1 reverts doc9871 -2

3# examples of edit-warring in the page history of ANI. Also three examples of grave-dancing, which is frowned on. Also, re-inserting a header which flouts the talk page guidelines, even allowing that it is on ANI. But really, it is contrary to plain common sense, not to mention real world fairness, that a user appoints themself prosecutor,judge and executioner before the jury and the trial happens. Maybe the result of the Incident was fair, we don’t really know, because the atmosphere was poisoned from the start’

Now, I see no reason that I ought not to request that some admin/sysop who has clue, will revert that non-complant header BEFORE the section is archived. If it is shown here that I am wrong, I will gladly eat my words. But, apart from the damage and insult I have suffered, ANI is supposed to be about fairness, and it is going to go backwards if the kind of amateur grubbiness which pervades this page were to be allowed to become the norm at ANI again, merely through exhaustion of the will to go on.

But for me, if that header goes, I can have the dignity that I am entitled to, I am a good faith editor. I have no wish to pursue any other matters, just that header, for my sake, and the sake of efficient and fair operation of the ANI board. NewbyG ( talk) 11:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm removed the comment. Nobody Ent 11:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed header also. Nobody Ent 12:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you one and all, though there has been no discussion of dot-point (1). My own impression is that users coming to the ANI page for the first time are *not* assisted if their initial flame-war type headers are not refactored by a clue-full sysop. The board has been calmer lately, I do hope that clue-full sysops will continue to seek for the board to remain calm and productive of fruitful outcomes. Please send this user an email or tele-gram, or raise a semaphore signal when this missive is ancientised into the archival repository for historical docu-mentation, at your earliest convenience, God save the Q. NewbyG ( talk) 20:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi NewbyG, I guess there's been no discussion of the question "Is this going to dissapate now, as fatigue sets in?" because, quite simply, nobody knows. Speculation is a bit pointless as in a couple of weeks we'll know the answer! FWIW my guess is that this kind of thing may be cyclical - my hope is that the cycles are long ones, with long periods of civility punctuated by short outbreaks of craziness, followed swiftly by mature reflection and a rapid return to sanity. But time will tell. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of an old candy commercial. I just hope we don't have any owls that like to bite too hard. Does that analogy date me? LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI header

Since most people are agreed that the current header is too long/doesn't get read/focusses on the wrong things, I've taken the liberty of removing a few things from the "See also" section, based on their availability from the others. I don't know how much the others are used. It's small, but I hope it's an uncontroversial start. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

New header

With some regularly editors fail to notify other editors of ANI threads. This is not surprising given the wall o' text at the top of the page. I propose replacing the long ANI header with User:Nobody_Ent/sandbox4. Please consider it as a first draft prototype than a finished product. Nobody Ent 15:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest using larger bolded text for the "you must notify" paragraph. I do agree that faced with a wall of text, the average user doesn't read any of it. --NellieBly (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This is definitely better than the wall that exists, but I honestly don't think it will really help anything. People just don't read instructions for anything anymore, especially not online. I've often though that an auto message sent to a user talk anytime their page is linked here would be great...but that would hinge on the name actually being linked, and linked correctly. And with all the redlink names that could get complicated. Anyway, the current system works pretty well (doing it on behalf of someone and reminding them of the requirement on the thread) If we have an ANI clerk (do we?) it should probably be part of his/her job to double check for proper notifications. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 19:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this seems sensible. Simple messages are much more likely to get through. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Something like THIS USUALLY GETS PEOPLES ATTENTION ;). -- œ^™ 01:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if I have photosensitive epilepsy or something, but looking at that flashing sign for three seconds gave me a serious headache. I am disabling it before somebody gets a seizure. Yoenit (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate problem, but I don't think relegating bits to subpages is the answer: no-one's going to read them there. If we're fine with no-one reading them, then they might as well not exist. So I think a look at what we should say in the top is warranted, but merely with a view to trimming it. The See Also section could be first. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Let's take a big, bold notice telling people to contact those that they start topics on, and put it above the editing screen window.AerobicFox (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

edit:I see we already have one, but its overshadowed by the other notice which explains the purpose of the board. Let's make the current one more prominent.AerobicFox (talk)

As the comments ranged from supportive to neutral -- 'tis done. Nobody Ent 00:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow that's a big change. I thought someone had vandalised the header / AN/I for a second there. I think that might be too simple, though I do agree the existing one was overly in your face. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 03:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. You've also lost the search function and the archive list which imo should still be there. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 03:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

ok, I do think that that template is just a bit too simple (Yes I know KISS, but even so..) Heres my attempt - User:Happysailor/Sandbox Based on the existing one, just cut down a bit using collapsible boxes, with a minor re-order. does the RfC box need to be there? (just asking) - Happysailor ^(Talk) 04:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Definitely need the purge link in the header; Wikipedia caching is unpredictable. Agree archives infobox is not too cluttering and is helpful. Agree dropdown boxes are a lot more accessible without adding too much clutter. Might want to set Template:Noticeboard_links to state = collapsed. Not sure about RFC/U; isn't that what the dashboard is for? --64.85.215.61 (talk) 07:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Added a purge link to edit list at the bottom. Nobody Ent 10:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I would really like to see this reverted. We will kill any chance of anyone reading the subpages. It's a bit of a jumble, and what we have and don't have hasn't been discussed. More thought necessary I think, better to work off the old one for now. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

agree - it's a bit all over the place with the extra pages used to try & cut it down in size. I'll do a part reversion for now using the version I made up with hidden boxes - that should cut it down about 50%. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 22:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, the chance of anybody reading the old header is already close to zero. Big walls of text discourage any reading, causing people to skip over even the most basic instructions. Collapsing the "are you in the right place" and "how to use the page" section might actually increases the chance that people read those sections. The only thing I don't like is that "do not request deletion of sensitive information here" is now hidden, as that uses big red letters for a reason Yoenit (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Both anecdotal observation and Usability research make it clear that the design by committee wall o' text at the top of the page makes the words functionally invisible. Look at the clean simplicity of google for a functional website. Given unfortunately common snark that descends on first time editors who fail to notify other editors (The horror! Crimes against humanity!) the simpler the banner the greater the likelihood someone will actually see it. Nobody Ent 14:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Here are my thoughts:

• I don't know why the "Noticeboards and related pages" navbox is right at the top. Those who don't know where to post will not find this helpful (that's what "Are you in the right place?" is for), and those who do know where to post don't need it right at the top.
• The purge gadget doesn't deserve to be at the top: yes, Wikipedia caching is tricky but when we're talking about simplifying things, this has fairly low value relative to its prominent placement.
• The RFC/U list doesn't need to be here either. Is this a noticeboard or a dashboard? Even collapsed it creates noise.
• "How to use this page" doesn't seem to add a lot value either: These are mostly just normal talk page rules, unnecessarily re-stated.
• What is the number one cause of noise on AN/I (besides intentional battleground reports/forum shopping)? I think it is misplaced reports; those that should go to WP:AIV or WP:DRV or similar.

For these reasons, I think the only useful information in the header are the "Are you in the right place?" and the very targeted ANI-specific hints (try user talk first, notify user talk if posting here, etc.). Everything else feels redundant with existing guidelines and practices. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(undent, Re:OSS) #1: agree move it down. #2: get rid, at least for now. #3: get rid. #4, #5: consider that bit carefully, I think. Some of it isn't obvious. Suggest keeping for now. I suggest making changes 1, 2, and 3 as swiftly as consensus can be determined for/against doing so. 4 and 5 might need to come later, as partial deletion might be appropriate. Sorry if this (and indeed my previous comment) looks too sharp, I just don't want to be creating walls of discussion, lest this prevent good work happening. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

New Article: Michael Laitman

As the article I want to create was created some time ago and deleted, I need your assistance to create it properly, so that it stay. Now, I completed many steps and read many pages, and still I cannot create an article. Subject: Michael Laitman. Kindly create the page for me, so that I start to contribute. Yuri Kozharov —Preceding undated comment added 17:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC).

People have responded on his talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

requests for closure subpage

Wondering if someone familiar with archive bots would care to set that up for the request for closure subpage, it is routinely cluttered with stale requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Never knew that page was there. Added it to the box on the top of this page and will look at adding auto archive. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the bot doesn't seem to be doing it's thing at the main AN page either, there's stuff there that hasn't been edited for days, it's actually not nearly as busy as it looks. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If you feel there are some stale requests at WP:ANRFC, than feel free to close one/some of them. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 23:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

My point was that discussions are left listed long after they are closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The server, nightshade MiszaBot runs off is down -- the bot owner has periodically run the bot manually when he's had a chance. Agree it's annoying... Nobody Ent 02:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot how could a bot decide if a request was closed or not? Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 06:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Autoarchiving on the fritz?

