I frequently see threads like this:

Harry is leaving threatening messages on my talk page. Please someone help, --Alice

As the giant red notice says right at the top of the page, you MUST notify any reported user when starting a thread! --Bob

Is this really necessary? If Bob cares so much, why can't he just leave the notification himself, and be done with it? That function is built right into Twinkle! It takes less time than chastising the reporter for the terrible sin of being flustered or confused or hurried or forgetful. Even though it's not the way he intended it, Bob's remark has an air of "...so you're a total screwup and we don't need to bother listening to you. BOOMERANG!".

Now if Alice is making many ANI reports and often forgetting to notify, sure, a polite note on her talk page might not hurt. But I just don't understand jumping down people's throats for a single "offense". </rant> Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Like. I endorse this message. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'd agree. This is particularly true when new editors are concerned; ANI frequent flyers have less excuse, but are also less likely to make such an error. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  You could have at least left me a personalized invitation on my talk page. Dumuzid (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow, excuse the ignorance...where on Twinkle do I find that button? I looked at the instructions, probably am just being an idiot. —valereee (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@valereee: On their talk page, go to the TW tab, then select "TB" → "Noticeboard notification". DanCherek (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

lol...I went to try it out on my own talk and the message that comes up is "Is it really so bad that you're talking back to yourself?" :D Thanks, @DanCherek! —valereee (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

If you report someone to AN/ANI, you have the responsibility to notify them.It's fine if someone wants to volunteer to do your job for you, but IMO chastising the person reminding you of this for not doing your job for you IMO is out of line. North8000 (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with this - not notifying the person you are reporting is incredibly bad form, even if there wasn't a huge notice reminding you to so! GiantSnowman 20:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but when it's someone who hasn't been to ANI before, they may simply not see that one of the eighty gazillion notifications, warnings, instructions, etc. I miss stuff regularly even now. —valereee (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

And remember that you can't easily guess this from the user's edit count or tenure; some people go along merrily creating content or gnoming for years without ever visiting the WP:CESSPIT. Until a troll decides to mess with them for the lulz, that is. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

So you're chastising me for chastising people for chastising people for not notifying. I hope someone chastises you for that. But in all seriousness, I'll break down what I said:

1. They might be confused. You're not supposed to notify people reported to AIV or UAA. At SPI it's optional, but discouraged. I don't think it's "bad form" to not realize which rule applies to which noticeboard.
2. They might be flustered. You know, because they're being harassed or bullied or at least think that they are.
3. They might be hurried. Maybe Real Life(TM) intruded just as they were making the report.
4. They might be forgetful. Maybe y'all are 100% perfect at following this rule. But I'll bet if I dug through your edits I'd find something really important that you forgot some time.

Again, it's not that I think the rule is unimportant. I just don't think it should be used as a "gotcha" clause. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I have seen people being called out for not notifying the other party when they a) made the ANI post a few minutes ago and were in the process of posting the notice, or b) already did but the recipient deleted it from their talk page. –FlyingAce^✈hello 16:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Why was I not notified of this discussion?! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You're so vain, you probably think this thread is about you. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me. I know this is a serious matter & is being treated as such. But, I can't help but get the giggles about it. Indeed laugh out loud, like Woody. OK enough, this may be 'deleted' per WP:FORUM or whatever. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

While I do not exactly object... the description reads "Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III". So why does it archive also sections which have just been inactive for three days and were not marked as being closed in any way? --KnightMove (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@KnightMove: The administrators' noticeboard is set to archive after six days, but the /incidents noticeboard (which sees more movement) is set to archive after three days. –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Moved to WP:AN#Admin_Abuse_of_Alpha_Motor_Corporation_Page (diff)

Primefac (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

“Self promotion on en.wiki by User:Jimbo Wales”, in California time, was opened around 11am, and closed around 9pm. It was emotive, had no formality, and no pretence of representativeness. Maybe it should have been speedy closed as not an “incident”. Maybe such threads should be *required* to pose a formal proposal, and involve notifications, advertising, and minimum discussion time. ANI is a drama forum, and allowing these threads is part of the problem. I propose formal closing rules for ANI threads. Seeing as an apparent ANI consensus may lead to a quick heavy response, some formality is needed to bring it under control. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Some recent discussions of changes to ANI: [1] [2] [3] [4] Levivich 05:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I need someone to talk with about ANI on JKLlamera that I putted in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, cause no one is commenting in my section there. NewManila2000 (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is at SPI, which is probably why no one has commented. SPI kind of takes precedence, as if he is found to be doing something wrong, they will deal with it there. SPI is a slow process, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  It's also been less than an hour since the thread was started, so I'm honestly not really surprised. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, then I will wait for the updates, since I have encountered some of his unusual activities here. I have reported it also to WP:CCI. NewManila2000 (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For the obvious. Thanks for dealing with difficult people and I wish all admins here a great (and socky) 2022. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Part of the AARV discussion (if you don't know, be happy) revolves around making it less toxic than AN/ANI. It makes me wonder whether it would be good to have a parallel discussion about what we could do better at AN/ANI. This is intended to be a preliminary brainstorming/spitballing phase. Just looking for additions to the list here, not really asking for ranking them or thoughts on which are problems and which aren't or how to solve them: Please feel free to add items. At this stage, please don't remove or criticize those items you disagree with.

