Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crossmr (talk | contribs) at 00:41, 15 February 2012 (→Sixteenth alternate proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Proposal for moderation/clerking at AN/I

Should AN/I be subject to clerking/moderation? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent events, including the MfD for AN/I, have raised the possibility of moving towards a moderated, or clerked, system for that page. I would like to initiate discussions of that. I have started a new page here which is a redraft of the existing header. It presumes a new regime at AN/I, with the following assumptions:

  • ANI will in future have a moderation/clerking system
  • The existing expectations will continue, but in future be strictly applied:
  • The report must focus on a specific incident
  • It must require specified administrator intervention
  • The matter must first have been raised with any editor being complained of (with diff for this)
  • Moderators/clerks will check that these expectations have been met before opening a report for discussion
  • They may instead refer the report on to another noticeboard, or reject it entirely
  • Mods/clerks will help new users to construct properly formed reports, experienced editors will be expected to fend for themselves
  • Any editor may discuss a report once a mod/clerk has opened it
  • Mods/clerks will assertively and actively moderate discussion to keep it on-topic, civil and constructive. They may amend or delete contributions which stray from this standard.
  • Any administrator may close a report by taking the requested (or other) action, moving the report to another board or rejecting it.
  • Closed reports will be collapsed (or hatted, or archived...) so they do not continue to gather comments once a decision has been reached
  • Decisions of mods/clerks and administrators may be challenged in exceptional cases, first direct to the admin concerned and then to any uninvolved admin

The question of WHO should clerk/moderate the board is of course a thorny one. I have no proposals for that right now but would suggest that (a) it should be drawn widely (not confined to admins) and (b) the process for appointing clerks/moderators (are they the same thing?) should not add to the Wiki-bureaucracy that already exists.

If the current MfD closes as Keep (or at least, no consensus to delete), which seems likely, Now the MfD has been withdrawn, I think this discussion should be widely advertised. If people agree, could those who know the highways and byways better than I do help out with this? Thanks in advance. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as mods/clerks are to use reasonable common sense to avoid involving themselves as a mod/clerk in a report that they have some possible involvement with, I think we can look for a broad range of clerks to make sure that things work smoothing through the day. That way, a clerk can participate in an case as an admin, not as a clerk.
I also appreciate the one part about any admin closing a report (the equivalent of non-admin closures of AFD), but I would stress that non-clerks should not boldly reopen a case, but can place a contesting message ("I think this was closed too early") to allow a clerk to handle re-opening it. In regards to closures, etc. a strict 0RR policy needs to be handled. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does ArbCom pick its clerks? Can we use a similar system? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the process, WP:ARBCLERK#Appointments. But it would not work, here... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because ArbCom makes the appointments, and there's no similar body here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely! ArbCom is a body made up of few people; here it's the community that should find suitable candidates... Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions

