Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Admin on mission...

Unofficial anagram of ANI

block this user

• Tufailwiki8233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Doing spamming. Monarchart (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Done by another administrator. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Over the top

This was a little over the top. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to the admin in question. Primefac (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, a little over the top. 10-15 years ago, that was more common and no one thought so much about it. I wouldn't sanction him for a singular incident (the same as I would treat any editor), just remind him that's a bit much and should be struck, and hopefully not repeated. I don't think a single instance is such a violation of WP:ADMINACCT to draw sanction either, but it is enough to remind them that it's frowned on. The editor he said that to kind of earned it [1] , however, so it's hard to feel sorry for the "victim". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I remember when being an admin was "no big deal" Secretlondon (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I remember when everyone wasn't a bunch of crybabies, on or off the wiki. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but, after reading all of the conversations that uninvolved users have already had with the user that my comment was directed toward, I felt politeness wasn't going to be received. I used some strategic bluntness. It's a tool, and it seems to have worked.--v/r - TP 01:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Tom could have used less expletive wording, but I note that he did not direct offensive remarks to the character of the user. The personally directed comment was limited to “your behavior is bordering on tendentious” and an implication that the user doesn’t know when to stop. Sometimes strong language is well used to convey strength of the message, and in this case Tom did very well. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Where are the main page archives?

I was looking for the archives of the Noticeboard (not of its talk page) but I didn't find them. Where are they and if there is no noticeable link in said page for them could it be added? Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you not see the table under the Centralized discussion box? It has the 20 most recent archives for four different noticeboards, and well as links to the search function. If you still don't see it, how are you viewing the page? - Donald Albury 17:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw it. I think the archive is not in a great place. When I saw the table of contents I assumed that was just the discussions in the noticeboard, so I didn't look below that. Thinker78 (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

If this is in any way you trying to continue that dumb Challenging closure of Political legacies thread, I'll be requesting sanctions for disruption. Zaathras (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Zaathras, please assume good faith, comply with the civility policy, and be careful in not harassing. Thanks. --Thinker78 (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

My comment stands. Zaathras (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

new resource for wiki discussions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a whole new set of forums being utilized now, which are available for discussion of any and every topic that pertains to Wikipedia, and our community and the Wikimedia movement. please feel free to go there and sign up for an account, and participate as often as you may wish. I hope you will click the link below to do so. we would welcome your input. thanks!!

• New discussion venue: the MS Forums
  • link to join: https://forum.movement-strategy.org /invites/9n1gJhfJeH
    •  Administrator note what seems too much like an "affiliate link parameter" changed to plain text above, if you want to use it put it back on the URL - it does not seem necessary to join that site. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Just what we needed, an off-wiki discussion forum for the Movement Strategy. I think I'll pass on this one, just like most people who commented on Meta apparently. By the way, having read this, I have to say that I wasn't aware that at the moment, enwiki has any say on what should be the notability policies of any other language version of Wikipedia. So I don't get the point people are trying to make. If the Igbo community wants to try something else, good luck to them: as long as they follow meta-rules (like BLP), it's all their choice, and enwiki has absolutely zero say in this. If you feel the need to have some meta-WMF-discussion board, then it would seem to be useful that you get some knowledgeable WMF people who can answer such complaints with some facts, instead of let people propose all kinds of things which have no relation to reality anyway. Fram (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think your comment above is one example of why we need these off-wiki discussion boards, with all respect. I am not disputing your points; on the contrary, I fully recognize all of your views and concerns as highly valid. however, since the real nature of wikimedia movement ideas and efforts are often highly complex, diverse and multi-layered, a new discussion resource like this is exactly what our community needs, in order to give voice to the highly diverse and rich array of different ideas, concerns, approaches and principles which all play some role in the movement. thanks!!! Sm8900 (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

(ec)The "rich array of different ideas" being an example of a circle of people reinforcing their incorrect ideas, and no one from the organisations above the forum and the wikis interfering to correct them? That's usually described as a circle jerk or a clusterfuck, not "exactly what our community needs". People stating "I agree with this. Well said." instead of saying "well, what stops you?" may be very civil, but don't help anyone one bit. Fram (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

by the way, to answer your point more specifically, the problem is not with any effort at giving enwiki a say in what happens in the Igbo wiki, in my opinion. the problem is that larger wikipedias such as the English Wikipedia need to do a a lot more to leverage their own visibility and prominence, to help the foreign-language wikipedias which might be sorely in need of support, promotion, and collaboration. so the new avenues of interchange with foriegn communities will not hinder any foreign wikipedias; on the contrary, they can be of great help to any foreign communities an their wikipedias, by facilitating greater communication, collaboration, and trust, across all linguistic, cultural, and societal lines. thanks!! Sm8900 (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