I think ANI sucks because, in no particular order:

• Humans in conflict tend to get stressed and toxic by the very nature of conflict
• It is natural to get frustrated with people who are clearly, repeatedly wrong, and patience eventually wears thin
• The unstructured free for all nature of the board means no one is enforcing behavioral standards (or doing so very erratically)
• People who don't really know what they're talking about will find this page and start commenting/clerking anyway, which can disrupt/derail a discussion
• Two people in a dispute will come to the board and start arguing with each other, causing the thread to get long enough (or edit conflicts enough) that no one wants to wade in
• People wait too long to bring conflicts here, so by the time they're here, they're generally too complicated to resolve amicably
• People come here too fast, without trying lower stress dispute resolution
• It is difficult to identify and remove people who like to participate in AN/ANI for the enjoyment of drama. i.e. peanut gallery is too big.
• People will pile on in a discussion if it involves someone they are feuding with, or have feuded with in the past
• People will pile on in a discussion to defend a friend, even if that friend is in the wrong this time
• A general tendency of people to form up into tribes, and make the dispute about beating the other tribe, rather than solving the dispute
• The fact that approximately 0% of the people who participate here are trained in dispute resolution
• The boards are susceptible to the Chewbacca defense; it is fairly easy to muddy the waters sufficiently to cause everyone to throw up their hands and say it's too complicated
• A tendency to be too hard on people, relying too much on sanctions/blocks/bans/warnings
• A tendency to give too many chances to people, leading them to be able to cause further disruption, so when it comes back here everyone is more pissed off
• The concern over edit conflicts leads people to post more hastily, before they've thought their response thru.
• Consensus is fickle, so the "community" might decide something one way one day, and another way another day.

I could probably think of more myself if I gave myself more time, but in the mean time, what else do you have? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

As a comparison, I think WP:AE's system of having specific sections for the OP and the person/people they're talking about to comment and to not have them be replying everywhere else in the thread to everyone that responds (or to engage in a long thread arguing with each other) is a good way to at least restrict things from getting out of hand. I also think having a specific format/form of how to set up a thread, along with Diffs of the problem edits/actions is helpful for having things be structured and easily understood. There's so many ANI threads where the person doesn't give Diffs and so you have to figure out what's going on yourself before even being able to comment in the thread. (Sorry if this comment is derailing from what you're going for. I don't have anything to add to your list, you seemed pretty comprehensive there) Silverseren^C 20:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not really "derailing", I was just trying to think about this in baby steps. That's a good discussion to have. Personally, I think it might be cleaner if we have it after this one, but I'm not God Emperor of WP so I'm not saying I have a right to make you wait. I already see there are going to be edit conflicts, so I think I won't reply further for a while and just see what happens. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I lied, one comment before I forget: you've already found something to add to the list: allowing reports without diffs to proceed, rather than somehow put them on pause until diffs are provided (paraphrasing you). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like (and I agree with) other comments that Diffs are both good and bad. Without them, there is almost no context for discussion of someone's actions. But it is indeed a problem that Diffs themselves are often cherry-picked and not representative of the issue at hand, since the reporter will usually be trying to represent themselves in the best light and so won't include diffs that showcase their own actions. Silverseren^C 20:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• (ec) Because ANI does not have instruments, or at least these instruments are very rarely used, to put an episode into a context. If diffs are there, and certainly if multiple diffs are there, everybody would say "how horrible" and jump into conclusions - block, topic-ban, ban, drage to ArbCom for desysop. Nobody would try to investigate what these diffs mean, what is the context, what else the user is doing ect. And whatever the outcome is it is always stress and a huge loss of time for the side which is being dragged. Actually, in most cases the context is needed to take any decision at all, and nobody is willing to invest their time to look at it, and this is why in most cases ANI cases get archived without conclusions, or people just do not go here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Some people see a clear problem, present what they see as clear evidence, and it attracts little or no attention or action, leading to a spiral of anger and greater conflict down the line.
• The participants in the discussions are self-selected, leading to all sorts of biases, stonewalling, or dogpiling. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Four things that come to mind:

• Difficulties in handling disputes where both sides are acting improperly. Sometimes I see "the pot being black makes the kettle white"-type defences rolled out. That's an excellent way to, at best, keeping a problem going, or at worst, sustaining an escalation sequence. The reverse, where reacting to a provocation is being handled as the same or worse than the provocation, is also an issue.
• I think I am cribbing from an arbitrator, but has anyone ever researched which dispute resolution methods/restrictions/sanctions work and which don't?
• An extreme reliance on "diffs" and the neglect of cherrypicking hazards that this offers.
• Probably more a problem with Arbcom than AN(I) but I am not so sure that the adversarial model is a good way to handle disputes since it by default frames any dispute as an us-vs-them thing.

That's it from meJo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If an editor finds ANI too stressfull? stay away from it. If an editor has been reported at ANI? respond very little or don't respond at all, to any pro-block or pro-ban posts (unless pinged). Also, how a reported editor gets treated at ANI, depends on whether or not he or she has peeved off editors in the past & how many editors. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Does not work, I tried once, and then just everybody listened to my opponent and was fully convinced that my behavior was inappropriate. People are still convinced, despite a number of very high-profile events which were of direct relevance and happened after that.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