Oppose - one of the last things Wikipedia needs is more gatekeepers and bureaucracy. Rklawton (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do completely agree about not needing more bureaucracy. If we could achieve closer adherence to the (currently stated) requirements of AN/I by, as a community, rejecting/reshaping/redirecting AN/I reports, that would be good too. Perhaps even better than this more formal proposal! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not prepared to jump into yet another !vote, but thank-you Kim. Well thought out, and I'll think on this. I certainly agree that any improvements would be welcomed, and I hope/think we all agree that it's not something that's going to happen overnight. — Ched :  ?  20:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the idea of clerks, oppose the specifics of the current proposal. In my view, ANI needs clerks to moderate the tone of discussion and be responsible for closing/removing discussions. It does not, however, need another level of bureaucracy in which users must submit their TPS reports with the appropriate font and cover sheet or be turned away by gatekeepers. It also doesn't need to turn away reports because they're not a "specific incident." ANI often deals with patterns of behavior, and that's as it should be - the other, less central noticeboards generally turn away complaints based on patterns rather than incidents, and we need a board that can deal with patterns. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken re gatekeeping. If others feel the same as you Fluff, I'm not wedded to it and will happily strike/amend the proposal, just leaving the stuff re moderation. I won't do so right now as otherwise I'd be amending with every comment! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I figured you would probably be open to adjusting the terms, since this is really just a first floating of the idea. Do you think it would be easier to put up, now, a sub-section with an alternate proposal along the lines of my suggestion, or would that just end up diluting the discussion before it gets started? I can't decide whether it would be best to have this reach a conclusion about what we sort of want before narrowing down the specifics, or whether it's better to propose varied specifics for people to choose from right from the start. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely, the idea above was just to get the conversation going. I hesitated to amend it immediately, so as not to have a constantly-moving target. But I think enough opinions below are against the gatekeeping for it to be worthwhile now to have an alternative. I'll draft an amendment and put it up in a sec. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x2)*Neutral I think that there needs to be a better handling of the countless number of threads that are creating to point fingers, purposely stir up drama, or repeated thread creating from the same editors about the same articles or other editors. I will say I have read AN/I for some time, and in the past few months in particular the tone and overall communication on the page is downright terrible. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • We've been here before - There have been self-appointed clerks doing this on and off for years. After a while, admins who spot threads closed according to the clock rather than whether or not they're still useful, or users being shooed away because they didn't fill in form 36b in triplicate, wind up telling them to cut it out. We do not need more examples of following the letter of the rules rather than using common sense to identify when a situation really does need admin attention even if the form isn't filled out properly. I'm not seeing anything up there about "helping new users to find the right place or assisting them in completing the steps", nor how to deal with situations like harassment (which does not normally require the person perceiving harassment to discuss with the harasser). This is not a clerking role as described, it's a gatekeeper role; clerks are usually tasked to provide assistance to the users, not just the paperwork. Risker (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Rklawton and Salvio. Yes, AN/I has been over the top in the past week or so, but it's gone through these periods before and then calmed down again, so I think the current impulse to reform it is something of an overreaction. Instead, more admins should be willing to enforce WP:CIVIL - it's one of our five pillars but is not taken as seriously as the other four. Stricter enforcement of civility would nip more disputes in the bud and keep the noticeboards calmer -- but we don't need clerks for that, the admin corps can do that right now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - ANI is a catch-all chaotic place and has been as far back as I remember. This will go a long way toward helping with that. However I will second those who suggested that the clerking role shouldn't just act as a barrier toward posting a grievance, it should have just just as much of an emphasis on helping someone correctly put in their request. -- Atama頭 21:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The ArbCom, of which Risker is a member, runs its noticeboards and related pages very strictly with myriad rules which are enforced to the letter by appointed clerks. So a dismissive statement about filling in "form 36b in triplicate" seems a bit hypocritical. However there are important differences between a committee of a dozen active members who are all subscribed to a mailing list and an unorganized corps of about 900 admins. The ArbCom can override its own rules and clerks but there'd be no such mechanism on AN/ANI. The rules and procedures would have to be more relaxed so as to fit most cases. One possibility would be to differentiate AN and ANI more, for example by leaving one open to all while imposing restriction and rules on the other. But the problem of incivility is project-wide and general enforcement of civility rules would also improve AN/ANI.   