Resolved

 – ClueBot III (finally) put AN archive on right page all by itself Nobody Ent 03:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else noticed this? Several people have had to manually archive in recent days and on a high traffic board like this we don't want stale material hanging round. I have no idea how archiving bots work, can someone look under the bonnet/hood? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The server, nightshade MiszaBot runs off is down -- the bot owner has periodically run the bot manually when he's had a chance. Nobody Ent 13:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. this talk page is archived by ClueBot III, maybe we should use that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Updated AN to (hopefully) use ClueBotIII Nobody Ent 21:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I know Cluebot was tried previously on ANI, and it had to be reverted for some reason (wasn't working correctly) - Happysailor ^(Talk) 21:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Cluebot III is working but puts a space in the archive name -- I've queried the bot operator page to see it that can be helped. Nobody Ent 12:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Finally got the ClueBot III syntax down recorrectly -- AN archived correctly this morning. Just updated ANI to use ClueBot, so that should auto archive tomorrow. Nobody Ent 12:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Not quite resolved yet ... still need a successful fully automatic ClueBot III ANI archiving event. Nobody Ent 11:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot seems to lag on the archiving sometimes, so I've flipped ANI back to MiszaBot (its server is back up). Nobody Ent 11:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Closing non-discussion threads at AN

I don't think it's really necessary to "close" threads that are merely requests to clear a backlog. {{resolved}} is perfectly sufficient to mark the issue as being.... resolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not like we have a coherent policy on thread closure, as previously discussed. Personally once I learn the syntax of one of a set of functionally equivalent templates -- what is the difference between "archive top" and "discussion top," anyway? -- I tend to keep using it. Nobody Ent 12:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend to use different ways of dealing with endings - and concentrate more on ANI than AN. I think the two boards need a slightly different approach. Some threads are so short, easily dealt with and non-controversial that I leave them alone in order not to reset the archive clock to 24 more hours. Sometimes I might use the {{resolved}} template just to indicate to anyone skimming the list that it's dealt with. TBH in those cases I wish it were possible for (a) archiving to happen more quickly or (b) for the person who deals with the issue simply to delete it from the board.

Where action has not been swift, uncontroversial and obvious, but a discussion has obviously run its course I tend to use {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} so that people scrolling through walls of text can tell that this issue has been resolved by the blue background it imposes. I think these are worth leaving for the full 24 hours after closure before archiving, so that people coming back to the board can see how an issue turned out.

Of course dividing reports between the two outcomes above and deciding which template to use (if any) is going to be a metter of judgement and we won't all agree on which need the minimal 'resolved' tick, and which need something more. I don't think we're likely to get a definitive policy about how to close - unless one evolves from experience of the most efficient ways of doing so, just by us trying to keep on top of this! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need a formal policy, and it is really not that big of a deal, it just seems a bit silly to do a formal closing on a thread that consisted of nothing more that "RPP is backlogged". It kind of cheapens the idea of using formal closes if we use it for issues that clearly do not require them. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Self-contradictory. If there's not a formal policy, a closing can't be formal. Regardless I'll refrain from surrounding cleared RPP backlogs in pairs of template tags. Nobody Ent 03:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, underline exclamation point. "Formal" is only descriptive not prescriptive (barring a very few WMF cases). Where's the "formal" policy on closing RfC's, for example? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

here Nobody Ent 23:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Dude, that's just a page. It's not policy, or even guideline. Just a page like this is a page. Is that your definition of "formal", that it's written outside of Talk: namespace? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed at the discussion that has gone into this simple matter. This section puts it best: "Discussions are usually closed in situations where someone, usually an administrator, decides that the discussion is irrelevant or disruptive ... there are no rules in place governing [closure]..." It goes on to say that closing can create more conflict than there was to begin with. Basically, we don't (and shouldn't) bother closing anything unless there's a good reason. What's the problem with this principle? Swarm ^X 17:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Hmm, I'm not sure there are no rules. There are some recognized principles, at least, ones that I think of as rules, myself, and that I wish were universally upheld. For example, WP:RTP says,

Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.

One could argue that hatting or whatever isn't really a refactor, I suppose, but that would miss the point. The principle is similarly recognized in many of the "collapse" templates, too. As the docs for {{Divhide}} phrase it,

Note on using this template to close discussions: This template should typically not be used to close discussions as {{hat}} is available for this purpose; but if it is, it should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. (strong emphasis in original removed)

These concerns are wholly legitimate, imo, and just plain sensible, too, since even the slightest whiff of a "supervote" can so easily rile everyone up.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Order of templates at the top of the page

What do you think about this edit? Since we shrank the ANI top box ("Welcome to the incident noticeboard..."), I think that it would better to move it above the noticeboard links template — it's a good introduction to the page and thus should be placed in a really prominent place, and its smaller size means that it won't dwarf the noticeboard links. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It would make more sense to have the 'heading' and intro at the top - the reason I left the links template up there, is that, that is what seems to be the top thing on all the noticeboards - Happysailor ^(Talk) 16:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Restricting access to the last few revisions?

The "Changing username" section currently at WP:AN involves a user who wants to change username for privacy reasons and mistakenly came here instead of WP:CHU. In such a case, should we RevDel the edits in question, simply edit the comment to remove the username, or do nothing at all? I don't remember seeing such a thing happen before — I'm sure it has, but I don't remember it. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Header reorganization

I'm thinking it might be beneficial to exchange the positions of the "Noticeboards and related pages Dashboard" and "Welcome to the incident noticeboard" headers. It makes sense to have the "welcome" header at the top and might increase the chance that newbies read the "you must notify" section. We could also move the dashboard to the bottom of the header section, which would seem to be in line with the way we template hierarchical subjects on article pages (i.e. the related subject templates are the bottom of the article). Is there a particular reason it's setup the way it is now? SÆdon^talk 09:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Non-administrator observation

Please see: Template talk:Non-administrator observation#What to do with this template. Thanks,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

lost ani archive

Resolved

 – thank you Nobody Ent 14:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

On 14 Feb, it appears MiszaBot removed this content from ANI but never added it to the archive. contributions. I don't know how to efficiently get the content restored -- can anyone help. Nobody Ent 10:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopped to VP(T) Nobody Ent 13:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've re-added the content manually (though very painfully!) Sometimes MiszaBot does that type of thing; it could have had something to do with one of the Beatles links being on the spam blacklist. Graham87 14:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks -- was hoping there was some more technically slick way of doing that. Nobody Ent 14:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

break

I sold it in order to try and raise money for an FA ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Supression of evidence for money - call the wiki-cops!!!!1 Agathoclea (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I can apparently claim that because I was going to use the money to pay someone to raise an article to FA status, it was therefor in the very best interests of Wikipedia, and was therefore 100% appropriate :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we need some sort of swop noticeboard - going rate 125KB ANI for one FA. Agathoclea (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Two archives

I couldn't find a thread by looking at the links from the top of the page. However, when I followed the link from the archiving bot's edit summary, I found the thread. It seems there are two current archives:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' notice board/IncidentArchive748 - the one that the bot archives to.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive748 - the one that the link in the Noticeboard archives template points to.

It took me a while to spot that one uses "notice board" and the other "noticeboard". I have no view on which should be used, but I suggest we settle on just one before we start losing threads. --RexxS (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone messed up the MiszaBot instructions. I fixed it a while ago; the one with "notice board" has been moved to /IncidentArchive749 because I'm too lazy to manually move all the archived material. Yes, this means that Archive 748 will be unusually short, but whatever... T. Canens (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A bit long!

This page is sluggish to load for me. It is currently 710,530 bytes long. And that is with archiving threads after 24 hours! Is this usually the case? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I tried to manually archive a few before it would have hit 800KB. All I want to say is that, to those who have been pushing "hatting" and "closing off" every ANI thread that is done, it's NOT being effective at all. I am coming to the point to saying that trying to close such discussions, knowing well that users can still add comments at the bottom of the thread, is pointless and should be stopped immediately. --MuZemike 16:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If editors continue to ignore a hatting, there is always the option of a manual archiving of the section, (to the archive page, not just adding the box) which will have the added benefit of decluttering the page. Monty₈₄₅ 19:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Won't work. Other people involved will re-add that section back in, to the point of edit warring it back in. Then, the person who has tried to archive it gets barked at and labeled as a partisan in the dispute. --MuZemike 22:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

MMA = Mixed Martial Arts?

Sorry, I haven't been following this closely. I take it that MMA stands for Mixed Martial Arts? Is that correct? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup. The main organization in the US is Ultimate Fighting Championship or UFC. Ravensfire (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

When reporting a personal attack (PA), is it OK to say what the PA was?