In last 3 months, there's been 2 or 3 editors brought to this board. I didn't like those editors & they didn't like me, due to past content disputes. That being said, I avoided their ANI report & neither supported or opposed calls for their blocks/bans. Perhaps, the ability to restrain oneself from 'twisting the dagger', will help at this board. Who knows. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Lots of factors, no doubt, but Floq’s third bullet (the unstructured free for all nature of the board means no one is enforcing behavioral standards (or doing so very erratically) is the key one for me. There’s less decorum, restraint, AGF, or civility at ANI than any article talk page or pretty much any other page. Coupled with that there’s no agreed structure on how to present a complaint, how to respond or how to contribute. Some of that is inevitable - many of the ‘normal’ behavioural policies don’t necessarily transfer well to a forum like ANI. But a set of specific behavioural guidelines tailored to ANI plus a clearer structure on how to initiate and participate in a thread would make a big difference. Finding consensus for the content of all that is easier said than done, of course. DeCausa (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Concur strongly with this. There's a ton of sniping and other behavioral problems in threads. PAs are ignored, accusations without evidence are tolerated. It's difficult to deal with though, since there's not much of a community consensus on dealing with insults and such. Blocking for personal attacks will just lead to more threads and more drama. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Structure may make a discussion harder to bludgeon and easier to reach a concrete outcome, but I’m not convinced it reduces the temperature so much. Look at WP:ARC right now, for example, or the average WP:AE case that doesn’t involve a brand new editor.
  This board is usually fine. It fails more often when it involves disputes with experienced users. Discussions can end up sprawling. Sometimes discussions show a clear issue and still end up with no action, which is irritating too (XRV, as with DRV and usually AE, guarantees there will be a close to the discussion). But for the most part I don’t think AN(I)’s problems are fixable. These are catch-all venues and some of the issues are going to be toxic regardless of where they’re hosted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I think things like TheresNoTime’s status button were good changes though. At least on the front of ensuring discussions get closed and focusing energy away from cases that clearly don’t need further comment or action. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• The main problem in my opinion is there not being any structure to reports. Having separate sections for different users is crucial as, without it, back-and-forth bickering is almost guaranteed. Also a word limit for the report (and possibly for replies) like on WP:AE could help stop text walls that eventually get archived with no results. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 21:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Regarding back-and-forth bickering, I've often wanted the ability to block both bickering users from the section for a short period of time, like a few hours (or up to 12 or 24). Wouldn't be too hard to set up, but I'm too lazy to get community consensus for such a thing (would be happy if someone else did, though; I'll help). Enterprisey (talk!) 22:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'd support short page blocks on a situation like that, to prevent the thread from sinking itself and getting too long for anyone to read. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Enterprisey, there's a perfect test case at WP:ANI#MojaveSummit equates demanding evidence with harassment. Go for it, I got your back! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I was just reading that thread. I'm not done reading the thread, though, and I'd have to be sure such an action makes sense. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Eh, done. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I tried reading it, but it was growing too fast. Hopefully your gentle prod works. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Perhaps the first step would be to prominently place a guide to engaging at ANI, and if such a guide doesn't already exist for an experienced contributor to write one? I don't think we need to create new rules for such discussions until we have at least tried explaining to editors the best way to write ANI reports, and the best way to respond to ANI reports. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  If people followed guides we wouldn't need ANI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've written before about the problems with consensus and unmoderated discussions, as well as how determining consensus requires patience. One idea I had to mitigate some of these issues is a round-robin discussion phase. In brief, each participant gets an opportunity to make a statement before anyone can go again. It's a commonly-used technique in organizations to help sort out disputes. It can help avoid rapid escalation of contentious responses, and provide greater opportunity for moderating opinions to be expressed. isaacl (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I just made a bold proposal here, here. What do you think about it? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Adverse selection. Most calm, reasonable editos choose to ignore this page. The most pugnacious editors get summoned here, the page ends up on their watchlist, and they become a semi-permanent busybody because these threads generate frisson. Jehochman ^Talk 02:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Possible solution: make each incident a subpage so that when it ends, the participants don’t see it again on their watchlist. Jehochman ^Talk 02:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

    Yes. Yes. This is a definite big advantage of one case subpages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Our dispute resolutions processes in general, don't work. The most fundamental problem is that we are dealing with three dimensional problems in a two dimensional format. We as human beings depend on body language tone to make decisions. If we do away with those attributes we are handicapped. Unless and until we acknowledge that most fundamental weakness in our processes we will have hard time coming to correct decisions and of creating an environment that dictates civility, kindness, fairness, truthfulness, honesty and on. Very pie in the sky, I know. Everything I read here has been discussed before-pertaining to AN/ANI, to arbitrations, to RfAs....Most "solutions" have been bandaids that don't remedy the problems much in part because we aren't aware of or ignore that most fundamental issue I mentioned above.

Thoughts.

All diffs are cherry-picked. They are all selected to make a point.

Context is critical but context requires time. A diff does not context make. Reading the discussion and actions around a diff first to assess the validity of the diff and second to really understand what has occurred takes a lot of time. In my experience very few editors/admins/arbs have or take the time to properly investigate the context of a diff and the argument its supports. Many many times I have seen diff used that had nothing do with the situation that we either mistakenly or knowingly used to implicate someone. Those kinds of mistakes create anger and hurt. Angry hurt editors in a dispute resolution situation may not contribute to peaceful negotiations.

(Issacl's suggestion above seems a good one. It removes the general sense of a mud fight in that it allows people to take their time, think about what they are writing, cool off if angry.)

Our open door, to anyone who comes along, policy in our dispute resolution situation is a big problem. If we want to limit the amount of chatter in any dispute resolution board, limit the participants. Wikipedia has a mammoth membership. Can we continue to accommodate any and every editor in a dispute resolution process? How does doing so help the dispute?