Will Beback  talk  21:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ANI is not ArbCom and does not follow the rigid procedures used during an ArbCom case. Per Will, and Risker and the other well stated opposes above. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think something needs to be done, but am not sure if a hard and fast structure will be the thing to solve this issue. I think admins being more willing to whack people with cluebats would be the way to go here, combined with closing off-topic discussions and redirecting them elsewhere (ie, content disputes don't belong at ANI). Steve Public (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment* - What is behind this proposal is the belief that AN and AN/I have broken down. I'll add to that my own belief that the admin corp seems no longer to be capable of functioning as a coherent whole. If some form of clerking/gatekeeping is not the answer for AN and AN/I, then I am very keen to hear ideas about what IS the answer. Manning (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In general. The DR process has those nice forms, although you can modify to make it two or three fields and even have check box for harassment, 3RR, other, whatever. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - there are things like flood vandalism that cannot wait for an instance of clerking/moderation.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - ANI is messy and drama-filled, but it does solve a useful conflict resolution function. Editor complaints should not be subject to a bureaucratic filter — those making unjustified noise often wear a boomerang up their nose. Carrite (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - more people exercising assumed authority is imo more of a problem than it wishes to solve. Youreallycan 00:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that ANI is more broken than just needing a gatekeeper. The problem is in the market place not the entrance. See my example below from an ANI incident -- PBS (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. After reading the proposal, it seemed eminently sensible and I was willing to support it, but after reading Risker's concerns, I'm hesitating now. I need to think this one over... As a preliminary suggestion: I've seen hopeless threads closed early sometimes, but sometimes let to drag on for while, e.g. this; perhaps someone paying more attention to that type of situation can reduce drama. I don't know however if a simple rule can be devised for differentiating mutual (or generalized) bickering from complex but actionable concerns. On the other hand, I've seen situations where an admin tells someone to drop the WP:STICK (in an ANI discussion) and when the request went unheeded and followed up with a block, "respect my authoritah" became a meta-argument in the subsequent unblock discussion. So, active moderation is a complex issue. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: No more bureaucracy please. We don't need gatekeepers who will unilaterally decide what can be posted and what can't. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There's no good way to do this. I'd be in favor for more topic bans from AN and AN/I, but not for a nanny-corps. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support: The submissions should not be monitored, however if clerks can help to reduce the irrelevant WP:SOUP that gets in to malign reports by monitoring the discussion, it would be worth it. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support, with the emphasis on helping editors to get it right rather than outright rejecting reports that don't meet some technical standard. Rather than saying "Not a specific incident, rejected", a clerk's role should be to say "Where you say this editor has a pattern of abusive behavior, you need to provide some concrete examples of abuse with diffs. Please provide those so everyone knows what you mean." or "This looks like a content dispute. Could you please clarify what type of administrative intervention you're asking for and why you think it will help?" A few simple questions like that, before a thread becomes a muddled mess of part content dispute, part mudslinging contest, part onlookers cheering on the "combatants", and far too small a part of uninvolved editors and admins actually trying to make some sense of the whole thing, would prevent that type of degeneration in most cases by clearly establishing what's being asked for and why. I could also see a use in moving offtopic discussion to its own thread, and putting a lid on unconstructive and overheated dialogue. What we're doing now isn't working, and while we should be careful with it, we may need to be a bit more systematic to contain the constant drama. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Whle I rather think that AN and AN/I are anarchic at times, the number of submissions to each is not unmanageable by any means. Creating a new class of "Wikipedia officials" is hardly called for at this point in time. Collect (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I believe that having AN/I clerks could well result in more drama, not less, if their decisions are controversial.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal - two general principles

