Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:28, 13 April 2009

Template:Werdnabot

This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one.

This user believes date-autoformatting is like lipstick on a pig.

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Real-life workload: 1.5

• 1 = no work pressure
• 5 = middling
• > 5 = please don't expect much
• 10 = frenzied

Please note that I do not normally (1) copy-edit articles, or (2) review articles that are not candidates for promotion to featured status.

My self-help writing tutorials:

• General advice on how to improve your prose, with specific application to the preparation of featured article nominations
• Exercises in weeding out fluff from article text
• Advanced editing exercises
• Exercises in the use of hyphens, dashes, and other aspects of the Manual of Style
• Exercises in paragraphing and sentence structure

AdminReview

Hey Tony. I just committed the cardinal sin of editing another users userspace—namely yours. :) My edit is just a humble proposal, feel free to revert and or modify as you see fit. Cheers! henrik•talk 20:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the overall idea is a good one - admins should and must be held accountable for their actions. Poor administrative behavior has driven away a lot of good users, which isn't acceptable. I personally would like to see a future of higher professionalism where admins as a collective were more calm and handling of problematic cases was more dispassionate. Ideally all administrative actions should be explained when questioned, and there should always be a clear route of appeal.

As for the tight word limits: I don't know - I suspect it'll need to be tried in practice and perhaps modified as the time goes. Designing a perfect process isn't easy.

And yes, it became a bit long: I'd be happy to for the lead to be trimmed. I'm a bit busy today and tomorrow, but unless anyone has beaten me to it I'll give it a whirl on Thursday. henrik•talk 19:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 

Everybody's Talkin'

More from me. :) And on a funny aside, I was all huffy to find that this redirect in my subject header did not point to Harry Nilsson's song. So I looked to see just who had committed this gross miscarriage of justice.... I wonder if there's a template I should give me? Or maybe I should just suggest to me that a disambiguation header would be appropriate? (Or I could just add "Everybody's Talkin'" to that great list of "Articles We Need" in my head.) --Moonriddengirl 12:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A new protocol for admins' handling of incivility: "WAS"

There are almost no guidelines for how admins should handle cases of incivility, in particular, how their potential roles as mediators and enforcers through blocking should be brought to bear on difficult situations. We lose a significant number of talented editors because of the blocking phenomenon, and we all know there is a phenomenon of repeat incivility and blocking. I firmly believe that blocking for incivility is usually counterproductive. Here's why:

1. Incivility almost always arises because one or more editors are angry.
2. Anger, like fear, has an unfortunate tendency to spiral (unlike positive emotions). This is particularly the case for experienced editors, who weigh what they will see as their hard work and commitment to WP heavily in terms of self-justification.
3. There is ample evidence that blocking does not reduce levels of anger in the blocked editor; it is more likely to fuel repeat offending and repeat blocking, adding to admins' workload. It seems to be an ineffective way of dealing with the anger in the first place. The common notion that we give blocked editors a degree of latitude in "letting off steam" on their own talk page is another sign of this causality. I don't think blocking generally works to protect the project (a policy requirement) or as a tool for behavioural improvement or mediation (a common-sense and highly desirable role for admins).
4. There is usually no apology by the blocked editor to the target of their rude or abusive behaviour; thus, the bad feelings remain on an article talk page or wherever else the incident has occurred.

For this reason, I believe admins should be explicitly encouraged—as a matter of standard (not mandatory) practice—to follow a simple protocol: Warned, Apologise, Strike (WAS, if you like). If the breach is serious enough, and provided the editor has not previously demonstrated non-cooperation, the warning should contain:

• a warning that they are in breach of the civility policy;
• a strong suggestion that they apologise to the target of their anger, probably both at the talk page of the article concerned and the talk page of the targeted editor; and
• a strong suggestion that they strike their offending comment.

This might be backed up by a statement that a failure to do so may result in a block (with or without a timeframe: "within X hours").