No, Enwiki doesn't "need" to do anything at all, that's why we have the WMF who is gathering many millions each year on the back of the big wikis (enwiki, dewiki), and could at least "leverage" that money to help these foreign-language wikis. These other wikis are already complaining about enwiki and its standards (even though these have no bearing on them)... The remainder of your post doesn't explain why this would need a separate, non-wiki infrasturcture instead of Metawiki discussions (considering how other attempts to get such non-wiki places went south pretty soon). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)

the very structure of the forums themselves makes clear why we need them. we have numerous off-wiki platforms in place already; this includes multiple threads on Telegram, and DIscord, some of which are for specific individual local regional chapters, some are for specific group projects in the movement, and some are for the Wikimeda movement as a whole. there is absolutely nothng objectionable about setting up off-wiki forums and resources; since, again, as noted, we have already done so on numerous established platforms such as Telegram.

the new forums at MS Forums are simply an attempt to provide a whole new direction in providing a set of off-wiki forums, in that they are specfically designed to help the community, and to foster greater discussion across a broad range of communities, rather than simply setting up another channel on an app such as Telegram, which might be lacking in any customization to reflect the community's specific needs. on that well-established basis, these forums are simply another potential resource, to reach, empower, amplify, and promote, new and diverse efforts from a wide range of new and under-represented communities. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki discussions need to occur on Wiki. In full sight of and with potentially full participation by the Community. Not some off Wiki site. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I second this motion. Another phrase for off-wiki discussions is "social media"... - jc37 14:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

We just had an ArbCom case about canvassing off Wiki. Did not go well for those doing so. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Qgil-WMF, @Xeno (WMF), I seem to be hitting a snag here. could you please assist? would appreciate a simple clarification of this item. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sm8900: Just out of interest, why did you post about the forum here? Sometimes letting someone from community relations start discussions about these topics is more productive for everyone — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 19:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

ummm, I posted because.... I think these forums are useful? and I wanted to inform the community, to get maximum input from everyone in our community? is that ok? forgive me if I don't type {{smiley}} . this conversation is truly a bit hurtful. I am feeling extremely aggrieved at the nature of the response here. please explain to me why an official resouce of the WMF being posted in good-faith by a long-standing editor, necessitates a response like this in any way. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Which response sorry, mine or that above? I was merely curious — you're of course welcome to post about it! :) — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 19:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime, thanks for your hekpful reply. I was referring to this reply: We just had an ArbCom case about canvassing off Wiki. Did not go well for those doing so. really? and this from an administrator? really? really? i'm confused, to put this as simply as I can. Sm8900 (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I can empathise with your confusion here — it's part of the reason I mentioned community relations, as they tend to be fairly well appraised of recent events (such as that aforementioned ArbCom case about off-wiki canvassing). Some editors very strongly believe in the need for all discussions to take place transparently on-wiki, and for good reason. I believe you posting this here was entirely in good faith, and I thank you for doing so please don't be discouraged! — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 19:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime, your comments are helpful, positive, encouraging, and very welcome. I sincerely thank you for your positive vibes. it is deeply appreciated. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime, thanks for your helpful reply above! striking out my previous message here. please be so kind as to explain to me how I have violated any wikipedia in any way by posting this myself instead of waiting for "Community Relations," since it would seem empirically obvious they haven't done so, based on the fact that.... errr, they haven't done so? Sm8900 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm happy to discuss about the Movement Strategy Forum with whoever is interested. However, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrators' noticeboard page. @Sm8900, you said: "I wanted to inform the community, to get maximum input from everyone in our community". There must be other places in English Wikipedia where this conversation is on-topic and where more people potentially interested will see it. Qgil-WMF (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Qgil-WMF, ok, your point is highly valid. I will be glad to follow your advice on that. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Qgil-WMF, by the way, yes, you are correct that there are other alternate venues. I did post this already a while ago at Village Pump, so I would surmise that we can all agree that that forum is basically fine for this topic. I truly appreciate your input and the comments of everyone here. i think this topic has now been concluded, in a fully reasonable manner. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Making ANI less toxic

A few months ago, User:Floquenbeam in Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 16#Spitballing what makes ANI toxic talked about why ANI is a toxic pit and what could be done about it. I think it's no less relevant today, with the recent back and forth at AfD discussions. Personally, I think one of the reasons for the toxicness is the sheer length of the threads, which encourages newer threads to be similarly long. The longer the discussion is, the harder it is to keep yourself cool and orientated. Should we impose a word limit like in Arbcom? Should we force editors to be as concise as possible? I don't know. But there's something that's needed to be done, as everybody here knows there's still lots to be left desired about ANI. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane This seems like a discussion that would be better suited to the village pump. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I originally planned to post there, but I figured that the regulars here would have the best insight to the problem. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Or the talk page for ANI? Singularity42 (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You are right. Sweeping the thread to talk page. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

IMHO a lot could be improved by uninvolved admins and editors hatting irrelevant chatter, and taking a more aggressive tack in moderating off-topic discussion and unproductive comments. Also closing threads more aggressively. I've noticed people try to close threads but then others reopen them and then nothing useful happens after that. Andre🚐 14:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe allowing bot to move closed threads immediately to the archive? I'm not really sure how could it be done with lowercase sigmabot though. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Where there's a will, there's a way. You know, I was here when AN was created (there was no AN/I yet at the time). I'm pretty sure the intended purpose of AN was not its current usage. The idea was to distribute information and discussions of administrator interest. It has become the prescribed place for user behavioral disputes but it lacks the structure that other venues have. More structure and rules for the board might be a good thing. Andre🚐 14:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, time to do it then. Here's my proposed ruleset:

1. No rambling. Keep messages under 200 words, and subsequent replies under 100 words. Trim the excess, use common sense. Unlike in ArbCom, allow multiple replies as long as individual replies are under 100 words. Again, use common sense to detect intentional circumventing.
2. No excessive nesting replies, which is " :::::::: " or " ******** " in wikitext. Encourage a two-level reply system: a reply to the original post, and a reply to the reply. A reply to the reply to the reply is discouraged. More content can be added in subsequent replies.
3. Administrators are reserved the right to temporary block anyone being a jerk at ANI, similar to 3RR. (de facto right now, but useful to codify)
4. Allow immediate archival, manual or automatic, of closed discussions. The thread can be revived if needed. (can be done now if we want to!)

What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, let me just be ultra bold and implement number 4 now. Ignore the red tape, let's see how other admins think of this. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Love it, hope it sticks. Andre🚐 15:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Poof, one click archived all "The following discussion is closed" threads. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "rambling". Some editors (e.g. Robert McClenon) write quite long messages providing lots of discussion of policies and their interpretation of said policies, should they be banned?

The word limits seem unworkable and way too low. The whole point of ANI is to act as a "catch all" for stuff that doesn't fit any of the other noticeboards. Why is the limit 200 words, where did you get that value from and what evidence do you have that it is the best choice? There are a lot of cases where you are dealing with a long term pattern of disruption that requires a lot of diffs and evidence. Why does the subject of the report get only half the words to respond to the thread?

Why is the nesting of replies in itself problematic behaviour that needs banning? You seem to be attacking a symptom here, rather than the cause. This also seems to directly contradict point one, which encourages multiple replies? In a lot of situations a long thread is much easier to navigate and provides much better organisation of related comments than than dozens of short "point + reply" comments.

What does "being a Jerk" mean, and how does this differ from our usual behavioural standards, e.g. regarding personal attacks? A lot of the time subjects of ANI threads say regrettable things because they are upset and distressed and in a high pressure environment, is it fair to ban them for that?

The fourth point doesn't seem to be an actual change from how the board currently operates? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that rule number 1 should be flexible, i.e. it shouldn't be a hard-and-fast rule. Common sense should apply. Maybe the word limit should exempt these kinds of analysis then? For me, a 200 word limit is just fairly arbitrary choice at this point. A consensus among editors will sort this out. For the second point, a long thread is a primer for flame wars and rambling of unrelated issues (WMF sucks, mkay?). I do think however that in certain cases, using a threaded system is more helpful. A better solution should be thought out before the rules are being implemented. As for the "being a Jerk", currently uncivil behavior are unreasonably tolerated. If we allow the stressed people at ANI to say stupid things, what should stop actual jerks to do the same? There's a sharp dividing line between a temporary moment of anger and chronic problematic behavior. We should never tolerate the latter. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

A word limit on editors, would solve the problem. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that one of the best things we could do is try to move as much of the traffic as possible away from this board to more structured and easily moderated processes. A lot of the time discussions here are essentially the same thing over and over and could be handled in a routine way. "Page x is being disrupted, can an admin have a look" type threads could be moved to a "Pages needing admin attention" forum structured in the same way as RFP. "editor x is being disruptive, can someone block them" could be moved to a "User problem reports" forum, structured in the same way as AE/ANEW with a standard way of structuring reports. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

A template may be useful in this case. No need for another noticeboard for such things. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I think separate, structured forums with well defined purposes would be easier for editors and admins to use that a catch all page that could contain anything. I think it would also go a long way to keeping things on topic and stopping unproductive rambling if it's made explicitly clear that "This forum is just for reporting x". 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

We already have a navigation pane for editors to use as an alternative to ANI, at Wikipedia:Help button. We should redirect users making these kinds of requests there instead of solving them directly here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I see that CactiStaccingCrane archived a bunch of threads today, presumably off of this discussion (which I'm going to admit I haven't read, only skimmed). None of those archives seem troublesome to me, but I would urge a lot of caution about thinking there's any kind of consensus to change ANI in anything more than a minor way based off this discussion of 4 editors (1 of whom only has a single comment). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's implying a consensus. CactiStaccingCrane said he was going to be bold, but I'm sure he expects he may be reverted. Andre🚐 15:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think this is a good venue for making what may be seen as radical decisions. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK no decisions have been made or ratified, there were just a few threads archived. Andre🚐 15:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I reverted my archivals at the main AN page, but the ANI page has too many edits to revert now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I have to note that though little of what User:Barkeep49 normally says commands any respect from myself, in this case I must make an exception, and commend his comments to readers here. -Roxy the English speaking dog 16:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)