As said above, our boards are not patrolled for incivility. If every incivility was met with a removal and if we all understood the importance of that removal maybe editors would learn to control their hurt anger and so on. Of course where do we get the editors to patrol the boards? Littleolive oil (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Some kind of hierarchy is the basic approach adopted by most organizations, including online communities. An empowered group of decision makers can make decisions more efficiently, but of course there are drawbacks, and there are many English Wikipedia editors wary of those shortcomings. isaacl (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• There are 117,000 regular editors on the English Wikipedia, which is the population of a mid-size town. There's nothing wrong with ANI: it's just how human communities are at this scale. In fact, we should thank the Lord every day that the situation is not worse. JBchrch talk 23:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Towns make decisions through a hierarchy, with some elected and some appointed, and this is used to manage the many interpersonal conflicts and disagreements that inevitably arise in any sizeable group. isaacl (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Just like Wikipedia, then! I guess my point would be, to continue on this metaphor, that it would be strange to complain that there's a "toxic atmosphere" at the district court. JBchrch talk 11:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  English Wikipedia tries to make all decisions through consensus amongst self-selected participants, and mostly unmoderated discussion. The operation of the incidents noticeboard is not like a district court. isaacl (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's a lot more like an open town meeting, only there's no moderator or select board. For the most part, people only show up for the issues they care about, which leads to a lack of uninvolved editors looking at things objectively. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Decisions through consensus amongst self-selected participants is not a good description of most of ANI's business, which is made of unilateral and uncontroversial admin blocks (hierarchical decisions). More complex disputes involve more people and more discourse by involved and uninvolved parties, but—crucially—they cannot reach a result that is inconsistent with policy and the implementation of their outcome depends on the goodwill of admins (elected hierarchy). So it's closer to a district court than you think. But all of this is really besides my initial point, which is that ANI itself is working pretty well for a page dedicated to conflicts between 100,000 human beings. JBchrch talk 16:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Reviews of blocks (which is what happens at the incidents noticeboard) is not done via a hierarchy, but through a consensus discussion with anyone who decides to weigh in. My point is that most communities use other means than consensus in order to make decisions more efficiently: it saves a lot of time (which also reduces the opportunity for escalating contentiousness) and makes final (at least for a period of time) decisions that allows people to make future plans more effectively. isaacl (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Reviews of blocks (which is what happens at the incidents noticeboard) I'm not sure what you are talking about. Are you talking about retrospective reviews of blocks that have been enacted by admins? No such thing appears to be taking place regularly. JBchrch talk 21:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, I misunderstood your statement that most of ANI's business is unilateral and uncontroversial admin blocks. In many cases (though not all), reports at the incidents noticeboard result in blocks imposed by admins, but by English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions, the reports and the results are subject to discussion by anyone. So disputes where there are multiple supporters of opposing viewpoints do not get settled definitively by an admin's actions. By design, English Wikipedia allows issues to be revisited as long as people are willing to discuss them (and in such a large commuity, some disputes always have people willing to discuss them). isaacl (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't disagree with this, and of course the comparison to a district court has some pretty evident limits. Although I have not been here long enough to have an encyclopedic knowledge of all ANI threads, I remember seeing a dispute sometimes last year (IIRC) where admins did not implement a "visible consensus" on policy grounds. I tried to search for it but couldn't find it. Something involving the cyclones community, maybe? JBchrch talk 00:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  And, to be fair, we have no murders. We're doing reasonably well for a bustling city the size of Athens, Georgia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Its full of admins. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia inevitably has some rough stuff to deal with, plus weaknesses and errors in it's policies make certain areas un-resolvable toxic battlegrounds. ANI is just one of the places where the worst of that needs to go to. And to put a point on it with an example, it's not that we need to add to WP:Civility, it's to deal with experienced wiki-warriors who know how to weaponize WP:Civility to conduct warfare. North8000 (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion about a disruptive user and possible socks has been archived without closing and consequences, although many users raised concerns, suggestions topic bans, blocks, and warnings. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=1070363455&oldid=1070358151 "Account on a mission (moved from COI)".

Can someone explain how this happened? Removing and archiving an ongoing ANI report is rather strange.176.97.70.38 (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Per the top of WP:ANI: Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. The general reasoning being the conversation is stale, and there was presumably no consensus for action.—Bagumba (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, all. Following this closure, a challenge to it was posted up. After a request to close the challenge was submitted under the admin section, a non-admin editor decided to reverse the original closure. (I was the closer.) I do not intend to engage in any new discussion on the subject itself, i.e. about portals on the Main Page, or the merits of the closing. I ask if this specific decision to nullify the original closure is legitimate. Incidentally, the non-admin editor stated he's an "ex-admin" who is "familiar with the job" but I do not think administrative authorities are inheritable. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

As I said above, any admin is welcome to review the matter and modify the close. Unfortunately this discussion sat around for a very long time with no admin caring enough to get involved. I also went and asked a specific admin for help, but the result was a quick review and general, “your close looks fine.” Please go find an admin to deal with this if you can. Skills are one thing. Titles are another. Assuming administrators are more competent than editors is an appeal to authority. If you see any flaws in my logic or evidence, please point them out. Jehochman ^Talk 11:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Jehochman. As I said, it is not my intention to comment any further on my original closure or the content of your decision to re-open it. All I seek here to learn is whether your reversal was formally legitimate. A request to close down the challenge to my closure was posted under the Admin Discussions section of WP:CR, yet it was a non-admin, you, who closed it down. I'm not "appealing to authority"; if anything, one could say that your statement of having being an admin in the past and thus you're "familiar with the job" shows exactly such a stance. Otherwise, why bring forth such a justification in the first place, if your intervention was bona fide legitimate? And the fact that you asked an admin to look into the matter shows you implicitly accept this was a matter for an admin to take up. As to your dismissal ("a quick review") of an admin's input, in which they already commented in agreement with my original closure, I guess it's up to them to comment, if they so desire. -The Gnome (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