I quoted a PA made by another editor as part of my report.[4] It was removed by another editor.[5] That editor has declined to self-revert.[6] My question is whether it's acceptable to say what the PA was when reporting a PA? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Note for those who don't know this acronym, it appears to mean "Personal Attack." --Golbez (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I'll update my question to make it more clear. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine; quoting is not "repeating", really and it makes it easier to focus on the actual issue. Nobody Ent 15:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know why that got removed. -- tariqabjotu 16:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary undoing AQFK's edit makes it sound like he made the attack, and removing his comment is going to feel to him like a heavy-handed rebuke. It would have been better if the editor had told AQFK his concerns and asked him to rephrase. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for closure

I note that this discussion was recently archived without any sort of decision having apparently been reached. I am not myself necessarily sure of procedures around here regarding such matters, not starting discussions here that frequently, but I think it would probably be in the best interests of all involved if someone were to review the matter and more or less close the discussion one way or another, to allow future editing of the related content to not be overburdened by this apparently unresolved request. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the conversation that you tried to link to has been moved here Wikipedia:AN#Proposed topic ban of User:DeknMike. Took me a couple minutes to find it so I hope that this is a help to anyone else trying doing the same. MarnetteD | Talk 15:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

AIV backlog thing

Is it possible to make that show only to admins? Egg Centric 21:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know the only way to make something visible only to admins is to delete it, and obviously that would not be a good idea. There may be a way for you to hide it so you don't see it if it bothers you for some reason, I would suggest you ask the tech people over at WP:VPT. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheers Beebs. If that's the case maybe it's worth adding something to wiki syntax such that it can show different content depending on who the user is, in which case is VPT still the place to suggest that or should I go to bugzilla? Egg Centric 21:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure, I'e never been to clear on the distinction between the two. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to go to VPT because if it is a bugzilla issue they'll be happy to kick it on, but it might not be the same vice versa. Jenks24 (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that this is already possible using CSS. See MediaWiki:Group-sysop.css - could someone do this then please? Egg Centric 15:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Archiving closure requests

I don't think it is necessary or within community norms to archive content from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure as opposed to just removing a day or two after if it is handled. We don't do that at other admin request pages such as AIV, UAA, or RFPP, because they are just requests for admin actions, not actual discussions. I therefore propose we cease archiving requests that have been handled and delete the existing archives. I know that part of the discussion would normally be handled at MFD, but since we are talking about a broader change I think we should deal with both issues here. Nothing will really be lost as everything will, as always, be in the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing against it. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 11:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I would be against not archiving the requests at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. I frequently review the archives pages to read closes of past discussions. Without archives, it would be more tedious to browse through the page history to review those discussions. I view the archives pages as a historical record of discussions that users have found important enough to request formal closure. The archives pages serve a similar purpose to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive, a historical record of discussions significant enough to broadcast to the wider community. Cunard (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference being that CENT is only for important discussions, while the requests for closures page is mostly old DRVs, content RFCs, and other items of limited scope and impact. I doubt there are many more users who find themselves "frequently reviewing" the two pages of archives we have currently. Seems like a waste of resources to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI header discussion

There's now a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader#Autocollapse regarding whether to collapse the noticeboard nav box at the very top of ANI by default, or leave it showing in full, as it is currently. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"You must notify any user or administrator who is the subject of a discussion"

How many administrators do we have who aren't also users? Why do we have to have "or administrator" in the warning? Nyttend (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure who added that either. Rather ... redundant. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

... and I have been WP:BOLD (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it was thought some were thinking that all admins read duh drama boredz religiously and therefore there would be no point in notifying them. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that the goal was to be clear to inexperienced people, who might think that there's a big difference between regular users and admins. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

User or IP template

Surely there is a template to get the right user-links on ANI. Maybe even separating IP from usernames. But it is secret now. Why not in the header? -DePiep (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I expect Template:User and its many variants, all explained in detail in the same documentation, are what you mean. I don't think the name is so counterintuitive that we need to mention it in the header. Huon (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

User or IP template

Surely there is a template to get the right user-links on ANI. Maybe even separating IP from usernames. But it is secret now. Why not in the header? -DePiep (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I expect Template:User and its many variants, all explained in detail in the same documentation, are what you mean. I don't think the name is so counterintuitive that we need to mention it in the header. Huon (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Consistent closure template

I know it's a very minor thing and there is no way we can or should enforce this but is there any chance that those who close discussions here (AN and ANI) could use the same template and general format? Right now we have many different styles all being used at the same time and apparently at the whim of the closer - discussion template, archive templates, checkmarks placed at the top of the discussion, checkmarks placed in line with the discussion, closures with comments and signatures, closures with comments but without signatures, etc. - and it would be much easier for readers and participants if there were some consistency. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this page active?

I just posted a new closure request, but I see there is an older request - 2 months old - that has not yet been acted on. Is this page dormant? --Noleander (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Two months? You mean one month, no? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 17:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, one month. I read "May" as "Mar". Carry on :-) --Noleander (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Bot archiving for /incidents

I'm beginning to wish I hadn't gotten involved in this. Miszabot was malfunctioning again so I commented that bot out and enabled ClueBotIII. For what reason I don't know CB created a new page and archived to IncidentArchive 755 instead of the using the existing IncidentArchive755. I presume that the archives were setup for no space /IncidentArchive755 for whatever reason. Now I've disabled CBIII in order to stop this. Right now there's no bot set to archive the page. Could turn Misza back on and pray. Brad (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Reactivated CBIII; someone had already left message on their talk page. (Also copy pasted the archive into the right one)

I was informed some time ago that it's the |format= that determines the space. If the setting were |format= %%i then a space will be inserted. The setting for this page is and has been |format=%%i so I don't understand why CBIII made a space. Good luck ;) Brad (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

In case it was the |numberstart= 755 setting I changed it to |numberstart=756. I bumped up the number of the archive since 755 is running almost to 1mb now. Brad (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Good catch! It just built 756 just fine. Nobody Ent 01:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see that. You may want to consider keeping CBIII as the archive bot. It offers a lot of options that Misza does not. You could make use of its 'Archive Now' option which could be placed when a section is closed. By doing that, the next time CBIII comes around it will archive the section without regard to the 24 hour time period. Brad (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Closure needed

Can we get a courageous admin to close the discussion regarding Academica Orientalis? No new arguments seem to be forthcoming.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What happened to archiving?

Moved from main AN page because previous discussions on archive have taken place here on the talk page Nobody Ent 23:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I just realized ClueBot III hasn't touched this page in a week. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't me this time I haven't gone near Cluebot, yet. Penyulap ☏ 21:49, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I just manually archived a bunch. The paste into the archive did not work because it contained a banned url -- tintower something or other. I replaced the .'s with the word "dot" to make it work. Maybe the same thing messed up the bot? Nobody Ent 23:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Still seems to be broken. I see Sarek has notified on the cluebot talk without any response; I've now alerted Cobi directly let's hope there's something said... Egg Centric 12:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot is archiving again. This batch was at 10:07 UTC on 13 July, though it was only 3,700 bytes. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the failed archive in order to save the history. It took several attempts and the history of my reversion is not recorded anywhere I could see??? Somebdy needsto repair the problem before it loses history again. Beyond my capabilities. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

use of photos in discussion

Do we have a policy or consensus on use of photos in discussions on AN & ANI? From memory I think WP traditionally hasn't allowed it and we remove photos that are inserted but it's been awhile since I've seen it. Nobody Ent 11:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Depends how disruptive they are, but ideally should be always 'spoilered' so they do not distract from the discussion. GiantSnowman 11:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand spoilered in this context? Nobody Ent 12:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

An indirect link i.e. asking you to click here rather than posting the image itself. GiantSnowman 12:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A discussion has been closed that a has been indefinately blocked, but no block template is on their profile

As said above, the discussion on User:Yiddi closed, a user said that another user has indefinately blocked Yiddi. But there is no block template on the user Yiddi's talkpage, it appears that no such indefinate block was made.--R-41 (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The block was made, see here. You'll also see any active blocks on a users contributions page. It's not necessary to inform a user he's been blocking when he's obviously begging for a permanent one. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

On 10 February 2012 I agreed to abide by a 1RR restriction after perceived edit warring. I would like to know were I might appeal to have this restriction rescinded? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Was the discussion at ANI? If so, try there? GiantSnowman 16:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No it was on my talk page during an unblock request. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Maybe try ANI anyway? GiantSnowman 16:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I will give it a go, but usually a post from me at ANI leads to trouble for me :o). Thank you for your help. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion (vs. notification)

In the Welcome header box, the following is found:

• Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."

"...on their user talk page" seems to be superfluous. Usually the issue has already been discussed there or on the relevant article talk page(s). The point is to discuss issues with them before coming here. We don't need a requirement to do it a particular place.

OTOH, one would think that "notification" should be done on their user talk page, but no such requirement is mentioned, although it should be.

So....can we get rid of those five extra words in the "discussion" sentence, and move them to the "notification" sentence? That makes more sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Some editors don't make a very big effort to get a discussion started. For example, submitters at WP:AN3 often think that they have started a discussion if they say something in an edit summary. ('I explained the problem in my edit summary but he didn't respond.') Also they may post on article talk because they assume the other person will see it there. Making the editor who wants to file at ANI attempt a discussion first on user talk doesn't seem too onerous. It goes without saying that a real discussion anywhere would meet the requirement, but squeezing that language into the header might be too much. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point about using an edit summary as a substitute for real discussion. That certainly doesn't cut it! Otherwise making this change actually shortens one text and lengthens another, IOW it's an even situation, so length of the text isn't a real issue. Here's what improved versions could look like (I'll strike out or mark what's added where relevant):

• Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue [thoroughly] with them on their user talk page."

