| Revision as of 19:51, 24 July 2014 editLightbreather (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,672 edits →Where and how to request a Civility board← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:30, 23 December 2024 edit undoUntamed1910 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,837 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 222.101.152.135 (talk) to last revision by ClueBot IIITags: Twinkle Undo | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talk header|noarchives=yes|WT:AN|WT:ANB}} | |||
| {{section sizes|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard}} | |||
| {{section sizes|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} | |||
| {{Central|text=several subpages of Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard redirect here.}} | |||
| {{tmbox | {{tmbox | ||
| | image = ] | | image = ] | ||
| Line 8: | Line 11: | ||
| * Report incidents such as block evasion at ''']'''. | * Report incidents such as block evasion at ''']'''. | ||
| * Report violations of the ] at ''']'''. | * Report violations of the ] at ''']'''. | ||
| * Discuss general issues at ''']'''. | * Discuss general issues at ''']'''. | ||
| * Report posting of personal information by following instructions at ''']'''. | * Report posting of personal information by following instructions at ''']'''. | ||
| * Request discussions need to be closed at ''']'''. | * Request discussions need to be closed at ''']'''. | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{ |
{{press | ||
| | subject = noticeboard | |||
| | org = '']'' | |||
| | date = September 25, 2013 | |||
| | author = Andrew Orlowski | | author = Andrew Orlowski | ||
| | date = {{date|25 September 2013}} | |||
| | url = http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/25/wikipedia_peasants_revolt/ | |||
| | title = Revolting peasants force Misplaced Pages to cut'n'paste Visual Editor into the bin | | title = Revolting peasants force Misplaced Pages to cut'n'paste Visual Editor into the bin | ||
| | url = http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/25/wikipedia_peasants_revolt/ | |||
| | org = ] | |||
| | author2 = ] | |||
| | archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/6Jtwsep5Z | |||
| | title2 = Want to Know How to Build a Better Democracy? Ask Misplaced Pages | |||
| | archivedate = {{date|25 September 2013}} | |||
| | org2 = '']'' | |||
| | accessdate = {{date|25 September 2013}} | |||
| | url2 = https://www.wired.com/story/want-to-know-how-to-build-a-better-democracy-ask-wikipedia/ | |||
| }} | |||
| | date2 = 7 April 2019 | |||
| {{archive box|search=yes|bot=ClueBot III|age=8|index=/Archive index| | |||
| | accessdate2 = 8 April 2019 | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives|search=yes|bot=ClueBot III|age=8|index=/Archive index}} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}} | {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}} | ||
| <!--{{User:MiszaBot/config | <!--{{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 15 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| Line 56: | Line 51: | ||
| |maxarchsize= 250000 | |maxarchsize= 250000 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == Significant 100+ edits wiped out from WP:AN == | |||
| == Appeals == | |||
| {{archive top|This talk page is '''not''' for ongoing discussion about indidents etc. that have already been discussed on the main noticeboard. If you wish to appeal, ] will be happy to hear from you. Else, there is nothing more to do here. --]]<small>]</small> 10:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| What's the appeal path for incorrect and premature decisions at ANI? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 13:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Without knowing any of the background or type of decision. Either waiting and going to AN/ANI or to ArbCom (one of ], ], or possibly ]. Without knowing more (or looking into it and working it out) that's the best I can do. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 14:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's ]. An admin (paying zero apparent heed to the proven fact that the ANI case was poll-stacked by canvassing, and thus overflowing with unprovable, unrelated accusations and bad faith assumptions by editors who came here specifically because they have a bone to pick with me on other matters) short-circuited an ongoing negotiated close because he didn't like my {{em|opening}} position in the negotiation, and imposed as a mandatory ban an over-broad version of my own suggested voluntary moratorium, itself a moderated version of the filer's own also voluntary moratorium idea. This was done on the absurd basis that the canvassed pile of hate actually represented a community consensus. The closer's rationale assumes bad faith on my part (see their more detailed reasoning on my talk page), is predicated on a vote headcount not an analysis of the actual merits and reasons of the !votes, was premature, and most importantly is patently punitive, not preventative, since I already conceded several that the page moves in question did turn out to be controversial, that this was an error on my part, and that I would not be making any more such moves. It takes a truly wild leap of bad faith to assume that after these public statements and after proposing my own 3-month moratorium on similar moves that I must be forced into an imposed and even broader move ban because my obvious evil plan is to immediately go back to moving pages controversially. <del>It's seriously one of the worst ANI closes I've ever seen in my 8+ years here,</del> and it undermines faith in the process of negotiated closes and more importantly in ANI not being a battleground for vindictiveness, or gameable by tendentious parties to get admins to pre-emptively win content disputes for them, even after shameless and unmistakeable canvassing of parties who have no connection to the issue, only animosity for the accused. I've asked Prontonk to revert or modify this close, to address these issues. But I'd like to know what the proper formal avenue of appeal is for something like this. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 15:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC) <ins>Update: A discussion with Protonk has made it clearer that there was some confusion between my certainty that my AT/DAB interpretation is correct vs. me being unwilling to recognize that the moves turned out to be controversial after all, and between my observation that being wrong about whether they'd be controversial isn't evidence of bad faith disruptiveness, vs. me not agreeing that the moves being made outside of RM process was in fact a mistake. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 20:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)</ins> | |||