We need an uninvolved admin in any event because I can’t edit the main page. They will either affirm and edit, or reverse. My closure merely serves to give whoever comes along a bit of reassurance, given that I’m an editor of long standing and considerable experience. Jehochman ^Talk 18:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Precisely what should have happened: An uninvolved admin taking care of it, either way. No need for "reassurances". -The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I think admins do need reassurance because all too often they get attacked for making any sort of controversial decision. It’s generally not worth the stress to get involved. And here we are, in need of some help, and still the admin corps doesn’t care to get involved. Jehochman ^Talk 12:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Justifying your upending of the closure on the basis of "attacks" against administrators that happen "all too often" certainly does not carry much water. What are we supposed to be doing, acting to protect against hypotheticals? The RfC itself quite evidently, and unexpectedly, provoked strong reactions from all sides, so we better be moving along carefully. -The Gnome (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• A non-admin closing the discussion is more of a NBD technical objection. I'm more concerned about the fact that as written, the close appears to be an attempt at dispute resolution "in a way that will be satisfactory to most editors". That's not the point of a close challenge, which is simply to review whether the consensus was reviewed in a fair and reasonable manner, and that there were no procedural irregularities. I certainly don't see a consensus that the reading of consensus was illegitimate, and indeed that point would be hard to argue given how thorough the closer was. However, a procedural irregularity was brought to light, which was that the discussion in question was not an RfC that was advertised to the community. Given that, I simply don't see how, even if you reinterpret the close here, it can or should be actioned. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 13:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  Go ahead and close it that way if that's what you think it should be. Then we can move things along. The 47 editors who spent their time commenting will regrettably be told that we need to do it all again because somebody didn't properly punch and spindle the paperwork. Whether to have portal links on the main page is purely an opinion thing. There is no right answer based on policy. It's a design question based on values, so any result is necessarily some sort of interpolation (or compromise) that is designed to reflect the totality of the comments received. You'll notice that I previously undid my close and moved my comment to the bottom in hopes of moving things along. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Swarm, I’ve now stepped back from this whole conversation, but there was no procedural irregularity: this was an informal discussion that snowballed into a CENT-listed poll. It would have been preferable to have an RFC, yes, but as you know there is no set procedure for proposing changes to the main page. Anyway, I support this discussion receiving proper attention and closure by one or several uninvolved admins, if necessary with nudges by non- and former admins. But I am aware that the level of stress and frustration generated by this discussion makes that highly unlikely at this stage. JBchrch talk 15:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• I was pinged here, but I'm not entirely sure why. I did comment at WP:CR that I was vocally not going to close a discussion which had been on a talk-archive page for a month, but am otherwise not involved. I'm certainly not going to close (or tell somebody to close) a discussion where there is already a "why is a non-admin closing this" complaint. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal: if you want to discuss my comments regarding "do archived discussions need to be closed", do it here. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  I don't fully understand the context of this discussion, but I will state that a discussion being archived should not be sufficient reason to let it go unclosed, particularly since when a discussion is archived is not consistent; even if the consensus is "no consensus", that should be formally assessed. BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. We need a result. Do we have any admins lurking on this page? Jehochman ^Talk 02:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Requests for closure should be made at WP:ANRFC. -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Wait, wait, that's where I found the thing originally and had to dig it out of the archive. Anyhow, the honorable Mackensen has just closed the thread. We are done here. Should anybody want to proceed with a discussion of portals, please start a proper RFC with all the formalities. Jehochman ^Talk 02:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  I think the best thing to do is to just open another proper "remove all portals from the main page" RFC which asks that flat question and nothing else. Based on the discussion in this RFC it is extremely difficult to see it coming to any conclusion other than removing them. This discussion has dragged on endlessly, but at the end of the day most discussions have been lopsided towards removals - a numerical 30-to-17 result seems extremely unlikely to change due to wider discussion, especially since portals are by their nature something that has intense support from a small number of people who are heavily invested in them (ie. my expectation is that the more attention an RFC gets, the more heavily it swings against them.) Since the close here was purely on procedural reasons there is no reason to hesitate before opening a proper RFC. I do admit that I am a bit baffled by Gnome's "the rationales for removing portals break down into four groups, and people can't agree on why, therefore no consensus" reasoning - RFCs of this nature are about achieving consensus for a result and don't depend on people's reasoning being in agreement - but that can be avoided by not stating a specific reason in the RFC description and just having a hard, unambiguous "portals on the pain page Y/N" RFC, which I think will almost certainly return a clear no. --Aquillion (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  I wholeheartedly support your proposal, Aquillion, as it happens. The original discussion-cum-RfC suffered from exactly the confusion you're referring to, what with the "Remove" opinions suggesting various courses forward (from total elimination to various other placements in the Main Page). The issue is something that needs to be decided in steps, as was pointed out in the original, much maligned closing, and the steps are far from being "bureaucratic" or "complex." But, yes, let's move forward. -The Gnome (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Go for it! Jehochman ^Talk 11:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter left a note to attempt to prevent the archiving of the discussion of my unblock, but it still got archived anyway. The section should be restored. JsfasdF252 (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@JsfasdF252: Ymblanter's comment postponed the archival, but there were no further replies and so it got archived by the bot. I've unarchived it. Isabelle ^🔔 03:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The Tips of Amph

i have no idea if he’s an admin, but he threatened to remove me from editing for capitalizing a single word? in the War In Donbas, the title is capitalized so why wouldn’t it be? if it’s not supposed to be i don’t mind. but come on, is that for real? i’m trying to help and make tedious edits others wouldn’t wanna do, and i’m being threatened to removed for changing as little as a single word? not even a word, a letter. absolutely mind blowing Hunterreeeer (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Warning templates to users have an escalation scale. The template Tips used was "final warning", because you'd already received previous level warnings for edits on other articles. It would help if you examine the edits you've made that other editors have reverted and figure out what you're doing that isn't constructive. (Btw, no, "war" should not have been capitalized.) Schazjmd (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Your post here shows that you have a bit if a problem with capitalisation. But I would agree that that particular edit was not vandalism, but simply misguided. All article titles start with a capital letter, but that doesn't mean that the phrase has to take a capital letter mid-sentence. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