• "You must notify (on their user talk page) any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so."

Something like that. You're welcome to improve this. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Did someone block me?

Did somebody block an IP address I was using (124.182.175.150) a few hours ago? After posting an answer on Ref Desk, I could not access Ref Desk, everything else remained available. This is pointless, I get a new IP address each time I boot up my PC. I'm not who you think I am. You are causing nothing but a nuisance to me at the time, and whoever else gets allocated the same IP adress from then onward. You need to find a better way to lock out pests. Wickwack121.215.59.65 (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP has not been blocked.(1) And we know you get a new IP address every time. Why not just register an account, as has been suggested to you previously? It's quite easy. Doc talk 09:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Because I've looked on this and Ref Desk talk pages before - I've seen you guys discussing whether to block me, merely becuase I had the temerity to suggest improvements to Ref Desk. And I've noticed you discussing blocking other folk, some of who undoubtedly deserved it, but some who did not. However, if you did not block the IP address cited, no problem, must have been a sofware glitch. Wickwack121.215.2.156 (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

While editing as an IP is allowed here, continuing to use a dynamic IP, especially when notified that it's causing confusion=disruption, is against our policies. With rare and specifically-defined exceptions, one human being is supposed to edit from one account, and since each IP address appears to be a different person, this causes confusion. You need to get all of your edits collected under one contribution history, and we do that by registering an account.

Whether you like it or not, and whether it's fair or not, you will never be treated with much respect without a registered account. With an account you can start creating a good reputation, and that's the most valuable asset a Wikipedian has here. It's worth its weight in gold! So, just follow the good advice you've gotten and register an account, rather than violating our policies. You have been told this, and I'm telling it to you now. To ignore good advice is disruptive. There are numerous advantages to using a registered, pseudonymous, account (including greater anonymity and more privacy), and no disadvantages. You'll have better access, more tools, more rights, etc..

In a situation like this, choosing to forgo those advantages isn't really an option, since continuing as you are now is simply forbidden. OTOH, if you were quietly editing and never were noticed (IOW never a single controversial edit or comment), editing as a static IP would be perfectly fine, but that's not your situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's quite the best way of putting it. Basically the point is that an editor who shows no consideration for others shouldn't be surprised if others show no interest in his problems. Looie496 (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You are allowed to use an IP address, whether dynamic or static. Your address isn't blocked. If you get the message again open a ticket on WP:UTRS and we'll look at it for you. Secretlondon (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Doc and SecretLondon have given sensible and useful replies - thanks. Re the comment about causing confusion, this appears to be nonsense, as I ALWAYS sign with my pen-name "Wickwack". If you search on "Wickwack", you will discover all posts I've ever made. Others have suggested that I register, but no advantage is apparent to me. I cannot see how it gives greater anonymity and more privacy, given the IP address varies. If there are other SPECIFIC advantages please spell them out. In response to one of my posts, an editor requested the I update the relevant WP article - surprisingly I was able to do this without registering! That single edit (addition of one clarifying sentence) is the only edit to an article I've ever made. A great number of articles are of poor quality, and I'd love to put them right, but it's too big a task for me - I thought my contribution is best in the form of answering Ref Desk questions. I was not aware that in doing this without registering I was contravening policy - indeed if you don't want it, why do you permit it? Why do other well known editors encourage it? Where is this policy written? Certainly not in the Ref Desk banner info - if it was I would not post. Maybe you should permit only the OP's posts, and confine answers to registered folk. That will lock out some good posts though. It is obvious to me that registering DOES have a disadvantage - as you will then be able to block or ban me. It's not as if you are always rational in doing so, as a brouse of talk pages will show. However, if you Admins feel that I am a nuisance, and acting against stated policy, then I will cease posting. Wickwack58.170.179.4 (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose there is always the possibility some other IP can sign their posts with your penname, and nobody will know differently. If you actually register as "Wickwack", this would be a non-issue. However, as you say, you've only made 1 edit to 1 article, so it's really not a big deal. If you're working all over Wikipedia as a dynamic IP, it might get a little confusing. Just my two cents. Jonathanfu (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Brangifer's comment on dynamic IP is absolutely incorrect. Just like what Secretlondon said, editors are allowed to use dynamic or static IP address, because the choice of dynamic/static is not up to the individual to decide. Only registered usernames are considered accounts. Unregistered IP addresses are not considered accounts. Brangifer should know better than this, as he's been around for more than 6 years. Funny how Brangifer said "you will never be treated with much respect without a registered account", because that kind of behaviour is exactly what's being exhibited. There's no violation of any policy whatsoever (including WP:SOCK). Brangifer should be reminded that a lot of IPs do great work whether it's the "good old days" (i.e. 2006-2008) or now, and should not over-generalizing all IPs as a whole. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It would seem we have a problem: One Admin asserts x, and a second Admin asserts the first is wrong. So who is correct??? Unless there is evidence one way or another, it would seem that my best course is to cease posting, as at least one admin doesn't like it. Note that Jonathanfu is incorrect - even if I did register a pen-name, "Wickwack" or whatever, there is nothing to stop another person manually signing with the same name, and it appears that it is quite simple to overwrite the auto signature with copy-paste, as I have done it accidentally from hitting [Ins]. If signatures on posts were locked, as they are on other forums, it would be a different story. Wickwack124.178.45.60 (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

BullRangifer seems to have vested interest in this subject, which may have clouded his judgement (and he's not an admin, by the way). Like I said, Wickwack you can continue as you wish, and if some mis-guided admins decided to swing the banhammer on editors contributing with dynamic IPs, there's going to be serious repercussions and widespread discussions on why the admin abused the tool. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Let me add some clarity here. In theory, we treat IPs and registered users the same. In practice, we don't. I didn't say it was fair, but it is the reality of the situation. Part of the issue is that people can't be sure that you, 124.178.45.60 are the same person that was 124.177.25.14 last week. Also, it is impossible to go through the contribs of someone with a dynamic IP and determine their experience, see if they have been blocked, etc. We can talk about equity all day long, but Wikipedia can't force every editor to think of IPs the same as registered users, and the fact remains that most take IPs less seriously. This means you can argue against it all day long (fruitless, as you can't convince people as fast as they register) or get an account, solving the problem. If you can't get an account for some unknown reason, I hate it for you. If you are able, I strongly recommend it. Yes, it is terribly unfair, but the truth on how most editors view IPs and there really isn't much that can change several million people's opinions on IP editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 16:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

True, another individual may be able to do what you have done with your signatures, but a glance at the view history tab shows this. So, if someone were to impersonate a registered user using the copy-paste overwriting method you're currently using to sign, it would be easy to tell the difference, as you can see here. Jonathanfu (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Some more 2.5 cents (throwing in the extra half-cent for good measure :-) ). 1) People who edit anonymously are actually less private than those with an account: your IP address basically tells everyone where you live. 2) If you registered your nickname and someone "faked" your nickname across the project, you could go to WP:ANI and complain that someone was imitating you, and it would be taken care of - as a matter of fact, if I were to register Wickwack right now, I could go and complain that you are imitating me :-) 3) Just because to prepend "Wickwack" to your signature, you still are unable to track yourself, or your edits - after all, editors don't sign their contributions to articles. It's a little hard to brag about some excellent edits when you're untrackable for that purpose. 4) As already suggested, IP edits are not always as well-respected - this is especially true if you don't use a good edit-summary! Cheers. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Information about registering accounts

• The Missing Manual: Why register? - An excellent presentation of the hows and whys of registering vs. not registering an account. This isn't policy (which requires, with few exceptions, that one person use one account), but it's based on a good understanding of multiple policies:

• Wikipedia:Why create an account?

• Wikipedia:Sock puppetry - This policy is clear that we are usually only allowed to use one account. Here is an EXACT quote (bold and underlining emphasis added):

"Wikipedia editors are generally expected to edit using only one (preferably registered) account. Using a single account maintains editing continuity, improves accountability, and increases community trust, which helps to build long-term stability for the encyclopedia. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project, the improper use of multiple accounts is not allowed."

The wording above is clear to advanced English speakers, but nuances may be lost on others. While a registered account is "preferable", the "general rule" "one editor, one account" still applies, even for properly used accounts that are not disruptive. The wording clearly implies (without using the words "IP" or "unregistered") that unregistered accounts (IPs) are considered accounts, regardless of whether they are used properly (as is allowed) or improperly. There is never any excuse for the improper use of even single accounts, much less multiple ones, registered or not.

The use of dynamic IPs, by their very nature, violates every ounce of this wording in the policy:

• "Using a single account maintains editing continuity, improves accountability, and increases community trust, which helps to build long-term stability for the encyclopedia."