I think it's way too soon to be discussing specific or detailed proposals. At the MfD, we seemed to be reaching some sort of consensus that a real problem exists and for some form of moderation or clerking. Unfortunately, the MfD was withdrawn, ending that discussion. So, instead of a specific/detailed proposal, I would like to gain consensus on the following two general principles:

  1. A real problem exists
  2. Some form of clerking or moderation is needed

We can worry about details later. Indeed, consensus may break down at that point. But let's see if we can agree on these two general principles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Just to clarify, the above proposal is about to the issues brought up an the MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (2nd nomination). After posting my proposal, I realize that if you missed the MfD, my proposal might not make a lot of sense. To summarize the problem brought up at the MfD, allow me to quote part of the nominator's post:

The result of MfD was to keep ANI. But I think the underlying problem, using ANI for dispute resolution, is still a problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Support As proposer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment quite frankly the right first question to ask is "do AN/ANI function appropriately?" -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I disagree that the "problem" has reached and/or will maintain proportions requiring expanding the bureaucracy. The community can and has handled difficulties as they arise. We are delightfully self-policing. Rklawton (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wholehearted support for both principles. This is pretty much what I came here to suggest. Rather than getting bogged down in the detail right now, and fork the discussion into fractured support for many models and some general opposes, let's see if there is consensus for the two points above. Only at that point will it be productive to discuss specifics. Colonel Tom 22:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's not bureaucracy if you help users understand the process and have admins streamline it (and get a better understanding themselves); its the opposite, a better system. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on (1), genuinely undecided on (2). I do think there's a problem at AN/I but I am reluctant to build a bureaucratic solution. If we can get consensus for the existing rules simply to be strictly applied that would be great. If this means admins (and others) being more willing to assertively redirect complaints and strike off-topic and/or inflammatory contributions that would be fine. It just needs (a) a few folks willing to take those decisions and (b) a wider community prepared to back them up the first few times when dramaahh ensues (as it will initially.) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on (1). For (2) I strongly support the idea of "moderation", but would prefer to employ the informal model first. Galvanising the admin body to properly enforce civility and adherence to topic would be a great first start. As Kim and others have noted, we would only be exercising the authority we already have. Manning (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the informal process worked well, wouldn't it have already? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point is there *may* still be ways of making the informal process work. This involves getting the admin body confident enough to collectively act as required. If we are truly unable to informally moderate the admin boards, then a more formal process may well be required. Manning (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But how would you get the "admin body confident to act collectively" without process to make that happen? Do you even know if they know what is expected of them here and what they should expect of others? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that even you asked that question is indicative of a deeper problem (not with you, of course). The admin body by definition should have a clear understanding of its role and responsibilities. We used to, once upon a time. Manning (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But I would stress the rest of us should also understand, if not in the same detail. You come from us. But it's primarily within your corp's experience and operation, whether you make it easy for the rest of us to understand. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, we are honestly trying here - more so than I have seen in many years. We are trying to narrow the divide. Look at some of the conversations on these two boards, and I think you'll see more respectful, cooperative effort than many of us can remember. We're not always going to agree, but an honest effort is underway here. We have NO desire to leave anyone "out", quite the opposite - we want to bring you "IN". Ask us, and we'll try to find an honest and understandable answer for you. — Ched :  ?  18:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I said people didn't try, and I certainly didn't mean that. It appears, however, over the long run to not be working very well. That's why you set up well thought out process, so it works to bring focus continually over time not just when people are agitated because it's not working, because it lost focus. Also, I don't feel cut out, I don't think I said that either. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exempt from what, Jasper? From being valid, set out concisely and in a civil manner? (I know you don't mean that, I'm just struggling to understand what you do mean!) If you're saying NLT problems are so urgent that they should bypass any bureaucratic slowdown, I'd agree. I think we're pretty near a consensus that the minimum (if any) extra bureaucracy is a given. I'd envisage discussion about NLT as needing no more or less moderation than any other topics, but I don't think moderation alone (if we exclude a gatekeeping function here) will slow anything down. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I see now. I'd agree that these are usually pretty clear cut and dealt with expeditiously - which should remain the case. If that's what you meant by 'exempt' then I agree, they would be under these proposals. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for changing the system to something resembling order where there is clearly none now. I offered some suggestions here about how to make it orderly and functional. Previously, I stated that I was unsure if the majority of participants at ANI wanted to see a functional board for editors to bring their problems. Melodrama with an audience is quite addictive to some, even highly respected editors. Yet we're leaving the decision to make this board moderated to be functional on the participants who frequent ANI, many of whom are a part of this problem. There is a conflict of interest at play here. Were this the professional workplace I've seen comparisons about, I'd be staring at the boss, extremely disappointed that s/he was unable to make a unilateral decision to fix, basically, the customer call center that never answered any customer calls, but actually ended up mocking the people who called. --Moni3 (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your suggestion looks interesting, but I see two weaknesses with it: The first is that I think there would have to be a taxi rank type of list of admins, else there is a danger that friends or enemies could jump in and take a case. The second one is that I do not see how your suggestion will tackle the problem of popular/unpopular editors and the distortion that brings to the current ANI process. -- PBS (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are weaknesses. I just spewed those suggestions out in 10 minutes. I don't frequent ANI by my own admission, but primarily because it is chaos illustrated. But the discussion of how exactly to go about making ANI serve its actual purpose and function with some modicum of belief that going there would solve something, needs to be had. Picking apart my ideas and adding your own is in line with this objective. Whatever must be done to make this board function. There is no single entity to appeal to when you don't understand what's going on in an article or with another editor. ANI is the destination for that purpose, and it needs to be a place people can trust to clear up confusion, not cause more of it. --Moni3 (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I oppose another layer of bureaucracy between editors with problems and administrators with the tools to solve them. The ONE change that needs to be made is that every situation needs a searchable case number — trying to find stuff in the