ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 13. (BOT) |
|||
Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
:::In that case it seems there is no issue here. Thank you for dealing with the matter so promptly. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">[[User:Begoon|<span style="color:#0645AD;">Begoon</span>]] [[User talk:Begoon|<span style="color:gray;"><sup>talk</sup></span>]]</span> 13:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC) |
:::In that case it seems there is no issue here. Thank you for dealing with the matter so promptly. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">[[User:Begoon|<span style="color:#0645AD;">Begoon</span>]] [[User talk:Begoon|<span style="color:gray;"><sup>talk</sup></span>]]</span> 13:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC) |
||
{{archivebottom}} |
{{archivebottom}} |
||
=== Request for clarification === |
|||
We're the RFCs closed at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Volunteer_Marek&diff=726808512&oldid=726807719] closed properly? Why or why not? Should dispute tags be on the articles involved? [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 21:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:09, 24 June 2016
This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Length of discussions
What is the current practice on how long an AN/ANI discussion proposing a topic-ban or something similar should remain open, when the editor in question has had the opportunity to participate and the consensus seems to be clear? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- there's likely no current practice as ANI is a bit of a zoo currently and there are not enough admins addressing things...see above..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Our banning policy requires at least 24 hours for a community ban discussion. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 04:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I can suddenly no longer edit this noticeboard
I am unsure why but I can suddenly no longer edit this notice board on an incident report of which I had initiated. New England Cop (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- @New England Cop: SQL archived your discussion section to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive281#JzG admonished three times. Is he out? because Bbb23 had closed the discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Minimum experience on thread closing
Recently we had a new editor with (supposedly) less than a month's worth of experience closing and archiving ANI threads. In the case of this editor (FAMASFREENODE ) there's evidence to suggest that he's a troll, but this brought up a point of discussion that needs to be discussed.
Without going into the whole issue of the editor in question, the basic gist of what happened is that we had someone with an account with seemingly little experience trying to close and archive ANI threads. Some of his archives were done incorrectly and in the case of the one close he did, it looks like he did this prematurely since as Only in death put it "Consensus was shfting/heavily leaning towards changing the block to indef - and Fam had closed/archived it based on their already being blocked for a week."
Now disregarding that he might likely be a troll, what we had here was someone with little to no working experience of ANI matters trying to perform actions that would be best left to either an admin or someone with enough experience to be able to interpret an ANI thread and consensus. Wnt posted on my talk page recently to state that there is no actual written rule that prohibits new users from actively closing or archiving ANI threads and that it would be a good idea to propose that this be added.
My proposal is this:
- Users without administrative rights should have at least one year's worth of active experience in ANI and editing matters before closing or archiving threads, as determining a proper close can be difficult for inexperienced or new users and archiving a thread too early may result in involved users not easily seeing the outcome.
This needs some tweaking and re-writing, but the gist is basically to keep new and inexperienced users from making an error that could result in a discussion being closed far too early and not getting the full discussion that it should've received or receiving a close that improperly determines consensus or guidelines. This would also avoid them prematurely archiving discussions that should remain on the board for a little bit longer in order to give involved parties a chance to read the outcome - thus ensuring that people can't say "but I didn't know or hear anything so I thought the matter was dropped because it was instantly gone". (Plus honestly I think that the archive bot should be the one to archive discussions except in certain situations that would likely require someone with more experience.) It would also give us a little extra protection against trolling, since we could point to a specific guideline.