no, i don’t have a problem with capitalization, i’m just on my phone atm ;) and about the capitalization, it is actually a title “War in Donbas”, and generally should be capitalized, no idea how you think otherwise but that’s okay, as i said the revert doesn’t bother me, but that i just randomly wake up and find that it’s somehow warning worthy. and i would love to discuss these edits with people in the talk pages, so maybe if they have a problem with the edit they can add one to my talk page so we can discuss! not leave a warning :) Hunterreeeer (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC) i also wanted to add on that numerous pages have the second capitalized as it is the title of the war, they have it as the Boer War not Boer war and Korean War not Korean war, go look, why is this one an exception, and like i said why was i being warned for it, would you not want all pages generally fitting the same format, anyway i just ask that people don’t mindlessly throw warnings at me, and instead try discussing so i don’t have to go do this to try and make sure my account doesn’t get removed for a stupid reason like this. Hunterreeeer (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The rules for capitalization on Wikipedia aren't simple. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Schazjmd (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

literally just want my warning removed for such a little change, one singular letter, one.single.letter puts my wiki account in possibility of being removed/blocked. imagine changing a single letter in a bolded title and getting warned and told you’re vandalizing wikipedia and being a disruptive editor. i just noticed other pages had it, and wanted to help make a quick edit to make sure all relatively looked the same, sorry if i was wrong for doing that. but you have to admit this is all a little ridiculous. Hunterreeeer (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Sahaib3005

no idea if he’s an admin either. but threatening to remove me for a legit edit? it showcased the charting of Jake Paul in the rap category, it’s not as significant as the RB/HH one but it’s an official chart on billboard, and Jake Paul also isn’t a famous rapper as much as we all like to think, so smaller charting categories would make sense, they also have UK Indie on there and SCO which would be considered smaller charting categories correct? as a majority of other pages don’t feature them. nevertheless, that’s not the frustrating part, it’s the fact that they just warned i’d be removed without even asking why i made the edit? even though it’s a legit edit that other pages have. I don’t understand how you can just openly threaten to remove someone so quickly without having a conversation with them to ask why they made the edit, or they can just simply undo it and that’s that. And don’t say it’s tedious to do so, as what else is there to do, apart from make, change, edit, and undo pages. the wikipedia admin/upper levels need to be way more efficient and actually talk to people rather than just jumping, especially over something that can be considered a legit edit. there is so many other people making stupid, hate directed edits where his energy could be directed. anyway sorry for the long rant but i think it’s ridiculous. would love to talk about the two reports more. Hunterreeeer (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I can see that you haven't engaged in discussion on any article's Talk page. Perhaps start a discussion on one about a change you tried to make and find out why other editors objected to it? Schazjmd (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

confused on if you read it or not? that’s what i’m trying to say, i want to discuss these things and come to conclusions with editors, not just get thrown a warning. Hunterreeeer (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterreeeer (talk • contribs) 22:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Choose one of the articles where your edit was challenged and start a discussion on that article's talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

and if i were to do this, would it bring the possibility of my warning being removed? you aren’t really helping the problem and rather just making a suggestion for next time or future reference. i don’t have a problem with them reverting the edit, i have a problem with being warned for it, where it was legitimate. i’m always happy to discuss with editors, but perhaps other editors shouldn’t just throw warnings at people without a discussion first? wouldn’t you agree ? Hunterreeeer (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You can blank those warnings from your talk page whenever you want. The problem is that you're getting warnings from other editors, don't understand why, and haven't started any discussions on the articles to learn WHY they think your edits are not constructive. I'm not going to try to guess what objections the other editors had; I'm trying to explain to you how to find out. Schazjmd (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

okay thank you, i totally understand what you’re saying, will do! but i would also argue that if they have a problem and find it somewhat warning worthy to ask why i made the edit, or what my thought process was on it, rather than just putting a warning, that’s all. obviously i understand there is a lot of vandalism and what not on wikipedia so it’s not always ideal to discuss with every edit though :) anyways, thank you for your time, i very much appreciate it :)) Hunterreeeer (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

moving to WP:ANI#Floquenbeam. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

​ There should be a discussion opened up about my unblock request for the Wikipedia namespace. JsfasdF252 (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Sandbox for user warnings has been an editor since 2008 and I can without a doubt say they're one of the most disruptive editors I have ever encountered. Merely looking at their talk page shows nearly 10,000 warnings for disruptive behaviour [12] and not a single response from them to any of those warnings addressing the behaviour leading to them. [13] I have never seen an editor stoop to this level of WP:IDHT before. They should know better, given they've been blocked several times before [14] to the point they're a WP:UNBLOCKABLE.
I think it's time that we as a community finally say that we've had enough and ban this person for refusal to get the WP:POINT. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 14:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Poll

• Strong Neutral I don't really have much of an opinion on what I just said. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 14:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Andrewgprout is reverting edits from Chandigarh - Vistara operates UK707 using A321N IXC-DEL-CCU with same aircraft, same flight number and pax does not disembark from plane. I have made attempt to chat with him on his chat page and he didn’t cared about and still reverted the edits and in the past he has got several warning for edits. I want to report this user. I dont know how I can. Admins please help and look into this matter. 649pardeep (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki User Khurramrajput.rs completely vandalized article Li Xiting. He even inserted a picture (probably of himself) in the infobox. This is insane, please ban him immediately. Thank you.

Evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Khurramrajput.rs

2001:8003:9008:1301:991B:72F0:BBD7:2F40 (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done - blocked by User:Canterbury Tail ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 12:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Muthukumarachary (talk · contribs) adds original research to a particular again and again. I have given message to talk page, but it seems the user needs action from admin. --AntanO 17:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Both of you are edit warring, which could get both of you blocked. This is NOT the page to report this (see the big notice at the top of the page). You could have reported this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit_warring, but you are just as guilty of edit-warring as Muthukumarachary. - Donald Albury 21:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: Do you have any idea that what I did by removing bad edit and report here? --AntanO 21:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This was the wrong page to report a problem. The notice at the top of this page tells you where you can report a problem. You were also edit-warring, which is not acceptable. It is also a requirement on pages where you report problems that you notify the user you are reporting on their talk page. I did find that the material Muthukumarachary added to that article had been copied from a website, and I have revdeled it, and warned Muthukumarachary to not add unsourced material or copyrighted material to Wikipedia. If Muthukumarachary adds that material again, do not revert them, but instead report them to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. - Donald Albury 21:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Before User:49.149.134.117 was being blocked earlier today, the IP user used a bad word against me in the talk page of the latter, due to his anger because some of his unconstructive edits were reverted. The link below supports my report. [15]

I moved that the talk page access of the IP user be removed until further notice.

I believe that no Wikipedia user is dumb because we, as humans, can think and do what we want but we must observe respect to others too and accept the fact that our edits can be revised for some many reasons. Thanks. NewManila2000 (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The blocking policy states, [E]diting of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of their user talk page, or when the user has engaged in serious threats, accusations or outing which needs to be prevented from reoccurring. As the IP has not edited the talk page since being blocked, policy does not support removing talk page access. - Donald Albury 17:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Lowercase sigmabot III seems to have stopped archiving ANI, I can't seem to figure out why. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Galobtter I've just fixed this. The issue is the section "User Julian Alden and SaucySoup posting link to a possibly phishing site" which contained a link to a phishing site that has since been added to the spam blacklist. The archiving bot was therefore being disallowed by the spam blacklist when trying to save the messages to the archive. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi I made series of edit on the page "List of best selling fiction authors" with sufficient evidence similar, very similar to the ones provided for in references. However I had the most unreasonable assumption that there was soap blocking and advertisement. It's wrong and I want the edit locked so it wouldn't be taken down again. Femi Vivi Girl (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a matter for WP:AN. This is a content dispute and can be handled on the talk page and if further action is needed, at WP:RPP PRAXIDICAE💕 13:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, it is perhaps AN material as this is an editor trying to claim that a 22 year old writer with very few Google hits[16] and just a single Google News hit[17] somehow has sold more than 1 billion books, making them the third best selling author ever. They tried to use that utterly unreliable GNews source[18] ("The anticipated release of her Audio book in the United States already registering a pre order for 12 million copies. ", sic!) to support her claims, which shows at best a total lack of critical skills necessary for editing. Fram (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

What on earth is infodailyng.com? It has the appearance of a legit news site, but the citation, written just 1 day ago, attributed to "Editor", reads In light of being officially recognised on Wikipedia as the third most sold author by Wikipedia editors. Femi Vivi Girl made their first edit attempt on June 1st, then the curiously-timed article appears on June 2nd. ValarianB (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Check their about page: We are ready to partner with you in growing your business. We are professionals in the media industry and are poised in bringing our experience and training in the media to growing your business. Their terms of use page is blank, and they steal stories from other sources. Looks like a scam to sneak paid articles into what looks like a news site. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

There's also this gem on their disclaimer: Info Daily does not routinely moderate, screen, or edit content contributed by readers. The Site and any information therein is provided without warranty of any kind, including the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for use of a particular purpose, accuracy, or non-infringement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It's quite clear that the OP is simply hitting every corner of the internet trying to advertise their non-notable book with outlandish claims. If you search you'll find every single hit has the exact same wording for the book, including those being used as references. It's a non-notable author hitting every site they can think of to promote a book. Actually the only thing I'm trying to figure is does the book actually exist, or is this entirely a large scale, but not particularly elaborate, hoax. Canterbury Tail talk 16:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters what procedure is followed. Any will obviously end with the author not being in the list, the list not being protected (at least for this reason) and the OP being blocked for blatant spam. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Ali Mansour is a professional basketball player plays for Lebanon national team, and when I tried to create a draft it says that this name is restricted by admins, can I get help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by بندر الرواشدة (talk • contribs) 23:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the previous problematic creations were for an actor, not a basketball player. —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

It was protected because there was a mercenary farm trying to force an article about the actor to exist; they'd previously tried to hijack the redirect to the same ends (hence why it's protected). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Not just protected; we ended up having to blacklist anything similar to the name.

@بندر الرواشدة: Create it in a user sandbox (like User:بندر الرواشدة/sandbox), notify me on my my talk page, and - unless this is somehow the same Egyptian actor who was causing us so much grief before - and I'll move it to draft for you. —Cryptic 00:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

As you can see in the image, the "Open tasks" section link overlaps with archives navbox and is displayed vertically in mobile web view. WP:ANI which has a similar setup does not have this problem. What can be the reason for this? ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this is because of the "Centralized discussion". Let me add a {{clear}} template and see how it goes. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ, done and fixed. What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Cent template and archive navbox are displayed inside "Open tasks" section now, I don't think that's desirable. That section is not where someone would expect an archive box to be present in. Sections are collapsed by default, so most people wouldn't know it is there. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This is rather tough, because during my test, both boxes cause the section names to go vertical. I think someone else has a better idea though. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Namaste, Kindly note that, Govind Dholakia is well known diamantaire from Gujarat. He is a leading philanthropist from Surat We are not sure who made earlier pages of him on wikipedia . and due to their mistakes page got deleted and restricted. Please remove restriction from title Govind Dholakia and help us to revive page we assure you that we will follow guidelines of Wikipedia content rules and regulations and given direction. atleast transfer it to draft space so we can prove that we don't want to present any promotional content we want to say what is right and proven facts.BRakshit23 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to create a draft through the Articles for creation process using the Article wizard. This will allow you to submit the draft for review, which if found to be acceptable can be published to the article space you have listed. Primefac (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Primefac.