archives is a catastrophe. Carrite (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - its not broken so doesn't need additional control - ANI is no more f***ed up than the whole en wikipedia project. I also oppose any additional promotion of this us and them position in relation to admins and others as reflected in a couple of comments posted previously in this thread, eg, Galvanising the admin body to properly enforce civility and adherence to topic and we would only be exercising the authority we already have - Incivil and off topic posts at ANI is a minor issue compared to the mind numbing mopping backlogs - It would be better, more constructive, if admins got on with some of those tasks. Youreallycan 00:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ANI is no more f***ed up than the whole en wikipedia project. - this may be true, though I'm not sure how your conclusion follows from this premise. If the whole thing is "f***ed up" but you want it not to be, you got to start somewhere. And this *is* a good place to start.VolunteerMarek 02:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You have the right focus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Something is desperately needed, and I can't see any other option at this point. ANI is-- on a good day-- a circus, and on a more typical day-- a bully pulpit for admins with grudges or incomplete knowledge to play power games. Moni usually nails it, but her plan won't work because it allows one admin with a grudge or incomplete understanding of the situation too much power. Something has to happen to contain the debacle that ANI has become (relative to the ANI I recall as being populated by the likes of Thatcher, NewYorkBrad in 2006, 2007, etc, when calm, rational, intelligent discussion pervailed). Unscrupulous to underinformed admins have the power to Make The Internet Suck, and they do it regularly at ANI. Some sort of containment or accountability is needed. If that's via clerks, so be it, because things couldn't get any worse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jiminy, it's a starting place, not the final draft. So start...If you don't like my suggestions, come up with alternatives. --Moni3 (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - can't say it better than Sandy. Something simply has to give at some point. Better reform it while it's still possible rather than watch it spiral ever downward.VolunteerMarek 02:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Don't care how it's implemented though. I too don't like more bureaucracy, but if clerking is to be the case, then of course non-controversial incidents that require immediate admin attention should be exempt. That's a given I think. But overall, the emphasis should be in accomodating non-regulars and legitimate issues, such that AN/I actually becomes used for what it was meant to be used for - a place for non-admins to seek admin help.
And yes, the regulars (including some admins) are part of the problem. They are already completely aware of the civility rules and whatnot, yet are usually the ones violating them repeatedly in endless skirmishes. And the weapon of choice - blocks - get handed out left and right like candy. That behavior bleeds off into legitimate solvable issues resulting in all this mess. A lot of the incidents reported involve regulars with their little turf wars with pages upon pages of diff history that probably go back to years of the same drama never reaching a resolution. There are actually palpable "factions" in here, with smaller, but no less vicious, grudges between otherwise reasonable editors who consider one or two other editors their mortal enemies.
The users who should be using AN/I avoid it because even posting here feels like intruding into an ongoing private war where no one cares who gets caught in the crossfire. Heck, they'd use you as ammunition.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No evidence that this naive idea will suddenly turn ANI into a land of peace and tranquility. Likely to cause fewer admins to participate there, exactly the opposite of what is needed. ANI is always going to be a hot mess because it is a place for people to come when they are pissed off about something. More rules and byzantine clerking structures will only make it worse. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More like "it is a place for the same' people to come when they are pissed off about something" really.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is, if that's it's purpose, change the top box instructions to: "If you are pissed, please discuss below." But that's not what they say. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the strictest Wikipedian sense of how things ought to work™, that is exactly what we should do, since the community uses it that way and policies are meant to describe our practices, not dictate them. And I wholeheartedly agree that there are some users that persistently bring every last little tiny thing that bothers them there. In a way, that servesa purpose as well, as these crybabies inevitably feel the sting of the WP:BOOMERANG on the back of their necks at some point. I'm not arguing that it is a perfect system, I'm arguing that we should not expect it to be, it is what it is, and the worst pains the ass always managed to get themselves thrown out eventually. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. being upfront would be MUCH better. But, your view of policy seems a little unnuanced. Policy is the declared consensus of the community and some policy is handed down by the WMF, but yes it can all be ignored at the users risk, but what they should do is try to change it first. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*On the contrary, I believe itr is your position which is missing certain details, as I've tried to indicate already. The community already uses it this way, and has for some time. I actually don't see where that contradicts any stated policy for what ANI is for, as it is explicitly a place to bring problems that require admin attention, but even if it were we have let the situation go on as it is to the point where a de facto consensus already exists. If somebody is jumping the gun in asking for admin action, they tend to get told that already, so a clerk is not needed for that. If they are in completely the wrong place, same deal. For everything else we try and resolve it on a case-by-case basis, as it should be. We don't need some clunky new structure to regulate that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{non-admin comment) Noting from a post near top (Opinions)
Mods/clerks will help new users to construct properly formed reports, experienced editors will be expected to fend for themselves;;;
Also;;;; But the problem of incivility is project-wide and general enforcement of civility rules would also improve AN/ANI. Will Beback talk 21:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
And;;;Comment* ... belief that AN and AN/I have broken down... add to that ...
IMO probably a good idea, but...Problem being, that if any system is introduced, the first time an admin takes unilateral action to re-open a closed case, or whatever –bang- another excuse for a drama-fest and sniping which undermines trust in each other. Probably not worth it, if that is going to happen, but otherwise IMO quite possibly a good thing to do. NewbyG ( talk) 05:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the comment above that we are "delightfully self-policing" is true to a degree, but that can and should include recognition of when something isn't working and changing it so it does, not just hoping the problem goes away. In its current form, ANI isn't serving its core purpose—to allow those who believe administrative help is required to come ask for it, and for the community to decide if it is. Rather, its "purpose" seems to be to bully and intimidate anyone who dares open or join a discussion, without resolving (and in many cases barely even discussing) the original reason someone's asking for help. In other cases, it seems to be to deliberately provoke a flame war without ever really asking for any help at all. That's not acceptable, and some type of clerking will help to rein that in. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? causa sui (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: this is one of a few areas in WikiLand which need something like this. RfA is another ;P Pesky (talk…stalk!) 19:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I do not see that the conclusions posited are in any way obvious. Collect (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am not sure that the solution proposed matches well with the posited problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (a)