Of course, the abusive anon/vandal deserves the prompt block, and admins' time is limited. But it is self-evident that in other cases, requiring such a withdrawal and an apology stands a much better chance of restoring calm to a venue, and minimising the risk of a cycle of repeated incivility and blocking. A WAS protocol would save a lot of angst in the community about blocking. It would be good for relationships between editors, and between non-admins and admins. It would be likely to be therapeutic; people usually feel better about themselves and their colleagues after an apology (even one that comes at the strong suggestion of someone else). Rude and abusive editors who do not apologise are probably worth blocking for longer than one might otherwise do, and a note in their block-log would send a clear message to both them and subsequent admins who find themselves having to deal with their behaviour.

I believe WAS should be written into both WP:ADMIN and WP:BLOCKING to encourage a change in the culture of dealing with incivility, from the relatively easy "block first" that we too often see in situations involving experienced editors, to a role that requires admins to exercise a slightly more mediating role, educating editors about the right thing to do when they have overstepped the limits, and more effectively calming editor anger. I don't claim that this would always work, but I do believe it would be much more effective in achieving the policy aims in a significant proportion of cases.

I am interested in the opinions of both non-admins and admins on this. Tony (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• I wholly agree that there may be too much knee-jerk blocking for incivility. I have quite often found that a dispute spirals because the parties lack external input to resolve a deadlock; or if such input exists, one or other fails to listen to that input because it is not from someone not considered 'sufficiently neutral' by one side or another. Of course an apology is the best way of smoothing the waters in the longer term, but a forced apology is often disgruntled and remains couched in resentment. While it's possible that one side is wholly intransigent, quite often it involves something the "other side" has done too. Admins should therefore work on mediating skills, in bringing neutrality and objectivity to the dispute. They should attempt to target the root cause of the dispute rather than seeking a simplistic apology. Of course, it will take time and patience to wade through the history of the dispute. It could be further complicated because of a historical grievance, but there is almost always a more immediate trigger at the dispute concerned. Once the root cause is addressed, I believe the apology will be more forthcoming and natural. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The strong suggestion that the incivility be retracted (struck through) and and apology made are the right messages to send. What is initially a strongly worded option can, in retrospect, appear the obvious thing to do by someone who has been offensive; most people feel better a while after making an apology. The avoidance of blocking except as a last resort, I believe, has therapeutic value. Tony (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• In my opinion the biggest offenders on incivility on en.wiki are admins and there's no way that any admin is going to do anything but fiercely stand up for the rights of a fellow admin to be incivil. In fact, on AN/I, I assume if there is a gross incivility and a posse standing up for the editor who is being offensive that it's an admin doing the offending and a group of admins + non-admin friends of the offender gathered around to get in free shots against the victim. It will simply be one more way that administrators don't and won't lead by example while giving administrators an additional weapon to interfere with lowly editors acting as bad as the example that is set for them.
• Admins should set the example first. And I don't see that coming. --KP Botany (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Botany, this is a little off-topic; see AdminReview and the straw poll concerning desysopping. Someone has to draw the boundaries of civility, and best admins to do this. The proposal here concerns how they do this. Tony (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I disagree with the underlying assumption of this suggestion, that admins can best draw boundaries of civility when admins as a group are clueless and could not recognize incivility if trout-slapped with it, and the place to discuss the basic assumptions of a proposal is where the suggestion is made. However, I am not an admin and was expecting a complete dismissal of any contribution I attempted to make to the discussion. --KP Botany (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you about the current state of affairs, certainly I'm not anyway, but this a proposal for a better future, not a rehashing of the egregious part. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't suggest rehashing the egregious part. However, proposals made to remedy that problem which do not thoroughly acknowledge the issue are doomed to failure.
        • Incivility is best handled with boundless civility. As soon as you increase the number of reasons, means, and weapons of incivility in the hands of the most egregiously incivil on en.wiki you've made the problem worse, not better. More warnings? Will there be a hostile template designed just to do this? How about, instead of admins giving a warning, someone uber polite give an example of how better to act, make it personal to the offending editor, and don't call it a warning? How about it not coming from an admin or not being the domain of admins? How about it not coming with a threat that unless a forced apology is dealt out, the user will be blocked? How about wondering and asking why the person felt such a need to be incivil? How about anything besides creating more incivility? This proposal is not just uncivil, it's downright hostile. Warnings? Forced apologies? Threats veiled as suggestions? To deal with incivility? Really? --KP Botany (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
          • So far as I'm concerned, you're preaching to the converted. Administrators frequently behave in ways that would get regular editors blocked, and that's what's got to stop. But this thread is about guidelines for the future, not dwelling on the past. As it happens I don't agree with the proposal as it stands, but it is at least a move in the right direction. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Tony, thank you for taking the time to think about this matter. It is a difficult one; and something I've had to consider on a number of occasions. This is a medium in which it is far too easy for editors to become confrontational, forgetting their normal selves and flipping. In the past when I've seen this behaviour in someone who is known to me, I have tried to engage them. Either I am particularly bad at it, or the incivil behaviour is an engrained pattern and difficult to shift. The main point of the incivility code is to set clearly defined boundaries beyond which such behaviour is unacceptable. There are a lot of editors who seem to perform a kind of 'sub-incivility dance' - perhaps to flip the editor they're in confrontation with. This seems to be the kind of behaviour that inspires 'sub-optimal' performance from admins - we're only human and subject to the same limitations of the media for communication. This is why there is an attempt to involve uninvolved admins to try to resolve a dispute; or (if necessary) slap heads. The intention of 'admining' should always be to de-escalate these disputes and quickly restore order to the project. Ultimately, I don't think admins are in a therapeutic relationship with editors (or indeed each other); that's an individual - and off-wiki responsibility. As to KP Botany's point, I am happy to receive feedback, or to be told when I'm acting in an arbitrary and high handed manner; I will even hand you the ceremonial trout for the slapping. Kbthompson (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• It is an intriguing idea Tony, but how would WAS handle degrees of incivility? For instance, would it be appropriate to use WAS as a response to when the person has been blocked multiple times in the past and sanctioned by arbcom of incivility? Would asking someone to apologize for very minor incivility (I've noticed many American misinterpret British comments as incivility) just continue the pattern of the dispute by asking the parties to keep talking at each other? Also, where have people been "blocking first" for incivility, we have {{Uw-npa1}}, {{Uw-npa2}}, {{Uw-npa3}}, {{Uw-npa4}} for a reason, and excepting extreme incivility (blanking an article to a profanity) I would expect administrators to at least warn once, if not two or three times before blocking an established editor. MBisanz 20:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Obesity#Body fat percentage