It also violates this part of the policy:

• "Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions."

Thus the use of such IPs, especially when they are notified because of problematic edits, is a violation of multiple aspects of policy here. When the IP user, who often isn't aware of why such use causes confusion, is made aware of the situation, they are usually given opportunity to solve the problem by registering, rather than getting blocked. We try to be nice to newbies. Unfortunately not all such IP editors are newbies, and they sometimes get upset. If they are obtuse and quarrelsome, they may still get blocked. That's too bad, but we can't use oceans of time protecting the project. While we'd like them to become useful Wikipedians, we can't force them to "maintains editing continuity, improves accountability, and increases community trust". They aren't "build[ing] long-term stability for the encyclopedia", but actually are disrupting it by failing to heed good advice.

Unfortunately even some admins fail to understand this policy well enough, possibly because they can't parse its wording, which would be understandable if one isn't a reasonably advanced English speaker with an analytical mind. Lawyers are trained to do this (I have helped lawyers prepare cases), and medical/science people (like myself) often learn this.

Otherwise I see that two out of three sysops above (Dennis Brown and BWilkins) have AGF (and read what I wrote more carefully) and stated my exact feelings. I highly respect some IP editors who do excellent work, but unfortunately the acts of many other IPs reflect badly on all IPs. As I expressed above, it's not fair and I don't like it, but that's just the way it is and none of us can change it. That's why I recommend that IP editors, especially those who have drawn undue attention to themselves, register an account. I have never yet heard a good argument for not doing so. It still allows everyone to edit, AND under much better conditions. There are myriad experienced editors who share that opinion. We could save oceans of time and even number of servers if we required registration. We're wasting far too much time on vandalism and disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Very thorough, Brangifer, adn I appreciate your effort in setting it all out. However, it is still not established that posting under a dynamic IP address costs me anything. The links you provided point out that anyone can input the IP into a Whois or or other geolocator - but all you'll get from this is my ISP, which services all of Australia with well over a million clients, and/or the territory served by that IP range, which is all of Australia. That includes a land mass the size of the USA, and a population of about 24 million. Big deal.

Brangifer, you have clearly established that acting as an editor under a dynamic IP contravenes a policy, and is not nice. But what is an editor? I checked for a definition in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_editor - there isn't one, but the way the term is used strongly implies an editor is a person who creates or changes a Wikipedia article. I have not and don't do either (with one exception as mentioned), I only post answers to questions on Ref Desk. So, does the policy apply to me? It's not completely clear, but an Admin thinks not. I must say I was very surprised to find that I could edit without an account. No wonder there is so much trouble with vandalism, and it is one reason why I don't edit or create articles. There's some articles badly in need of some clarity and reduction of errors, but it would be a big task to put them right, and some peanut or peanuts could undo it again. Wickwack121.215.33.69 (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. Editing an article (especially those that are under sanctions) with an IP could be viewed as avoiding scrutiny. Answering questions on reference desk is nowhere close to avoiding scrutiny. (What are you going to scrutinize on in reference desk, Brangifer?) Citing a policy does not automatically win a debate. You have to use relevant policy and apply it to context. Plus what Brangifer doing is WP:Wikilawyering (particularly bullet #2) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There are no tools that adequately deal with abusers, so while an IP editor is welcome, and while efforts will be made to assist with any problem they face, there is no point continuing this dicussion because any problems the IP faces about range blocks are completely avoidable by a simple action on their part, and is not avoidable by a good action that admins could take. One IP that I interacted with (and helped present their case concerning a lot of bad edits by an established editor) eventually made an account of the form IP11.22.33.44 ("IP" in front of their address). While that is a good way of registering disapproval with the facts of life, it would be better to pick a word from a dictionary and append something to make it a unique name (more or less what I did). If an IP does not want to register, they are welcome to continue editing, but long discussions about consequences are just a waste of time because there is no good way to handle such a case. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well said. The only thing I would add is that I have no idea why this discussion is taking place here on the talk page.Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Question have i posted in teh wrong place

hiya all,

i am sure someone said when i posted on teh request for comment talk page ot close a straw poll or the rfc i could request a admin to do it, just not sure if this is the right place since no one has replied--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you perhaps try your question again and try to be a bit more coherent this time? I can't understand what you are talking about. Diffs or links could be helpful as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I assume he's talking about this. If you can read that, you have a lot more patience than me. Mogism (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

More likely this. Andrew, there's Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, which is transcluded at the top of WP:AN. I've also seen people make direct appeals on AN for an admin to close an RFC or straw poll: sometimes they do it, sometimes they don't, sometimes they yell at you for not using Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Luck of the draw. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks floquenstein i thought i had probably posted in the wrong area when i found that part of the administrators noticeboard ill repost later tonight depending when the Olympic ceremony finishesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, please use complete sentences. It's not just proper grammar, we really can't understand you when you omit all punctuation. StuRat (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Archive #745

Resolved

 – as far as this talk page goes anyway. The bolding thing has been fixed, reporting user is now indef blocked and it is not clear what they wanted anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Two things regarding ANI/Archive745. 1) There seems to be a missing unbold tag about halfway down, so the bottom half of the archive is all bold, making it unpleasant to read. (This should be easy enough to fix, but given the general antagonism I'm feeling, I didn't what to presume.) 2) It doesn't seem to be showing up on searches. (The second part is an issue because at the RFC/U that an editor filed against me[7], others are arguing that I should have filed something against him, or had suggested I take the matter to ANI. I had already taken the broader issue to ANI. However, it isn't showing up in a search.

My RFC/U response is being edited by those making accusations against me[8][9] and making ambiguous legal threats[10]. As a result, these preparations might be pointless. Still, we can hope.BitterGrey (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies re mess on noticeboard

Attempting to add a report of a page hijack apparently by "Earth_Exploding_Live", I inadvertently reproduced the hijack and couldn't undo the mess. Sorry for the stupidity. -- spin^control 16:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Collapsing closed sections?

Right now, the majority of ANI appears to be occupied by closed discussions; it's accordingly slightly harder to find a discussion that's open. Why don't we just use the {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} templates on closed discussions? This procedure is already followed over at MFD, although right now they don't have any closed discussions at all. Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I was actually wondering why discussions are closed so quickly. Shouldn't there be an opportunity for more discussion? Or chances for more admins to perhaps come to different conclusions? Just because the first admin on the spot comes to one conclusion, doesn't mean that other admins may come a different conclusion. JOJ ^Hutton 01:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

More opportunities for you to access free research databases!

I thought admins would like to know about this...

The quest for get Wikipedia editors the sources they need is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:

• Credo Reference provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are 125 full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
• HighBeam Research has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are 250 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
• Questia is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be 1000 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.

In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by my talk page if you have any questions. Go sign up! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC input needed

There is an RfC about the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that could use some input, if anyone is so inclined. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Section subpages for AN/I

The argument is that one could watchlist only the discussion(s) he of she has interest in, while a watchlist entry on the main AN/I page would serve to only inform one of new discussions. There sould be some technical way of watchlisting all subpages too. As far as I can see, this was last proposed 4 years ago, with the argument that it would improve archiving, as subpages can be created in a way that includes the date of creation. That argument is a bit too intricate for me to follow but it may have merit too. At any rate, as I am sure traffic only climbed since then, the proposal is open to some re-examination. Your thoughts? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 17:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

While I think this may hold some merit, the fact that there are so many (etc/etc) only one/two reply posts seems to suggest that doing something like this would just cause, a) a bunch of new pages to be created, seen by one or two people, and then just sit there until the end of time, and b) a bunch of editors spending a heckuva lot of time configuring something like this to actually work. Theopolisme _:) 00:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Absent something akin to LiquidThreads (preferably something not in an experimental / unmaintained state), I cannot support the idea. Essentially, my concerns echo Theopolisme's above. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Withdraw →Yaniv256 ^wind _roads 18:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone called Bilby has ab inability to control personal political convictions and bias and engages in unjustifiably deleting information that other people add from reliable sources by simply calling such sources unreliable without any explanation or foundation. This is abuse. THis is oppression of th efuindamental principles of Wikipedia. Perhaps Bilby needs to take vanity managemnt help or enrol into a proper journalism degree to learn that journalism, meaning proper journalism is about presenting all perspectives and allowing readers to draw their own conclusion - opposed to deleting all prespectives that contradict Bilby's conviction and personal preference and wording content to suit Bilby's conclusion.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthguardian12 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

abuse of editor position and wikipedia principles

There is at least one editor who appears to be abusing editorial privileges by imposing own bias and deleting content that does not fit this bias. The typical explanation is that the content was removed because it was not from a reliable source. This editor considers Herald Sund and its columnist Andrew Bolt as an unreliable source; and this editor considers Natalie O'Brien again from Herald Sun as unreliable source. But, this is because the content quoted from the articles written by the two well known journalists are not to Bilby's personal liking. Bilby was happy to leave content from Herald Sun but from different journalists who wrote information that matches Bilby's personal political conviction and impose a conclusion onto a reader. For Bilby's information, proper journalists should present all perspectives and allow reader to draw own conclusion.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthguardian12 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Two issues: 1) This is not the correct venue for a discussion about this. You need to raise any issues you have over this topic at Talk:AWU scandal, the discussion page for the article you are having a dispute over. 2) When you do initiate a discussion over the article in question, you're going to have to drastically change the tone of your post, as personal attacks are not tolerated at Wikipedia. If you wish to have any issue resolved in your favor, you need to keep a level head and keep any comments you have as impersonal as possible. You instantly lose any chance of getting what you want in any conflict you are in as soon as you personalize it, so don't do that. --Jayron32 20:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Requesting closure of recently archived thread regarding possible sanctions against User:Bus stop