| :::Sigh, posting a) yet another wall of text and b) appealing a (valid, IMO) decision so soon after it was implemented...? ]] 15:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is a request for appeal procedure, not another venue for you to pursue and attack me in your continual battlegrounding against MOS. If you find a single, clearly written paragraph to be a "wall of text", you need to find another hobby, since an encyclopedia consists of about 99% paragraphs of text. Of course I'm dealing with the appeal procedures quickly; few processes on WP permit any kind of appeal or review if the matter at hand is very stale at all, and closed ANI cases are archived very quickly. Did you have anything else pointlessly antagonistic and anti-collaborative to add, or did you maybe have something productive to do? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 15:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: FYI most bans are not usually appealed for 3 months after implementation. No, your 'wall-of-text' method of discussion was raised as an issue in the ANI thread, and I know it has also been raised before, so you might want to start listening to legitemate concerns. You might want to stop with the baseless accusations that editors are "attacking" you; both of those things will only serve you well. Furthermore the only one showing issues with BATTLEGROUND is you, hence why you have received the topic ban - there were also calls for you to be indeffed (which I opposed, before you start ranting further) but it should show you that your editing is being viewed as increasingly disruptive. You need to listen to the concerns and address them; if you continue being so bloody stubborn it's only going to end one way... ]] 15:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::For a true wall of text, see ] and its tendentious "give us flag icons all over soccer articles or else" campaign, championed by GiantSnowman and a handful of other football editors, year after year; the enormous pile of noise there is just the latest round. Page-search there for "Giant" and you'll see that GiantSnowman totally dominates that discussion, responding profusely to virtually every post, engaging in precisely the same editing pattern he criticizes. Cf. ]. "There were also calls for you to be indeffed", yes, and they were ridiculed and even suggested for ] treatment. I did listen to the concerns and address them; clearly the moves were controverted and my assumption that they would be uncontroversial was incorrect; I agreed repeatedly that I wouldn't be making any more moves of that sort. The ''community'' is not saying I'm being "increasingly disruptive". A handful of canvased axe-grinders from unrelated MOS disputes they didn't prevail in, and who unreasonably and unprovably blame me for their "losses", used such labeling, because (as with you) it furthers their own contra-MOS wiki-politics to see me pilloried. Anyway, needless to say, waiting three months to appeal a three month ban is pointless, and you're mistaking my meaning - I'm not asking to have the ban lifted as a behavioral matter, I'm objecting to the close on technical/procedural and accuracy grounds. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 16:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::What has a ''old, completely un-related'' discussion that we were both involved in (along with lots of other users?) got to do with this ''at all''?! Trying to appeal a ban by exhibiting some of the exact same behavior that got you banned in the first place (e.g. pure BATTLEGROUND behaviour, trying to start a conflict/argument for no reason whatsoever etc.) is not a sensible move. ]] 17:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It's not old and unrelated, it's long and still-ongoing, and about MOS matters and your personal distaste for me and my argument style, which is {{em|remarkably}} similar to you own. I wasn't kidding about this looking like projection on your part. Given that my informal appeal to the closing admin resolved the issue without need of a formal one, I guess I don't need to address your dire warning about whether my desire to and basis for an appeal was sensible or not. Having an admin bit doesn't make you wiser, less fallible, a better editor, more expert about WP policy and procedure, a better judge of others, or better at self-analysis than me or whoever else. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 20:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Well no it's not on-going, the only person still yammering on is you. Oh, and I have no "personal distaste" for you - we disagree on stuff, so be it, that's as far as it goes for ''me''. You, on the other hand, obviously bear a grudge... ]] 20:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::What are you talking about? I haven't even posted on that page since July 6, and the last to add to that discussion was the one other football editor (Nubmer 57) pushing that "change MOS to do what WP:FOOTY wants" proposal. That proposal has not been closed. I even filed a request for closure at ] and it hasn't been acted upon. I don't bear a grudge, I just recognize your username as the dominant one in that MOS dispute, and all of a sudden you turn up hostile an ANI against me. I'm glad you don't actually have an issue with me personally. I don't with you, so let's move on. :-) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 22:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Last thing I'll say, in the spirit of "moving on" - if you haven't posted since 6 July, and me long before that, how is the discussion ongoing? ;) ]] 09:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I would say that the first point of appeal for a ban enacted at ANI should be WP:AN. (Ban proposals should be there anyway.) –]] 15:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. This wasn't a ban proposal anyway; even the filer of the ANI complaint did not propose a ban. I'd be ameliorated if the close was modified to remove the unproven claim of ] (a move that turned out to be controversial after all is not "disruptive", it simply wasn't uncontroverted and should have been an RM after all) and other aspersion-casting editorializing (e.g. the false claim that I did not acknowledge the concerns raised), and changed to reflect that the proper close result is acceptance of my self-imposed 3-month move moratorium with regard to breed article, not imposition of a 3-month involuntary move ban in general. If ] were amenable to such an adjustment, that'd be the end of it. Reversion of the premature close so that the negotiated close could proceed would actually be much preferable, but I'm busy IRL and want to move on. Protonk need not ack any of my above criticisms of the close, only agree that the revision I've suggested would be more accurate and fair. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 16:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ec}}Without any regard to the merits (sorry, that is one I didn't follow): If you are appealing the ''close'' as being unrepresentative of the discussion, or wrong on technical grounds (ie: sockpuppets were voting, closed too soon, etc.) then appealing at WP:AN (not WT:AN) after close is proper. At a glance, closing too soon wouldn't apply as it ran almost 5 days, but I can't speak to the other possibilities. If it is overturned, another admin would need to close, and there is always a possibility they would read it more strongly than the previous admin. Just saying, that is always a risk. I have no opinion as to the case, as I've indicated I haven't read through it all, but will note that ''statistically'', appeals of long and drama filled discussions don't usually end well, either with the same or worse results. Make of that what you will, isn't my doing, just my recollection of history at WP:AN/ANI here. ] | ] | ] 16:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, and the risks are noted. But yes, the close was unrepresentative of the discussion (minus the false accusations, etc.) and wrong on technical grounds (most of the !votes were canvassed). It was premature in the sense that a negotiated close was under ongoing discussion, not in the sense of not enough time having passed. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 16:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Happily, Protonk and I have come to an understanding on this, and the close has been clarified to address these concerns. Again, thanks for clarifying the appeal avenue. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 20:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Quick question, can an administrator unilaterally override or modify community consensus as was done in this case? ] <small>]</small> 22:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **Not quite. Although I have already reverted the close and was about to drop a note here. Closers are entitled to tweak their closing statements however Protonk has changed both the scope and the meaning of his close so it is no longer in line with consensus. As the close now does not reflect consensus, I have reopened it. I am about to drop him a note letting him know. ] (]) 22:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***Thanks OID, I was quite surprised to see a close so out of line with community consensus. If we could do that as admins, then Katie bar the door! ] <small>]</small> 22:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * I have re-closed it using Protonk's original wording. This was a '''community-imposed sanction''' and could not be unilaterally modified. I re-reviewed the original discussion, and found nothing wanting in that close as it was a proper reading of consensus <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **Good job, thank you - restores my faith in process.... ] <small>]</small> 23:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *To properly answer the question: Can an admin override discussion in a close, the answer is yes he can, if the close reflects the greater community consensus, as determined by previous discussions. I have closed discussions as "no action" where the majority was demanding a topic ban, as the discussion turned into a mob and wasn't reflective of the greater consensus in those kinds of matters (kwami, to be specific), and it stuck. I'm not saying that applies here, just saying that there are times when closing against what ''looks'' like consensus is perfectly within policy, so generalizing by saying you '''can't''' close against consensus is not true. ] | ] | ] 00:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **I'm not sure what you're saying Dennis, my question was about '''community consensus''', not some dog-pile numbers game. ] <small>]</small> 00:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***This is exactly such a dogpile numbers game. There is no consensus at all to be found in a vote-stack of editors who have long-standing axes to grind against me, who were alerted to come here by anotehr such editor, despite having no relationship to or stake at all in the matter actually raised by the ANI case. There is absolutely no connection between WP:BIRDS (in which a lot of people are angry at me over MOS matters) where Montanabw from WP:EQUINE (also angry at me over MOS matters) canvassed, and the moves at issue in the ANI (sheep article disambiguation under AT/DAB), other than unrelated bad feeling toward me personally and MOS/AT regulars generally. It's the very definition of canvassing. It's exactly the same as an Azerbaijani canvassing WP:TURKEY for Turk editors to come to a Canada-related dispute (or whatever) to help dogpile an Armenian editor, just because they both are angry with him over unrelated edits. There's also no point in making the move ban mandatory when I already agreed to it voluntarily; that's purely punitive not preventative, since obviously I'm not insane, stupid, evil or possessed by alien mind control, and am not going to go moving articles after publicly agreeing not to. Sheesh. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 00:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ****Are you saying that each of the seventeen editors who supported a ban is corrupt? Why did no one oppose the ban? ] (]) 01:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *****Of course not. But many have axes to grind, and due to emotions, especially at WP:BIRDS and about MOS, running high lately, extraneous issues, blame and anger spilled over into this ANI like a waterfall. Why did no one oppose? A) Already extant, canvassed dogpiles look like WP:SNOWBALL. B) A whole section on a negotiated close, then in progress, discourages input that !voters feel is liable to be moot, and people generally want to see what's going to come out of the negotiation. Also, it's not even true that no one opposed a mandatory ban. The ANI filter's own negotiating position was for a voluntary one. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 01:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| SMcCandlish you might want to consider ]. Even if you get another closure it is unlikely the result will be any different. ] 01:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't reopen this thread, but had marked it resolved. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 01:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Proposal to split WP:AN == | |||
| Having struggled to use this over-long page on mobile last night, I believe it should be split. The easiest way to do so would be to move the "Requests for closure" section to its own page. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Isn't it technically on its own separate page already but it's just being transcluded here?—] (]) 16:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Or maybe don't try and look at AN on a mobile...? You know it's going to be long/busy, so...]] 17:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::And how does that help all our colleagues who have mobile-only access? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If so, why bother transcluding it here? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Collapse the transcluded RFC's? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::When text is "collapsed", is it still downloaded to the browser and then visually hidden, or are fewer characters actually sent? —] (]) 17:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Removing the transcluded requests for closure would greatly reduce the value of that page. –]] 18:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::], on the mobile site the requests for closure section is collapsed by default and takes up a total of one line. What is the actual problem you're getting? ] (]) 18:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's not collapsed in the Android app. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::How so? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm with xeno, the purpose of that page is to provide information to admin about non-emergency issues that need addressing, which it currently does fairly well. ANI is usually 3 to 6 times larger (currently 490k) and we deal just fine. ] | ] | ] 18:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::ANI does not work "just fine" on mobile, in the same way that AN does not. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 21:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::You would be better served by addressing the engineering team responsible for the mobile app. AN & ANI are not critical for mobile users, and I heavily doubt admins and power users REALLY need top speed access to those pages on their mobile devices. ] (]) 22:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::For me, AN and ANI work like crap on my Samsung Tab 2 10.1 (scrolling through to add edit doesn't work right), but work great on my Samsung S5 smartphone. Loads fast on both. I don't use the Wiki app (blech), just Chrome. I guess your mileage varies. ] | ] | ] 22:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I think this might be becoming a perennial proposal. The purpose here is so that RfC closure, which is a primary means of dispute resolution, get attended to, and so I am with Xeno. ] (]) 22:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't know what your device is, but for editing on my Nexus 5, Chrome works better than Misplaced Pages's official Adroid app. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺ · ] · ]</span> 23:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Shackleton misdoings == | |||
| It is not my purpose to discredit any kind of person, | |||
| but given the unjustified allegations and libel against Captain Robert Falcon Scott over Misplaced Pages (and its bunch of subsequent articles), | |||
| I think anyone dedicated to a remotely balanced account of reality should be aware of this report and how starkly the "Wikipedian" account is limited to the resource of one single person that seems to be a lover of Ernest Shackleton: | |||