There was a rejected arbcom request which I contributed to and I think serves as a good example of the problem. The ANI section under discussion is archived here The points relevant to this discussion that I made were the following:

Kaldari wrote:

I blocked Malleus because I recently warned him against exactly this sort of behavior. If the other party also warrants blocking, let me know. I am not familiar with that editor's history, however. Kaldari (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Just one question was asked about the block and it was answered:

Could you please explain why you blocked one party in an escalating dispute where the other party acknowledges that he was uncivil? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I blocked Malleus because I recently warned him against exactly this sort of behavior. If the other party also warrants blocking, let me know. I am not familiar with that editor's history, however. Kaldari (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(I have cut out several other comments around that time and there was a lot of bluster but no review of the reason Kaldari made the block.)

As no further questions were asked, presumably everyone was satisfied with that answer. If they were then why was the block lifted? If not then why weren't further questions asked of Kaldari, like asking for diffs of that conversation to see what sort of warning had been given and then discussions about the content of that warning (was it appropriate etc) and if current alleged breach of WP:CIVIL warranted Kaldari block?

Without such a discussion I do not see how an uninvolved administrator could unblock and could do so without explaining in detail their analysis in the appropriate section on the ANI and hopefully gaining the agreement of Kaldari to self revert if the reasons were strong enough.

I think that this is a classic case of systemic failure of the ANI process. For many high profile editors it is a lottery of how may of their friends and enemies happen to be online at the time and happen to be watching the ANI or are informed of it thought the bush telegraph. Add that some people are taking part in ANIs expressing opinions that are clearly not based on polices and guidelines and contributing nothing but clutter, making it harder to see what the real arguments are, and what the informed consensus is.

There are a number of other Wikipedia processes that deal with editorial behaviour (such as RFCs) that I think also lack natural justice as there is no clear divide between prosecutor, defence, jury, judge and executioner.

I have little faith in the ANI process because I no longer think it fit for purpose for anything but to carry out requests for the most simple tasks. I think it is time the whole process to be replaced.

-- PBS (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "presumably everyone was satisfied with that answer", I would submit that understanding why someone did something is a whole other thing from thinking that (1) they were right to have done it and (2) it shouldn't be undone. 28bytes (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't keep up with this discussion, but I am interested in it. Should editors finally find some value in having a moderated userboard where they can take their problems, it should be run like this:
  • An editor posts a problem in whatever form it comes.
  • ONE admin uninvolved with the dispute responds to the original poster, thereby taking charge of it: verifying that it is a legitimate problem, or warning the original poster that his/her behavior per WP:BOOMERANG is problematic and may end up in admin action, such as a block or a topic ban. If someone else's opinions should be taken into consideration, they should be invited by the responding admin. No more taking one dogpile crapfest from an article talkpage to make a dogpile crapfest at ANI. The responding admin takes responsibility for offering solutions, then closing the thread when it has been resolved.
  • No participant EVER should sidetrack a discussion with witty asides, humorous blah blah, or attempts to defuse a tense situation. Tense situations are best solved by treating the complaint seriously and offering solutions.
  • No admin should place the problem back in the original poster's lap by responding "It's a content problem. Go somewhere else." or worse, creating divides between content editors ("All you content editors expect special treatment", for example) and other editors where none (should) exist. Even if it is a content problem, all this sometimes takes is someone uninvolved with the dispute reiterating guidelines and policies. This should be the same for posting at ANI when another board may be more appropriate. When it gets to ANI, it should be answered at ANI.
  • ANI needs to NOT be a place to game ArbCom, such as a recurring problem with a single editor warranting three or more threads at ANI before a case goes to ArbCom. Action needs to be taken or the situation needs to be defused.
  • Threads should be processed with speed. Problem, solution, archive. Not to say that a problem should be glossed over and not given the attention it deserves, but keeping threads open for days when it's clear no admin action can take place, or no one in particular is even trying to resolve the dispute, is worthless and frustrating.
I hope these ideas can be worked into some format for moderating ANI. --Moni3 (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking about suggesting a system very similar to this one on the drive to work this morning (what, doesn't everyone do their best thinking while mindlessly driving a rote route?). Part of the problem with ANI as it runs now is that no one is sure who's in charge in a given thread - sure, it's "the admins", theoretically, but "the admins" are just as disparate and fighty group as any other subset of Wikipedians, and once you have two, or five, or ten admins doddering around a thread, everyone's stepping on someone else's feet and no one remembers where they left their car keys, let alone what the original problem was. If ANI functioned in a manner more similar to a ticket request system, where one or two admins could "reserve" a thread and be the "owners" (in the OTRS sense, not the WP:OWN sense) of that thread, I think we could tear through the issues more expediently. You pick a thread, it's "your" thread, it's your job to resolve that issue, boom, done. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN/ANI reform: Alternate proposal #2

As one of those who supports reforming AN and ANI using an informal method (as opposed to electing clerks or mediators), I've come up with the following proposal for discussion. This is not a formal proposal, and alternative suggestions are welcome. If we develop something worthwhile from this discussion then we can take it to VPP. Manning (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part (a) - Dealing with incivility and attacks.

  • 1 - The sentence "Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page and note that messages which egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed" be included under the heading "What this page is not" on AN/I. (NB - this sentence already exists on the equivalent section on AN).
  • 2 - All uninvolved admins and experienced editors are encouraged to swiftly remove incivil comments from AN or AN/I, and replace them with the text "Incivil comment removed". If an entire unproductive exchange has arisen as a result of an incivil statement, remove the entire exchange and replace it with the text "Incivil discussion removed".