I am not personally sure of the procedures on this page, but a section regarding possible sanctions on one editor which is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive765#BLP edit warring on British Jews was recently archived, even though there had been somewhere around 20 !votes on possible sanctions on him, for and against, and the discussion was not officially closed, and seems to have been archived based solely on the basis of the short inactivity of the thread. Like I said, I'm not really sure of the procedures here, but I think it might be a good idea for perhaps the discussion regarding sanctions to be officially "closed", one way or another. John Carter (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI Bot

What does everyone think about having a bot send out {{ANI-notice}} templates to users who have been reported to ANI? We have a bot that does it for us at DRN. Electric Catfish 15:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. ZappaOMati 22:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

How would it know? ANI doesn't have a standardized form, and there are all kinds of ways to name and refer to a user. Some users may be party to a discussion and not even directly named (for example, by reference to a talk page discussion they are a key party too). It would be nice, but given how ANI usually works, I don't know that this is workable, and the mere existance of the bot may discourage users from making certain that all relevent users have been notified (if a bot does it, users get used to the idea, and don't bother themselves). It sounds like a good idea on paper, but in practice, it may have problems and unintended consequences. --Jayron32 03:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

A template could be created. Create something like {{informed}}. The posting editor (and any other editor for that matter) could add {{informed|user name}} or something like that. I know nothing about the practicality of this, it's just an idea. Ryan Vesey 03:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle > ANI > Inform user name (field)? Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be nearly impossible to parse out the username. --Rschen7754 03:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure main page

Thank you to closing admins

Thank you, Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs), Drmies (talk · contribs), and other admins for your considered closures of the RfCs mentioned on this board. I am deeply grateful for your help in assessing the consensuses in these discussions. Thank you, Armbrust (talk · contribs), for keeping this board cleared of fulfilled requests. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, ThaddeusB (talk · contribs), Armbrust (talk · contribs), and other closers for your thoughtful closures. Cunard (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Jafeluv (talk · contribs), Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), and The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs) for your closures. Cunard (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Hobit (talk · contribs), HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), DESiegel (talk · contribs), Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs), Hut 8.5 (talk · contribs), Daniel (talk · contribs) and other closers for closing the RfCs and MfDs listed here. Cunard (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Jafeluv (talk · contribs) and 28bytes (talk · contribs), for your closures. Cunard (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), Jafeluv (talk · contribs), and Swatjester (talk · contribs), for your closures. Cunard (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, TParis (talk · contribs) and Hobit (talk · contribs), for your closures. Cunard (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Jc37 (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), and Swatjester (talk · contribs) for your closures. Cunard (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Jc37 (talk · contribs), Safiel (talk · contribs), and DGG (talk · contribs) for your closures. Cunard (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

— (Merged here because the Requests for closure talk page link redirects to this page.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

How long is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents going to stay protected so that IP users can't edit it? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Until mid-day tomorrow, last I checked. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Appropriateness of removing comments

Yesterday user Asloge (talk · contribs) deleted a thread that he wished to withdraw in good faith [11]. The deletion included deletion of comments from two other users, including myself. Is it preferable to let this deletion stand and warn the user about deleting other editors' comments, or should the discussion be reinstated to the ANI page, closed, and left to the archive bot? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Once someone else comments, the thread should not usually be deleted. If the editor wished to withdraw, they simply state "I withdraw my concern", someone will hat it/mark it for archive, and the bot will eventually do the rest dangerouspanda 15:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the rather naive method of reporting and then withdrawing the issue, this is an inexperienced editor. I'd suggest kindly reminding them of the procedure at AN/I and asking them not to unilaterally remove their report should they ever make another one. But I doubt the need to resurrect the thread only to then allow it to die of natural causes. Something like WP:NOTBURO applies here I think. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I have advised the user about WP:TPG and the ANI archiving procedure. I agree with Kim that it's probably not a good idea to reinstate the thread solely for the purpose of having it archived; the user was acting in good faith, albeit out of policy, and not committing vandalism. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You could just restore it directly into the current archive, that way its gone from the active discussion pages, but the record of it will be where you expect. Monty₈₄₅ 16:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Not "out of policy" just, maybe, against a guideline. Rich Farmbrough, 12:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC).

I would like to extend an apology to administrators

I am a human being (OK...some don't agree with that. LOL!) and as such I can react badly. Being an admin is not something I, myself would ever voluteer for. Why...because it requires so much work that I feel both my focus and goals on the encyclopedia would suffer. That, and there is almost no chance I would gain real support for it! (now that is not an exageration) However, I acknowledge that this is a difficult period for admin and I should be supportive and not critical. In order to improve the encyclopedia we most collaborate. Some, with more abilites than others, must be sought out. It is my gaol to help, not hurt...and I believe I may have done more harm in recent comments to JW's userpage. I like to post on Jimbo's page. It reminds me of that episode of "M*A*S*H* where Sydney the physiatrist writes to Sigmund Freud. He wasn't looking for a reply, and niether am I. It is just an excercise in expression and a means to get off my chest some of my feelings. However...I have also been rather humbled by one admin and reminded by several regular users....that we all have to put up with each other in order to move past situations. Yes, AN/I is a rough and tumble place. I hope I can return to commenting here in the true spirit of the noticeboard. It isn't perfect and I hope someday some improvements can be made.......but I accept what it is today and support those that take the time to volunteer here. I am sorry if my words and prose insulted anyone. The work here is drastically needed. Sorry for not "assuming good faith".--Amadscientist (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding WP US to a talkpage

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Adding WP US to a talkpage. Rd232 ^talk 19:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

May I use {{Sports-reference}}?

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

Please see 1 and 2. I try to talk with Lagnutus, but he rollbacked my edits that I had so justified: «the template "sports-reference" is designed to be used in the "external links", the important thing is not to be used as "reference" in the article. In its place, you can use the site olympic.org as source» --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

SportsReference appears to be the same as IMDB ... not a WP:RS, but usable to identify the person through external links dangerouspanda 10:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"It appears" It either is or it isn't - which is it? I used this site as an inline ref, but this "user" who can't even spell my name removes them. I simply restored them. Get over it. Next. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This dispute doesn't belong here. Please follow the guidelines at WP:DR. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:34, 14 October 2012 (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.

Are admin's ban proposals made at ANI optional?

Hi, just a quick question. A couple of weeks ago I was involved in a discussion that ended up with an admin proposing a topic-ban for all three involved editors (myself and 2 others) for 4 months, you can see it here (someone stroked through the discussion for some reason) This was the admin's ruling:

Proposals

All three of the above i.e. Wee Curry Monster, Gaba p and Langus-TxT should seek mentoring.
All three of the above should enter into a voluntary interaction ban on working with one another for three months.
All three of the above are topic banned from working on Falkland Islands related articles, broadly construed, for a period of four months.

Now, one of the topic-banned editors (WCM) said he refused to accept the ruling ("I will not accept a topic ban and if that is what you intend to impose upon me, then frankly you may as well to resort to blocking me straight away") and sure enough two weeks later he's back at editing the articles he supposedly was topic banned from. So my question is: are admin rulings made at ANI optional? I was under the impression that they were mandatory but I could be wrong, in which case I'll think about adhering to the topic-ban imposed upon me or not. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That was a proposal, not a community consensus for a ban. Nobody Ent 11:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I see, what exactly would you call a community consensus for a ban if an admin ruling at ANI is not? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The "ruling" was the following:

This needs an involved admin to simply step up and push for a resolution between the parties. It does not need a lengthy hashing and re-hashing at AN/I. Volunteers that wish to help the parties resolve this, speak up. Otherwise, let's drop this off at the dump, it has outlived its usefulness as a thread here. -- Avanu (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

A community consensus on the other hand is when there is a discussion and there are supports and opposes and then an admin decides on the consensus of the community. In the above case Avanu closed it saying lets just let it go and have an involved admin help the parties come to a resolution. -DJSasso (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

My ears are burning, someone must be talking about me, surely not, no one gave me a courtesy notice they were seeking sanctions against me. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... this is the Talk page Wee, nobody is seeking sanctions here. I'm just asking about the ruling made by the involved admin and how it affected us. Thank you DJSasso that clarifies my question so I guess the bans proposed by MacDui are actually optional. Since Wee already decided not to abide by them, perhaps I too will not. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's condescending to tell Wee this is the talk page, they know that. The answer to your question is that it didn't and doesn't affect you because it's wasn't a ruling or consensus, just an idea tossed out in discussion. Nobody Ent 12:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If he knows this is the Talk page and that no sanctions can be proposed/imposed here, then why is he claiming "they were seeking sanctions against me"? He is either 1- not aware that this is the Talk page, 2- not aware that sanctions are not proposed/imposed here or 3- just having some fun with the ol' mud slinging.