| http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/hero-who-rebelled-against-shackleton-is-honoured-with-statue-of-beloved-cat-6166876.html --] (]) 22:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I've removed the huge blob of copyrighted text pasted here multiple times. That being said, I'm going to ] and ask you to elaborate on what actual issue there is here. (For what it's worth, it certainly doesn't belong on this talk page, but someone can point you in the right direction, assuming there is a legitimate issue.) --<font face="Book Antiqua">] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 22:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: What? You're removing truths that editors happily try to be acknowledged by the public and at the same time, you are talking about "good faith"? >ou may take a look at and see what kind of reproaches he is exposed to and if he ever killed a cat by his own?--] (]) 22:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you are still confused, Kinu, you are not alone. I can't tell if this is trolling, clue deficiency, a real problem, who knows. ] | ] | ] 23:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Same issue at ], where I undid the posting of a complete article from The Independent on the talk page for copyright reasons. In that case the poster was {{user|37.230.15.203}}. ] (]) 23:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I've blocked both, seems to be advocating something, quite poorly. Or trolling. Regardless, not here to build an encyclopedia. The IP picked up after the named account was warned. ] | ] | ] 23:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:Sounds good. Thanks. --<font face="Book Antiqua">] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 23:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Where and how to request a Civility board == | |||
| I was reviewing the Administrators' noticeboard and was surprised to become fully conscious of the fact that, under "User conduct," there is no board for Civility! There are Abuse (long-term cases); Article sanctions; Conflict of interest; Contributor copyright; Edit warring & 3RR; Editor restrictions; New pages patrollers; Paid editing; Sockpuppets; Usernames; and Vandalism... but no ''Civility''. | |||
| Considering that civility is one of the five "pillars," this seems a remarkable omission. If NPOV is one of the pillars ''and'' has a board under "Articles and content," civility ought to have its own board, too. Certainly edit warring is an uncivil behavior, and I can see why it has a board, but considering the difficulty Misplaced Pages has attracting and keeping good editors, it seems like we would want to regulate civility as conspicuously and as diligently as NPOV and 3RR. | |||
| Surprised to show up this morning to find two of my edits deleted from ], and then found that for multiple editors (including admins) were deleted spanning a block of 16 hours and multiple sections. Seem's like either an oversized-mop was used, or an accident occurred here. ] ] 16:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Where and how can I go about making a formal request to make this a unique noticeboard area? | |||
| :{{reply|Tiggerjay}} That link is not so useful I'm afraid :) ]'']''] 16:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed, although I'm not sure a better way, since it was literally every page history entry for a 16 hour period, and the date filter would almost be useless since it spanned into today. ] ] 19:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@] as per the section above ], Someone on the oversight team has ] a number of revisions. If it was something that had been there for some time then that will have required a lot of revisions to be covered in the suppression. ] (]) 16:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: I wish we could ] edits so we didn't have to do this, but ]. ] ] 17:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Destined to fail on two counts I'm afraid: a) it involves actual change, and b) it's a good idea. ]'']''] 17:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Third count: for huge pages like ANI it's not technically possible with the software as it currently stands. It is technically possible, albeit a total pain, for smaller pages. ] ] 17:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I saw that one from a few days ago (and other similar instances) but that spanned a several minutes and less than a dozen edits, this was many hours and over a hundred different edits. It was just astonishing to see so much blown away that it must have been a mistake, but I guess that is the only choice when something egregious isn't suppressed right away. Given that way most ANI discussions occur its unfortunate that a more selective revdel cannot be used since individual edits don't frequently span other conversations. ] ] 20:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Editable archives == | |||
| Thanks. | |||
| It seems that the ANI archive pages (e.g. ]) have section edit links. This is not normal on archive pages: is it something special to ANI, or a mistake somewhere? --] 🌹 (]) 19:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| --] (]) 00:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Maybe {{tl|Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} can be taught to emit the flag to inhibit that, iff transcluded onto a "subpage" (or "a subpage containing the string 'archive'")? ] (]) 20:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That wasn't too hard. Which means I probably broke something as a side-effect. Trouts of various sizes welcome as appropriate. ] (]) 16:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, it's suppressed the edit links, so {{ty}} for that. --] 🌹 (]) 21:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Broken code in blue "Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents" box == | |||