Part (b) - Dealing with "unconstructive" comments (side issues, unrelated issues and 'civil-but-disruptive' comments). (Three initial options suggested, alternatives welcome).

  • 1a - (Hat approach) All uninvolved admins and experienced editors are encouraged to swiftly hat "unconstructive" comments, with the notation "unconstructive comment hatted".
  • 1b - (Strike approach) All uninvolved admins and experienced editors are encouraged to swiftly strike "unconstructive" comments, with the notation "unconstructive comment struck".
  • 1c - (Delete with diff approach) All uninvolved admins and experienced editors are encouraged to swiftly delete "unconstructive" comments and replace with the text "Unconstructive comment removed", plus a WP:DIFF to the deleted comment.
  • 2 - The sentence on AN/I that reads "Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion" is expanded to include an explanation of the approved method of dealing with such comments. A similar comment will be added to the relevant area of AN.

Comments

  • These proposals are just more attempts at increasing civility policing and authority them and us control, in an attempt to create a squeaky clean sanitized environment fit for nine year olds - it is out of the cut and thrust from some of the experienced users that solutions often arise on ANI - dehumanizing it will be a net loss. As for hatting all and sundry - see #archivetop and collapse tags Youreallycan 09:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To an extent, I agree with you YRC. These proposals ARE an attempt at increasing civility policing and I think this is the community's way of saying "If AN/I contributors can't control themselves, then we will." However I DON'T agree that squeaky clean sanitisisation is the aim, or would be the result of more restraint. Cut and thrust robustness is fine; I'm an adult and have a fairly thick skin, I expect my ideas to be fair game for criticism. But if someone called me (forgive my language in the hypothetical example) a "stupid interfering cunt" because of something I said on AN/I I don't see any net gain in that. On the contrary, it contributes to an atmosphere that says this kind of exchange is the norm.
As to hatting and collapsing; I take the point that collapsing is baaaad, man. However maybe the practice of leaving resolved (or unresolvable) cases open attracts further unnecessary drama and an alternative (early archiving?) might be a solution. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with your position on simple attacking insults being disruptive. I used to close a few threads at ANI but experience has convinced me that its not over till the fat lady sings, as they say, and the only way threads are resolved is when they are either inactive for 24 hours or they are indisputably actioned by an admin and finished with. If a report is disputed by anyone its pretty much not over... its just a natural thing as it is happening now. Usually after a couple of days with no action if there is only bits of back biting and groaning , an admin steps in an shuts it down. imo no new bureaucratic guidelines are needed, if admins just step in a bit sooner, and clearer, with advice for where the in-actionable reports would be better off at, many of the extended discussions that clearly are not in need of specific admin action at the ANI noticeboard will have the energy taken out of them sooner rather than later. Youreallycan 19:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

more attempts at increasing civility policing and authority - It probably is. However, I actually don't mind stricter rules (in this instance, with regard to "civility") as long as they are

  1. clearly stated and explicit, so that anyone breaking them does so consciously and at their own risk, and
  2. applied fairly and consistently.

2 in particular is what a lot of people who complain about "civility police" really have in mind. When some people - admins, admins' friends, people whom others tolerate because they find them "entertaining" etc. - can get away with incivility (sometimes disguised as passive aggressive griefing), while other editors get ban hammered at the first opportunity, yeah, you're gonna get lots of resentment. Some of this resentment will manifest itself as a general dislike of civility-enforcement (and some people do go over board with that) but a lot of it really stems from the unfairness of the situation.

Of course another reason is that often those enforcing "civility" are a completely different demographic from those who actually write the encyclopedia - and in that case there's often lots of mutual distrust as to motives ("just because you contribute content doesn't mean you get a free pass" vs. "you've never done anything here except administrate on people, why are you here, find another outlet for your sadistic tendencies, this is an encyclopedia"), fueled in some part by the underlying power imbalance.

