Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moni3 (talk | contribs) at 15:18, 4 November 2009 (→ANI is overburdened, Proposal for ANS: agree that ANI is its own problem). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrators' noticeboard page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 14 days

• WT:AN
• WT:ANB

This is not the page to report problems to administrators, or discuss administrative issues. This page is for discussion of the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard page itself. Report incidents such as block evasion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Report violations of the three-revert rule at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Discuss general issues at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard. Report posting of personal information by following instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.

Archives

Index of archives December 2004 December 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – February 2006 March 2006 – December 2006 December 2006 – November 2007 November 2007 – July 2008 July 2008 -

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

User:27 Juni

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

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

Help please

A simpler format?

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

• I think that is a damn good idea. It would also cut down on the annoying problem of getting in an edit conflict and suddenly having all of ANI in your edit window. That drives me friggin crazy. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea has been suggested and discarded several times in the past. But LiquidThreads will take care of the problem, hopefully soon. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive Issues?

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

User:Anietor

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

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Catholic_Church&diff=321857864&oldid=321857250 01:35 25 October
• 17:46 26 October
• 21:41

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

• this sole edit by an anon is likely also to be Anietor, logged out.

Did you mean to post this somewhere else? This is the Talk page for Administrators' noticeboard. You might try Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it will be going to ANI shortly. Considering how long the diffs have taken, this is just as well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI sidebar

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

ANI is overburdened, Proposal for ANS

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

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

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

• (ec) Strong oppose. Although improvement may be intended, it will not happen by enacting this proposal - rather, it will cause further problems and drama (and a larger number of unresolved disputes) for Misplaced Pages as a whole. This example, and the most recent ANI I filed, provides ample evidence that no such overhaul is needed of the system. It is perfectly useable, even for people on slow connections, and any further discussion would not have been useful. Most importantly, that certain users refuse to or are uncertain as to how to use ANI properly, and impose sanctions properly, does not necessitate another WP:CSN or version of AE. The problems rest with certain users, and the way they choose to exercise their judgement (foolishly) - not the system. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Ncmvocalist, but you're being oblique. Who are you talking about? Jehochman 13:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • We're here to provide adequate closure (one way or another) for your proposal. I don't intend on sidetracking the thread in a manner that would fail to achieve that goal (much in the way that you suggest ANI fails to provide adequate closure on certain proposals). I'm also not interested in wasting further time on the problem when SandyGeorgia's comment already suggests excellent remedies. In other words, I being as plain (or direct) as practically possible, Jehochman. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sanction discussions on ANI do more than address their specific issue. They also create the precedents that become policy. for that reason alone we should be taking more care, not to mention the direct effects. While some discussions already go on for too long, others are dealt with so quickly that time zone-challenged editors may not get a chance to participate until after the issue has been resolved. And lengthy discussions make this active page harder to navigate. One alternative suggestion would be to use WP:AN instead. That page has no clear purpose and comparatively little traffic. One complication is that sometimes threads start out as mere complaints or reports of "something fishy", and turn into sanction discussions as they progress. Maybe instead of "sanction discussions", which assumes the outcome, it should be something more like "editor complaints" or "policy violations noticeboard".   Will Beback  talk  10:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

How about Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Editing abuse? These may lead to Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. Jehochman 13:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

• Comment How will this be different than the old votes for banning noticeboard? Hipocrite (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

How will what be different? --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

How is ANI different from the old noticeboard? People vote for banning on ANI too. It's the same, except that ANI allows less time for discussion, and generates more drama. On top of votes for banning, we also have rush to close and archive. That has made matters worse, rather than better. I do not see how splitting an overburdened noticeboard is going to be harmful. Anybody who is interested may watchlist the new page. Jehochman 13:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I see it as harmful though, and I don't appear to be alone in that view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for three reasons.

• 1) I don't think ANI is overburdened; I think it's encumbered by childish and unhelpful responses, which will occur regardless of the board. A recent thread was derailed several times by tangential and unnecessary remarks; this should be curbed, and I think that thread provides a good sample for reflection. ANI is viewed negatively precisely because of the unnecessary, unhelpful and childish pile-on responses that occur there, and there were many in a recent discussion of editing restrictions.
• 2) ANI is the most widely read admin board, and any shuffling off to other boards will result in diminished readership, leading to the same problems that occurred at WP:CSN. The discussion of editing restrictions deserves to have the widest possible readership and feedback. RFC/U does not get the amount of feedback ANI does; an RFC/U there is currently languishing because no one can be bothered to come by and weigh in. RFC/U is not the panacea it is thought to be.
• 3) The reason discussion occurs too quickly at ANI is that admins are always trying to prematurely close threads and shuffle them off elsewhere. People feel that they must respond as quickly as possible, before the thread is closed. Allowing sufficient time for important decisions should help curb this trend. Considering the much longer and often contentious and tangential discussions I have to read through at FAC, as I wait for consensus to form, I am surprised at the impatience of admins when dealing with important matters affecting productive editors.