| *You are looking for ]. The community voted to shut it down and deal with civility issues at ] and ]. ] | ] | ] 00:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you. As it is late in the day in my neck of the woods, I will read it in more detail tomorrow, but my first comment is, this discussion is nearly two years old. Is there any reason why it couldn't be brought up again? Maybe starting as some kind of poll for users, current and perhaps even retired (if there's no law or policy that says they cannot be contacted), about the quantity and quality of incivility they experience (if any). Thanks again. ] (]) 01:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It would take a discussion at the same place, and you are welcome to contact the previous supporters of the program (I was one of them) but honestly, I don't see it happening. Civility isn't really very enforceable for a number of reasons. See ] for some of the reasons, ie: what is offensive to one group of people isn't to another, so it is often impossible to define what "civil" is. Another is the observation that some of our best content creators can be, well, testy. That is the controversial part. I've never blocked for simple incivility and likely never would because of this. What often happens is that a discussion on civility often gets very incivil itself and can make the situation even worse. Personally, I try to let incivility and even insults just roll off my back, and recommend others do the same when it is possible. ] | ] | ] 01:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I concur to follow up at ]. Although there is no agreement on specific words that are uncivil, there are a few editors known as "good content creators" who are intolerant. In the short run, they benefit Misplaced Pages. In the long run, they may or may not benefit Misplaced Pages, because some of them are clearly over the line (no matter in what Anglophone culture). There should be a better mechanism for addressing habitual incivility. By the way,] is not and cannot be a way to deal with incivility. Since dispute resolution is meant to address content disputes, the dispute resolution volunteers will close a case if it is being complicated by conduct issues. Dispute resolution works best when the editors are willing to work collaboratively but need assistance. ] is not an ideal place for discussing incivility, because extended threads there become uncivil (and because some of the most contentious content creators have entourages who support them, and due to the supermajority nature of ], it becomes difficult to get consensus to sanction them). I agree that a better process is needed for addressing incivility. ] (]) 01:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Dennis Brown}}, I am still studying the Village pump link you gave. I have only just finished going through the first of multiple threads under the section header. After my first pass, I count 98 votes. And some of the comments there, and even here, surprise me. Specifically, that civility isn't enforceable or that there is no agreement on what civility is. But certainly there is agreement about conduct that is uncivil. There are actual policies re: ] and ]. Disruptive editing, on the other hand, is described in a behavioral guideline, and tendentious editing is described in an essay. | |||
| At the bottom of it: | |||
| ::::I would wager that a lot of people who leave Misplaced Pages, especially women who leave, so do because they feel civility is a crumbled pillar. You practically have to call someone a expletive or say something about their mother... No, honestly, I've seen people use that kind of language here with no repercussion. | |||
| <small>Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are ] automatically by ]. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the ] subpage.</small> | |||
| ::::Not to say that there aren't good men on WP - there are. Or that there aren't bad women - there are. But when you have a self-policing group that is at least 85% men, you get what Misplaced Pages is today. | |||
| |- | class="plainlinks" style="border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; background: var(--color-inverted, #fff); text-align: center; font-size: 125%;" | '''''' | |||
| ::::First step, IMO (and I probably will start an honest-to-god discussion somewhere soon, after I've done some more thinking and talking here), is ''not'' to call the civility board the "Wikiquette" board. Right off the bat, we alienate the whole crowd of people who read that and think they have to stick their pinkies in the air when they drink. I saw a lot of talk about a 3O board for conduct, and that ''might'' work. Frankly, I think it ought to be simply the Civility board, and make it clear at the top that it addresses civility policies only. (Make people take disruptive and tendentious editing, and other guideline or essay based conduct) to ANI or ArbCom, because those ''are'' harder to prove.) And if there is concern that there are already too many conduct boards, why not merge some of those? Why have separate COI ''and'' paid advocacy boards? Or separate sockpuppet, username and vandalism boards? | |||
| Pretty sure the "|- | class= " etc. bit isn't supposed to be there. -] <sub>]</sub> 04:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I honestly think that if Misplaced Pages cracked down on harassment and personal attacks, there would be, at first, a rash of short bans/blocks, then a huge improvement in conduct and in content, too. It is ridiculous to condone incivility in some editors because they're somehow too good to lose otherwise. | |||
| :{{ping|The Bushranger}} I think I fixed it. ] (]) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| ::::This is supposed to be a "wiki" (collaborative) "paedia" (body of knowledge). Kill the wiki - and incivility does just that - and the rest will lose its vigor. ] (]) 19:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> to the page ] has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 19#Misplaced Pages:REPORT}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 10:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:30, 23 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrators' noticeboard page. |
|
 |
|
 | To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, several subpages of Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard redirect here. |
 | This is not the page to report problems to administrators, or discuss administrative issues.