If #1 and #2 are part of the deal, then I'm willing to support the package, increased civility policing included. If they're not, then no.VolunteerMarek 19:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with VM above. Consistency is to be valued above all else. The deep-seated mistrust of the admin corp that exists in some section of the community derives largely from this inconsistency, which is all-too-easily interpreted as reflecting either bias or a hidden agenda. (Of course, sometimes that HAS actually been the case, which is a separate matter to this topic). Manning (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The whole "Civility Police" thing has been discussed elsewhere; it is however important to remember that we seem to have a "label" that equates "Civility police" with "bent coppers"! Again, said elsewhere, but what we really need, over the entire 'pedia, is a clearly defined and unambiguous civility policy uniformly applied. That bit's the most important bit. And people who care about civility aren't necessarily those who don't contribute content – the two are not mutually exclusive, and it's overly simplistic to assume that they are. (Sad, but true.) Think of it as "more attempts to make the place a bit more civilised" instead. And I'm not on about a language gag, or hysterical over-reactions to the odd "naughty word", I;m talking about the belittling, demeaning, snidey, undermining, disempowering and derogatory remarks kind of incivility. We really don't need them; those belong in the school playground, if anywhere.
There are some excellent ideas coming out here; brainstorming something like this can work really well. Let's try to get it right. Pesky (talk…stalk!) 19:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN/ANI Reform: Alternate Proposal #3

Any uninvolved admin is encouraged to close out and collapse any report to AN/ANI that is not appropriate for the AN/ANI venue where administrative action is not directly required, or where discussion has moved away from the direct need for administrative action. The closing admin should direct editors involved in the discussion to more appropriate venues (such as WP:3RR, WP:WQT, WP:RFC/U, the Village pumps, and article and user talk pages). Closures may be reverted if it is believed that the discussion is appropriate for AN/ANI, but these reverts are subject to strict edit warring restrictions.

The idea is to set up a system that clerks would normally handle but without actually making anyone clerks. Let's all assume good faith among each other in handling this. If this system seems to work but suffers from too many editors closing reports before they get a full review, then maybe then we can talk clerks, but this presumes we're good without them. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Summary: the story so far

OK, this discussion has been open for a day and I'm going to try and quickly summarise. I hope folks won't mind me as proposer doing so: I'm not attached to any particular outcome here and I genuinely do feel neutral. I'll summarise below each of the sections above and see if we can then move the discussion onwards.

First suggestion: Clerks also acting as gatekeepers

  • Support: 5 (including proposer)
  • Something needs doing, but not exactly this:5
  • Undecided/neutral: 3
  • Oppose: 11

I think that's pretty clear. Many of the specific objections were to the idea of clerks as gatekeepers which was clearly not supported, as was anything which delayed action or added to bureaucracy.

Second proposal: Something needs doing, and moderation or clerking is it

  • Support: 8 (including proposer)
  • Something needs doing, but not exactly this:4
  • Oppose: 5

People in the second group were agreed that something needs doing, but some wondered about simply tightening the existing rules and applying them more firmly. Opposers disagreed that there was anything wrong, arguing that the job the board does is an unavoidably messy one. There were two specific ideas added to the pot:

  • A taxi rank system so that an individual admin takes responsibility for seeing each case through, like the OTRS ticket system
  • A unique, searchable case number for each complaint

I think you could take from this second discussion the view that 12 agree a change is needed vs 5 who don't. On the other hand, only 8 support a formal clerking system while 9 did not.

Further detailed proposals from Manning

There were two more detailed proposals which didn't attract much comment yet - maybe too detailed for now, or not enough time has been given to respond?

I hope the above is a fair representation of contributions; even if I'm out by one or two I don't think the difference is dramatic. Below I'll put a new header for the next phase of discussion and kick it off myself with an opener... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few different proposals in my post above, but the key one that I hope gets support is to start applying the "delete incivil comments" rule to AN/I. That rule already exists at AN - it is clearly identified at the top of the page (although it is rarely applied and many seem unaware of it). For some reason, AN/I doesn't have the same proviso, and I think it should. Manning (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yep. Good essay. Just apply policy and redact off-topic or off-policy comments. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        Collapse box comments still have to load. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How will we decide what goes where? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ANI is for urgent matters, not dispute resolution of any kind, in my opinion.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thoughts on ANI

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

Proposal

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

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)[reply]
Seperate pages should have seperate talk pages. GiantSnowman 17:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What would be done with the current talk-page archives? Deor (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Concur; it also breaks table of contents if the section has subheadings. Nobody Ent 18:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I am not getting any results for my test search - Youreallycan 20:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 9#Annoyed. - Youreallycan 00:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. EyeSerenetalk 19:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. EyeSerenetalk 20:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
What does "v/r" mean? Nobody Ent 23:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very respectfully, I believe. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Nobody Ent - Message received, thanks. I guess things have been a little stressful lately.--v/r - TP 23:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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... EyeSerenetalk 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
    • The goal should be closure, not closed. - well said Nobody Ent. Youreallycan 23:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Alarbus (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
Oh, OK. So, do you think his remark was uncivil? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well according to you, I'm in no doubt. Please see 2(e). pablo 13:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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.

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

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
{{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)[reply]
innitY Sorted, innit pablo 10:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hatting breaks the table of contents and adds no particular value over archivetop. Nobody Ent 12:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=476926721"