This would pretty much put into writing what's been an unsaid but generally recognized rule on ANI: that performing the more advanced actions of this nature requires experience. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- I honestly don't see that this is needed. When closes are challenged (it's even happened to me!) - they get re-opened. Not a bad idea, just seems like an over-reaction to a single recent problem. SQLQuery me! 04:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- I dunno - I think that it could be a good guideline in general, since it's generally expected that someone would have experience when doing this. It's kind of like how we expect people to have experience before being granted various user rights, only in this case the person doesn't have to request them. It'd also help prevent the well meaning editors from making mistakes, since I've also seen cases where otherwise well meaning newbies have made close type edits to ANI areas and gotten their heads bitten off. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like a slow creep toward shifting tasks away from the average editor. Closes should stand on their merits, not on experience. A relatively new editor could make an insightful close, and a bureaucrat can still botch things up every once in a blue moon. Also, what defines "active experience in ANI"? If that means a non-admin regularly inserting themselves into reports they aren't involved in (and probably stirring up extra drama along the way), that's the type of editor who probably shouldn't make closes. Besides, do we really want to encourage hat-collecting editors to patrol ANI to earn the extra hat of being able to close threads there? ~ RobTalk 04:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- While in practice it's probably a good idea, the user would have to actually read that somewhere. Experience has shown, that new (and not new) editors are not prone to reading instructions on Wikipedia, even when they are in a large red box. Also I think you are missing the word "not" in your archiving proposal. --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Both pretty good points. My thought is more trying to avoid having to go through a long discussion with editors where we have to specifically tell them not to continue prior actions. This is in response to the recent editor interaction, but I've had more than one situation where I've had tenacious newbies repeatedly try to quote policy in response to warnings (from myself and others) that they were doing something that they shouldn't and doing it incorrectly. Adding it would be sort of a CYA type of deal since while some newbies do miss the content, there are more that do seem to read more than we give them credit for. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Outside of this particular case I don't think we have a problem with this. Any good faith editor likely takes feedback from a bad close of theirs and is unlikely to repeat it. Someone doing so for giggles isn't going to stop based on instructions (it didn't stop the editor from creating an RfA) and quite often the "ANI experience" is part of the problem and I'd hate to see editors being incentivized (for lack of a better term) to hang around these boards! —SpacemanSpiff 06:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Frankly, I'd like to see WP:ANI renamed to exclude "Administrator" from the title. It's regrettable that newbies come on the site, somehow find ANI, and decide they can fill their insatiable hunger for power with the admin tools. There's no advantage to the current name over, say "Incidents noticeboard". ~ RobTalk 07:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- While in practice it's probably a good idea, the user would have to actually read that somewhere. Experience has shown, that new (and not new) editors are not prone to reading instructions on Wikipedia, even when they are in a large red box. Also I think you are missing the word "not" in your archiving proposal. --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I disagree. I've only been here for just under four months, but I still believe that I am competent enough to close discussions. The decision as to whether or not someone should have the ability to close threads shouldn't be based on their tenure on the project, but rather their grasp of policy and knowledge of consensus. I've closed a number of discussions both here, at ANI, as well as in other areas of Wikipedia. Most of them have been fairly straightforward, but that's besides the point. Closes should be assessed on a case by case basis, and we shouldn't revert a perfectly good close just because someone is new to the project. The FAMASFREENODE incident was dealt with very swiftly, and this seems to be an overreaction in response to it. If someone, no matter who they are, is making improper closes or archiving incorrectly, then they should first be approached on their talk page. If they refuse to change their behaviour, then short term blocks can be applied. It's as simple as that. Omni Flames (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Personally I think there needs to be an addition to the header that says something along the lines of 'Please do not close or archive discussions unless you are familiar with the processes involved'. That way when someone does do it incorrectly, a swift trouting can be administered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think there is something to be done here, but I am not on board with a minimum experience approach (sorry Tokyogirl79) but I do understand the motivation. I'm not in principle opposed to the concept but I see two major obstacles to implementation. One is the difficulty in precisely defining the minimum experience (if nothing else, it varies depending on the nature of the incident). The second, as noted by others is the likelihood that such a rule get missed particularly by those to whom it is directed. We have a notice requirement in bold red type, yet there's evidence that it's missed every other day or so.
- I'd prefer to devote the energy to a positive rather than a negative approach. It might be helpful to have an essay on "considerations when closing ANI discussion". That would allow us to articulate best practices, which might also implicitly convince the reader that if they don't have experience they are not yet ready. I fully understand that such an essay is less likely to be read than a rule requiring experience, but it is not that big a deal to revert a bad close. I'd rather point the editor to a list of best practices than to a rule that more directly tells them they don't know what they're doing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Topic ban appeal pending RFCs outcome, request for dispute tags
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have agreed to abide by a recently imposed topic ban at least until the outcome of two RFCs, and then only for requesting mediation. I hope that an appeal will not be necessary. In the mean time I plan to work on systemic bias issues off-wiki. During the ANI discussion in which I was topic banned, there was no answer to my question about why dispute tags were removed from the RFCs' articles. May I ask that those dispute tags be replaced on the articles, please? Would someone please post the links to those two RFCs so I can use a permalink to this section to try to increase the visibility of the RFCs? A greater number of editors attending to them wil most likely improve their outcome. EllenCT (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- So, let me get this straight. You're posting here (arguably in contravention of your topic ban) to get someone to create something you can link to off-site in your campaign against "systemic bias" (whatever that means here), to canvass off-site for people to come and comment/!vote in the RFCs you are t-banned from? You must mean linking off site, since linking here would certainly infringe your ban. I... don't think this is the best idea you ever had. Dropping the stick would, however, be a fine plan. HTH. Begoon talk 12:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- They are not actually properly formatted (or even remotely close to) RFC's as well as containing the usual misrepresentation that caused the topic ban. I have closed them accordingly. If someone wants to reopen them with a properly formatted and neutral RFC I doubt there would be an objection. If EllenCT wants to appeal her topic ban to Arbcom or on AN, there is no impediment. Lets not drag this out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Request for clarification
We're the RFCs closed at [1] closed properly? Why or why not? Should dispute tags be on the articles involved? EllenCT (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)