Yes Nobody, as I said in my previous comment, Djsasso answered my question thank you. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

{{archive top}} I think it would be an improvement if the conclusion is marked with a symbol. A yes mark if proposal is agreed on, a no mark if proposal is rejected, a no-consensus mark if a consensus wasn't reached. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

GiantSnowman

Nobody Ent changed the header, removing the "administrator GiantSnowman's", claiming consensus. Since there was no discussion of this, and the discussion was closed, this was improper.

ANI reports typically name an editor whose behavior raises concern. It is odd that administrators get special treatment. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Your previous heading of 'GiantSnowman's personal attack and edit warring' did not reflect the consensus of the discussion - both of us could have acted better. I asked for it to be changed to a more neutral one, the closer agreed. I don't understand why you won't let this topic go, and I don;t understand why me being an admin is of such concern/interest to you. PS this header is equally as bad and I'd ask for it to be changed as well. GiantSnowman 18:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've also notified Nobody Ent (talk · contribs), the original closer, as Kiefer has failed to do so. GiantSnowman 18:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent isn't an admin. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

So they aren't. Still. GiantSnowman 18:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not consider GiantSnowman's sysop relevant to this discussion as, as far as I know, there was no use of admin privileges in the dispute over the Rfa comment. Refactoring section headers isn't uncommon; I'll leave it to the rest of the community to determine whether the existing title is appropriate or not. Nobody Ent 19:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Kiefer, the consensus may be referring to a consensus that ANI/AN headers should be as neutral as is practical, and a consensus does exist for that. If it had said "GiantShowman's behavior", no one would have changed it. What is and isn't appropriate is often in the eye of the beholder, and I can see both sides of the argument (it is specific without being an attack itself, yet it is an inflammatory claim) so I have to look at the faith of the person modifying it. Even if you and others disagree with the change, the change was at least based on previous conclusions that titles should be as neutral as possible. More importantly, Nobody Ent may be a lot of things, but an apologist for admin is not one of them. As far as GS's comments to Malleus, yeah, I agree they were inappropriate but that whole event was arguably a push. I mean seriously, even Malleus would admit he has made much stronger comments to others there and elsewhere, all of which I would tell anyone that they are best to just overlook, admin bit or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

IBAN request?

I have requested an IBAN between myself and another editor on the COIN board here. User:Nouniquenames mentioned a couple times that since I am requesting a specific admin action it should have been on this board, but also that this could be forum shopping. I didn't know when I started the string that the discussion would turn into an admin request.

I have never been through this process before, so I thought I would just ask - how do I get a concrete decision from an administrator? I may be a little impatient because I am eager to resume regular editing, but it's definitely ok if I should just wait on COIN. I just want to make sure I'm doing it the right way. Corporate 02:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Interaction bans are usually imposed by consensus, not by a single admin, despite the fact that they at often discussed at the admin noticeboard. I don't think taking this specific part of the discussion to AN would be forum shopping. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and started a string. Am I suppose to put together any kind of more elaborate post? I think the explanation is already on the COIN board and I see no need to spill the drama over to AN. Also, how long does it take? I am waiting on this to resolve before I improve the article on Brand management, so I can edit with confidence I won't be pounced on. Corporate 12:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

I think perhaps in some cases, archiving unclosed cases after 24 hours is a tad too hasty. It's quite normal for an editor, particularly the subject of a discussion, not to be available for comments for a day or even two. Nobody is expected to work on Wikipedia 24/7, and some people are even nearly 24 hours out of sync in another time zone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you mean ANI (this talk page is shared by AN & ANI) -- I've changed it to 36 hours. Nobody Ent 01:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Pillar question

As admins, what can we or should we do about a title that satisfies wp:commonname but is wp:pov? Yes, such titles fall under non-neutral but common names, but therein lies the problem. "Trendy" common names are just that - trendy - meaning they'll have a lot of supporters (it's trendy right?). Is there no way for an admin to just say "screw it" and ban the POV title based on the NPOV pillar regardless of consensus? I would think not as that seems to go against long standing practice of consensus or "majority rules" that have governed Wikipedia to this point for the last eleven years. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Historically, admins who operated far outside of consensus and policy have not been long for this world. All editors should be bold, but it's still BRD - not impose your will on everyone with your buttons.

That said, the current policy as neutral as it can be in the WP:NPOV jargon - it gives the dominant space to the most prominent view, and can't do more. Alleged Apollo Programme would be less neutral than Apollo program, because it lends equal weight to the moon landing is a hoaxer as it does the regular, mainstream, based in reality view - effectively promoting the conspiracy theory way above its relative merit. Ditto supposedly William Shakespeare, but who really knows?, Bielefled, assuming it exists, which it may not, and so forth. It's "neutral" in the modern news "Get a flat earther and an astronomer professor on to be neutral sense" - but not in our "present everything with due emphasis" sense. WilyD 20:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I cannot fix a link for an AfD page

This page's AfD should link to this discussion . The page was moved and somehow it got messed up. I cannot figure out how to fix the link internal to the AfD on the articles page. Could someone help me out. Casprings (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. The |page= parameter had to be adjusted. Legoktm (talk) 02:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

request for closure

There's an old request for closure here that I'd like addressed, the edit warring that lead to it is starting to break out in places again. Some sort of resolution, even a "no consensus", would be appreciated. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Continuation of earlier discussions at ANI, and not relevant here

The 2 sections below don't belong here. They both seem to think that they are at WP:ANI, and the topic has been raised there at least 3 times: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive775#User IndianBio, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive774#Personal attacks and harassing by User:IndianBio, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive770#Conduct of IndianBio. Please, both of you, stop forum-shopping. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Opinion

Hello people here at ANI. I would just like to know what do you do with one user, who has been asked previously not to delete content from an article without discussing, still goes on doing that after repeated warnings, including POV pushing agenda with each and every edits. I'm asking this because I'm dealing with a similar user in the article "In My City", and I seriously don't want to raise a ANI thread if this can be dealt elsewhere. Because warnings and trying to talk to the user is falling on deaf ears. Another thing might be the case that the user is from India and speaks pretty bad English, so might not understand the fact. So I'm kinda at a loss. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

IndianBio

Hello people here at ANI. IndianBio attacking me.He adds video counts in commercial perfome of songs.Does it make sense(Pks1142 (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC))

I think it's time to block the both of them. The continued WP:BATTLE and BS as a whole is disruptive to the project as a whole (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

While not one sided, it isn't an equal situation either. I've full protected the article for a week, if they are still edit warring after that, I will personally get block happy. This is the FOURTH time I've seen this at a board. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

And to be more clear, this shouldn't be seen as a reason to deter any admin who feels stronger action is needed, particularly if this tit for tat continues. This is just my solution, not the only solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

rfc notice removed

I removed an RFC listing from AN -- as RFCs appear in the box on the right of the screen, it seems unnecessary. Additionally, it's not consistent with current practice. (This is is not way a comment on the validity of the particular RFC). Any editor is free to revert the removal, of course. NE Ent 16:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Good removal - the original post was verging on canvassing IMO. GiantSnowman 16:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That's OK. I thought I was following instructions given at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, which I see now relate to admin privileges. My first time doing this, and trying to follow all the small print early morning on iPad may not have worked perfectly. --Pete (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

Why are close requests for archived discussions not also archived? These seem to be dead issues. Why would they still be listed? Apteva (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

They're archived following the same schedule (based on the last timestamp) ... why, do you see one that should have been archived? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a centralized talk page. WP:ANRFC#Talk:Caste/Archive 4#RfC: Does the article minimize the centrality of India to the notion of caste? is a link to an archived discussion. There are others as well. Why would these not be closed as archived, and removed from the list of open requests? Apteva (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Because archived =/= closed. Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 01:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

How long does this usually take?