This page is for discussion of the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard page (and some of its subpages, including /Incidents).
|
 | This noticeboard has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||
Index
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Significant 100+ edits wiped out from WP:AN
Surprised to show up this morning to find two of my edits deleted from WP:AN, and then found that over 100 edits for multiple editors (including admins) were deleted spanning a block of 16 hours and multiple sections. Seem's like either an oversized-mop was used, or an accident occurred here. TiggerJay (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Tiggerjay: That link is not so useful I'm afraid :) SerialNumber54129 16:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, although I'm not sure a better way, since it was literally every page history entry for a 16 hour period, and the date filter would almost be useless since it spanned into today. TiggerJay (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Tiggerjay as per the section above #Edit summaries wiped out, Someone on the oversight team has suppressed a number of revisions. If it was something that had been there for some time then that will have required a lot of revisions to be covered in the suppression. Nthep (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I wish we could rebase edits so we didn't have to do this, but nobody seems to agree with me. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Destined to fail on two counts I'm afraid: a) it involves actual change, and b) it's a good idea. SerialNumber54129 17:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Third count: for huge pages like ANI it's not technically possible with the software as it currently stands. It is technically possible, albeit a total pain, for smaller pages. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Destined to fail on two counts I'm afraid: a) it involves actual change, and b) it's a good idea. SerialNumber54129 17:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I saw that one from a few days ago (and other similar instances) but that spanned a several minutes and less than a dozen edits, this was many hours and over a hundred different edits. It was just astonishing to see so much blown away that it must have been a mistake, but I guess that is the only choice when something egregious isn't suppressed right away. Given that way most ANI discussions occur its unfortunate that a more selective revdel cannot be used since individual edits don't frequently span other conversations. TiggerJay (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I wish we could rebase edits so we didn't have to do this, but nobody seems to agree with me. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Editable archives
It seems that the ANI archive pages (e.g. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1173) have section edit links. This is not normal on archive pages: is it something special to ANI, or a mistake somewhere? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} can be taught to emit the flag to inhibit that, iff transcluded onto a "subpage" (or "a subpage containing the string 'archive'")? DMacks (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- That wasn't too hard. Which means I probably broke something as a side-effect. Trouts of various sizes welcome as appropriate. DMacks (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it's suppressed the edit links, so
Thank you for that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it's suppressed the edit links, so
- That wasn't too hard. Which means I probably broke something as a side-effect. Trouts of various sizes welcome as appropriate. DMacks (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Broken code in blue "Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents" box
At the bottom of it:
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage.
|- | class="plainlinks" style="border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; background: var(--color-inverted, #fff); text-align: center; font-size: 125%;" | Start a new discussion
Pretty sure the "|- | class= " etc. bit isn't supposed to be there. -The Bushranger One ping only 04:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: I think I fixed it. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
"Misplaced Pages:REPORT" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Misplaced Pages:REPORT to the page Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages only reports what the sources say has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 19 § Misplaced Pages:REPORT until a consensus is reached. 67.209.129.48 (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)