• • Solution: responsible, mature admins should work to curb the childish responses and tangential remarks that occur at ANI. The recent thread provides an illuminating example of those. The discussion of editing restrictions on an editor who makes excellent content contributions should be accorded the gravity it deserves, by the very admins the community trusts with the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• There are 4,000 editors watching ANI. That's both good and bad. Good because it encourages wide involvement. Bad because it's the best place for trolls and attention whores to play their games (big audience, big lulz). There are several frequent participants at ANI who do nothing but inject noise into every discussion. In theory it would be great to ban these people, but if we do, new pests will take their places. Have you been to Times Square? I used to live there. It's full of con men, crazy people, and tourists (the latter being the most objectionable). It's fun on New Year's Eve, but otherwise it's just a traffic jam and a lot of noise and grime. The solution is to break it up, to remove the incentive for trolling and grandstanding. Furthermore, a 500kb+ page is not manageable. We're killing tons of bandwidth and server resources for no reason, and we're discouraging people on slow connections. Have you ever tried to pull a diff from the ANI history? Nightmare! Jehochman 14:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I understand the problem, but the thread in question saw even editors who should know better going off on tangents and introducing unhelpful elements. I suspect that if mature admins weighed in and began to crack down on this sort of thing, it might be curbed. My bigger concern is that the importance of the decision being made in that case deserved the widest possible readership-- which it won't get anywhere else-- so dealing with long threads should be of less importance. Bandwidth is less important than decisions about one of our most productive editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Addendum: of course, FAC has only 900 watchers compared to the 4,000 at AN/I, so what I deal with is on a much lesser scale, but the overall problem of ANI being a cesspool needs to be systemically dealt with. Comments like "why don't you all shut the fuck up" do nothing to advance an important discussion. I have means at my disposal at FAC (like moving tangential and unrelated commentary to the talk page, and encouraging reviewers to take on editors who make unproductive commentary) that are less workable in the volume of response that ANI gets, but some effort should go into curbing the long-standing problem of ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• We don't have any structure for the discussion, which is a big part of the problem. I recently helped introduced a system at WP:AE that has done wonders to keep things on track, to avoid the damaging tangents you mentioned. I'd very much like to have some structure at WP:ANI, but we can't yet because there are too many different types of requests mixed together. We need to separate the streams and handle each type of request with an appropriate process. Merely imploring people to be clueful and mature will not work. Of course these cases deserve careful attention. We need a separate board, watched by many people, with cross postings to AN and ANI to advertise discussions. The new board can have it's own set of rules and processes to maintain decorum and prevent discussions from being hijacked or otherwise disrupted. Jehochman 14:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• But we've seen that separate boards don't get wide enough readership, and important decisions are made based on limited feedback. The thread I referenced deserved the widest possible feedback. RFC/U is broken, and ArbCom recently hasn't solved the problem of disruptive editors who make otherwise good contributions. If the community is to have a say in how the community is affected, the discussions have to occur where the community is most represented. I see that Ottava has now initiated a case before ArbCom. His contributions are at a much higher level than those of a different editor, on whom ArbCom did not place sufficient restrictions to curb the problem, so I'll be watching to see how the arbs deal with this case, relative to the other. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well then how about keeping these important discussions at ANI, with new rules for keeping order, and move some of the other stuff to a new board, such as Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests, to handle all the miscellaneous requests for administrator intervention? Jehochman 14:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think I'm qualified to opine on that because, frankly, I avoid the cesspool of ANI as much as possible. My point is that the cesspool affects all discussions there, and many editors and articles, not just cases of editing restrictions on a productive editor. The problem of ANI needs to be dealt with, but I don't want to see important discussions shuffled off to where they won't get wide feedback. More specifically, if the arbs don't or can't or won't deal with disruptive behavior from otherwise good contributors, and if the ANI threads are shuffled off elsewhere, we will likely see the discussion dominated by the core group of advocates who surround the editor in question, with limited feedback from the broader, affected community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• The system is broken. We can't fix it without making some changes. If you oppose all changes, then the system will remain broken. Our first order of business is to split ANI into two or more pieces and establish some structure on the requests being filed to prevent wild tangents and disruption of the discussions. Jehochman 14:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have been known to change my position when shown the benefits (secret voting on arb elections).  :) If I see a workable solution to the ANI problem, after broader discussion, I'll surely endorse it! My other, broader concern is that there are other similar (and even more difficult) cases "brewing", so I'm watching to see if the arbs have learned anything. If they haven't, I'll fight hard to make sure these discussions occur where the community has the broadest possible impact, and discussion can't be dominated by a core group of advocates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Sandy here. The culture at ANI encourages shallow immaturity and discourages productive discussion. ANI has 4,000 watchers because people can't get enough of melodrama. Drama at FAC flares up occasionally, but on much less frequent basis. Creating a new board to discuss matters that address sanctions is meatier if you get what I'm saying, than what goes on ANI, will be a matter of time before 4,000 watchers are onto a sanctions board and editors start making fun of complaints and complainants.

I would suggest for 21 days, as the Hebrews say that's how long it takes to instill a habit, that 5 editors start to cut down the chaff at ANI. Remove remarks that are distinctly unhelpful, added for laughs, address personalities rather than problems, and make a solid conscious effort to make ANI a professional board where issues are dealt with quickly and concisely. I don't watch ANI. There are probably a great many issues I should know about, but I can't get through the crap in order to read what is important. --Moni3 (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)