I am sorry to appear impatient, but I posted a request for admins' attention 4 days ago, and I have yet to receive a significant reply from anyone other than the user who has been harassing me. I have also been trying for the better part of 3 months to get any help in dealing with his behaviour. He has been disrupting several articles, and posting personal attacks against me on as many and more talk pages, and since I posted on WP:ANI he has posted another ~1,300 words of attacks against me in response. About how long can I expect to wait before an admin can respond? elvenscout742 (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll be honest from my POV: WP:TLDR. As items that require immediate action from ANI are usually brief with little backstory, anything longer than a full paragraph is probably too long. Even if I glance at it now, I'm not seeing ANI material, but possibly RFC/U. His response - which is both permitted and required - is just as TLDR. Another quick glance says you're claiming harassment and personal attacks (see WP:HARASS for details on what these words mean and do not mean on Wikipedia WP:NPA). I brief glance at the diff's that you provide don't seem to show anything that meets either - but you do have a content dispute. Have you attempted WP:DR first? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think that this phenomenon is the result of not following the proper bureaucratic protocols. Generally, some WikiLegalScholar will gleefully point out on the thread which page the OP should have used and which flavours of alphabet soup should have been served, and it ends there. Sometimes threads simply get overlooked, near as I can tell. Happens on other noticeboards as well—even high-action places like WP:AE. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

His response may be permitted, but the unfortunate fact is that his response was nothing but two very long and irrelevant personal attacks. I posted here to get some addressment of his behaviour, but he has a history of deliberately clouding issues so that he winds up "winning" by default. I'm still not sure what to do, because every time someone tells me where to go or what to do about this issue I seem to get the same response... elvenscout742 (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, by "harassment" I mean him following me to several articles in order to undermine me (every time I have a minor dispute with another editor he will jump in to attack me). At least 90% of his edit history is devoted either to posting spam, or to undermining my edits to this or that page. By "personal attack" I mean his constant failure to present any arguments based on Wikipedia policy or reliable sources, but instead devoting his edits to what is essentially name-calling and accusations or poor behaviour (countless times he has said my referring to his favourite author -- who is obviously either him or someone related to him -- as non-academic was "uncivil"). And if the parenthesized statement violates policies regarding "outing", I should point out that he did that to himself by citing a book that hadn't been published yet. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

And I have gone through ANI, RFC(A), DR and several other forums to deal with his edits on numerous individual articles, but he has managed to get through all of these by simply "losing" the disputes and moving on -- no one but me and one other user have made any attempt to address his general behaviour across all of these articles. elvenscout742 (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, my problem is that he is harassing me. Therefore, with the exception of one post by Stalwart111[12] on the user's WP:POINTY MFD for a user page I created, I cannot prove that any other user has tried to contact the user in order to resolve the dispute; this has turned me off RFC/U until now; but do you honestly think I should try it? elvenscout742 (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

If anyone has an hour or two to read this case, that would be a good thing. These editors are at an impasse, and need help. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"You may use (subst:ANI-notice) to do so" -> "You may use (subst:ANI-notice) to notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion."

Hi all.

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so.

Tiny point, but I think this should be:

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion.

"... to do so", in my opinion, might be good enough for general use but not precise enough for the precision that would appear to be needed for WP:AN/I. The repetition of "to notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion" is inelegant prose, but I would argue that precision trumps pretty prose again.
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The more words added the lesser the probability they will all get read. Precision is not a goal of the IncidentsHeader. NE Ent 12:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Makes little difference - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. GiantSnowman 12:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any ambiguity in the current wording, and I would find the suggested new wording more confusing. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see a need to duplicate the phrase "who is the subject of a discussion." Let's leave it as is. De728631 (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to make the notice more cluttered. Works fine as it is. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with David — if I saw the same thing twice, like you're suggesting, I'd stop and read it again multiple times: I'd think that they said different things, so when my eyes told me that they were the same, I'd figure that I was somehow misreading it. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems more than a little redundant. Fine as is. Brevity works in this case.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC closure review

How does one go about requesting a review of an RfC closure? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Relevant background here. No other comment from me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Reducing the length of the noticeboard

WP:ANI and sometimes WP:AN are so very very long sometimes. I'm wondering if we might want to start hatting closed discussions, comparable to what's done over at WP:MFD with deletion discussions that have concluded? Doing so wouldn't cause any difficulty for those who want to read the closed discussions, but it would reduce the length of long pages and make it substantially easier to scroll through them. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That idea makes perfect sense. Which is why it probably won't work out. I have noticed people like to war about hatting discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It makes it harder to find things using your browser's search function. I don't follow the noticeboards very closely, so when I remember that I'd commented on something, I try to go back and see if anyone had a question for me. I do that by searching the page for my account name. That doesn't work if the discussion has been hatted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And if I am not mistaken, before the sections can be archived they need to be unhatted creating extra work.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No comment on WhatamIdoing, but I don't understand Amadscientist's concerns. Why couldn't the bot unhat the discussion or archive it without unhatting? Surely it could check to ensure that all timestamps below two pairs of == were older than whatever it's set to archive? Meanwhile, I doubt my proposal would produce additional strife; I'm simply suggesting that part of the closing process be the addition of the hat and hab tags. I'm not asking that we hat things that we aren't already closing. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

For quite awhile now, I've felt that the administrator's noticeboard should be daily log subpages, just like cfd/tfd/etc. We could combine AN and AN/I, with AN restricted to just being an overview navigation page. I wrote out a more fully explained proposal like 4 computers ago (lol), but I suppose we could start an rfc on it if there's interest. - jc37 02:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If the bot can unhat before archiving or it has no effect on the archived discussion then I wouldn't have any objection. I just seem to remember an admin making a note about hatting a discussion and mentioning that they will unhat before it archives.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

HATting has no effect on the bot. Take a look at this section in the archive. Mechanically, parsing a HAT template isn't any different from parsing an ARCHIVE template, so the bots would have no issue there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hatting breaks the TOC. Consider, for example Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive127. If you click on a link in the TOC (e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive127#Result_concerning_159.1.15.34, it doesn't do anything because the reference is hidden within the hat (assuming javascript enabled). NE Ent 21:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we collapse the "Requests for closure" part? It often occupies a third to half of the entire page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That defeats the purpose of having them there. Closing and removing them would be an acceptable solution, but hatting seems counterproductive. --Nouniquenames 05:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Shameless self-plug: User:Kephir/gadgets/unclutter can add collapsing links to discussions and much more. Keφr 13:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense to ask to merge with a page that does not exist?

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.

---

This merge request is a "non sense: 1) There's not Catgeory:Italian track and field athletes to merge; 2) There are 225 Categories from Category:Athletes by nationality to merge before "Italian athletes". --Kasper2006 (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2012 (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.

Deletion of article with official source

Please help me. I was just created football player page for new signing of HNK Hajduk Split in Croatia Cássio Ferreira. I found official source for page from club official profile of player and transfermarkt.de profile. Ushau97 proposed my page for deletion i quote: "The article Cássio Ferreira has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Ushau97 talk contribs 11:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)" I think he is wrong and article is referenced to official source. Please help me make that right. I dont expect ban but cooperation. --User:Toni Tomas (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The article should not have been tagged as unreferenced via WP:BLP as there were two sources - I will inform the editor involved. However it does fail the applicable notability guidelines of WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL and is therefore still eligible for deletion. I will take it to WP:AFD where you will be able to discuss the player's notability. No admin intervention required. GiantSnowman 11:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cássio Ferreira. GiantSnowman 12:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia front page backlog

Wikipedia seems to have a huge backlog, new edits aren't appearing. My DYK is supposed to be on the front page now, but unlogged users are shown the DYK section from 2 days ago. I've tried to purge the page Template:Did you know, but I can't. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It worked, I succeded in "purging" it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

But I noticed yesterday already that some edits weren't appearing for many hours, so something is not right. Yesterday, I made 2 edits. I could see them in my contributions history, but they weren't present in the article's "revision history" and I was shown an old revision of the article even when I was logged in. I tried to purge the article, but I was shown the same old revision again. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't work, I see the same old revision (this one) again when I log out. But I was told the problem is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Users reporting site time issues. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The Rfc section

In my opinion, this section, while a uesful pointer, is way too long to occupy the first part of the noticeboard uncollapsed, and so I collapsed it. Others apparently disagree, as it is now again uncollapsed. Can we have some opinions on whether this section should stay uncollapsed or be collapsed again? Obviously, I prefer it to be collapsed, since it distracts hugely from the issues from this noticeboard, using up the upper one third of the screen to display what is in essence another noticeboard. Fram (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It should stay uncollapsed because the fact that Rfc's -- which are about content -- are going unclosed after months is really more important that this week's inter-editor squabbles. NE Ent 11:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

For those people that feel that they are more important, there is of course the separate noticeboard especially for that purpose. What you are arguing is basically "my noticeboard is more important than your noticeboard, so it should not only be separate but also make up the first half of your noticeboard as well". One can just as easily argue that ANI, being urgent, is more important than AN, and so we should transclude that one as well, uncollapsed of course. Fram (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Uncollapsed: RfC are one of the primary means to avoid unproductive/harmful interactions. As this board often refers people to the RfC mechanism and is used to discuss controversial closures, it's pertinent and useful to list the (growing) need for closures here. Moreover, given NAC, it makes sense that the Admin board oversee. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason to even transclude it. AN/I is a subpage of AN and it isn't transclued. I see no reason that AN/RFC should be different. That said, should AN/RFC even be a subpage of AN? Most of the requests can be done by any experienced user in good standing, and thus isn't necessarily even an administrator issue. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)