Tony, I don't want to walk into a MOS minefield with the math editors, but why does the math HTML have that horrid font ? I don't know where to check on this because it's HTML code, not a template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I KNOW. Before even looking at it. It's vomitus. WHO ever thought of having it dispaly that way. We must do something about it. Where to lobby, though? Tony (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I dunno ... it's not a template, it's HTML, so I don't know where to start. Perhaps I could ask Dr pda ? It's awful. (Didn't know you were still on.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I've just looked. It's not that monstrous formatting I've seen in many equations on WP. That's OK there, isn't it, at least on my Safari browser. Tony (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Knowing how math MOS discussions go, not sure I want to wade in, but I think the font is wishy-washy and hard to read (could be my eyes :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Tony, here is the complete answer from Dr pda: User talk:Dr pda#Math HTML SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

FAC for Design 1047

Hi Tony! Thank you for your comments on the FAC for Design 1047 battlecruiser. They were much appreciated! I asked Maralia (talk · contribs) to go through it, and she has now done so (I asked EyeSerene (talk · contribs) as well, he might go through it later); would you be able to check back in? Thanks, —Ed 17 23:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for copyediting the plagiarism dispatch - it reads much more smoothly now. Moreover, your excellent questions helped clarify some vague spots. Your help is greatly appreciated. Awadewit (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)