Thanks for your words i have tired it a bit as per the guidance shared here on wiki talk pages. please refer to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Govind_Dholakia and allow this article to float. Provide your valuable inputs on same. Thanks. Brakshit23 (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, a little over the top. 10-15 years ago, that was more common and no one thought so much about it. I wouldn't sanction him for a singular incident (the same as I would treat any editor), just remind him that's a bit much and should be struck, and hopefully not repeated. I don't think a single instance is such a violation of WP:ADMINACCT to draw sanction either, but it is enough to remind them that it's frowned on. The editor he said that to kind of earned it [19] , however, so it's hard to feel sorry for the "victim". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Non-administrator comment) As someone who received a tban from ANI for (among other things) 'bold' collapsing/hatting as a new editor I do not believe encouraging the hatting of threads to be beneficial. I fail to see how the toxicity benefits (if they exist) outweigh the cost of encouraging editors to be bold in the most chaotic of noticeboards. Newbies (like past me) would not understand the unspoken expectations of threads, experienced editors would not change their behaviour, and I'm not an admin so I can't speak for what benefit they would receive from this proposal. ANI, if anything, needs more structure, more explicit expectations and less chaos. I agree in spirit with the harder approach on unproductive comments but so do all of us. Easy to say, hard to do well. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 13:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::I have to note that though little of what User:Barkeep49 normally says commands any respect from myself, in this case I must make an exception, and commend his comments to readers here. -Roxy the English speaking dog 16:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Support comments by Barkeep49. -Roxy the dog with opposable thumbs 21:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, too late. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Some of what it needs simply will not lend itself to legislative or procedural fixes. It often just comes down to the willingness of other editors or admins to say "that's not helpful" – and putting it in that style of de-escalating terms works better than saying "stop being an asshole". (Roxy, my good friend, strike that comment as some wise folks have already told you on your talk page that you should.)

As it happens (based in part on my own recent experiences at AN, though it applies just as well to ANI) there is an absolutely brilliant essay about this, or there will be, as soon as I get around to writing it. If this thread does not get archived first, I'll post a link here. And if anyone wants me to ping them about it, please let me know. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I absolutely want to see your essay, so you at least have my support :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

To repeat some of what I said in the earlier discussion: one idea I had was to have a a round-robin discussion phase. In brief, each participant gets an opportunity to make a statement before anyone can go again. It's a commonly-used technique in organizations to help sort out disputes. It's not a magic fix, but it can help avoid rapid escalation of contentious responses, and provide greater opportunity for moderating opinions to be expressed. (I've already written my brilliant essays on the problems with consensus and unmoderated discussions; links to them can be found in the previous discussion.) isaacl (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

One way to implement this technique is to give everyone a little section to make an opening statement in, in clear language, about the dispute. Andre🚐 04:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

My proposal goes beyond opening statements, though. One way to have round-robin discussion is to have subheadings for each round, below which each person can make one statement. There would have to be a moderator who decides on when to start the next round. There are, of course, situations where round-robin discussion isn't a good fit, such as a matter requiring a rapid response. isaacl (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe you're looking at this the wrong way. Over time, the Wikipedia community has a growing problem of toxicity; it tends to concentrate in certain locations, such as ANI, AFD and RFA. And any user who invests a significant amount of time in dealing with it will eventually either burn out and leave, or become toxic themselves. 93.172.250.2 (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I think most behavioural issues are triggered by content disputes, and I've spoken elsewhere of the need to have improved content-dispute resolution mechanisms that provide incentive for collaborative behaviour and discourage poor behaviour. isaacl (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

This is how MedCom didn't work. :) IznoPublic (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The mediation committee had numerous formal rules which required the co-operation of all participants. Round-robin discussion can be used by itself to help everyone be heard. isaacl (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, one of the biggest problems with MedCom was that we needed to get everyone to participate who was involved in a dispute. And MedCom was to try to resolve content disputes, not behavioral disputes. There were times when we did make good progress in resolving content disputes, coming to a good compromise and a consensus in MedCom. I do think there might be a time and a place to try what isaacl is suggesting. Andre🚐 16:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• One proposal I'd like to throw out: create strict limitations on discussion headers. It's a small thing, but a page full of headers like the current A case of lusophobia by user "TompaDompa" and User 103.161.57.249 is making disruptive edits, making personal attacks on me looks accusatory and contentious from even the thousand-foot view. Limit headers in cases like these to something like Dispute with user "TompaDompa" and Dispute with 103.161.57.249. BD2412 T 06:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  This sounds like a good way to ensure we eventually get headings that are as funny as United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins. Ljleppan (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think that the topic header should simply be the user in question and trim out the rest. For instance, "CactiStaccingCrane has a battleground behavior" header should be trimmed down to just "CactiStaccingCrane". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Or just 'Battleground behaviour'. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Should I boldly convert headings? It's a pretty sound and obvious proposal to me. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  @BD2412 I can't find it but somewhere we say that section headings need to be NPOV or not attack people or something like that. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) How would this be enforced/recommended? I am in favor of a small/marginal proposal along these lines. Headings for complex cases might be harder to write guidance for, but something like "for complex disputes you are asked to name the case by the article or topic where the dispute began, limiting to 7 words" could maybe help? — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 12:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Two causes of toxicity can easily be mitigated. They are: (1) The culture of laughing at the complainant, and (2) The fact that comments must be rushed if you want to get a word in before a self-selected authority figure closes the thread. Fixed duration discussions enable measured, thought out responses.—S Marshall T/C 09:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
• This seems like a solution in source of a problem. ANI is fine as it is. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Excessive toxicity is not fine. ANI shouldn't be a social media zoo where we display the worst of ourselves. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• ANI has been like this, as have all admin boards, since I started in 2006. The format isn't the problem, it's the people, and you can't really make a rule to change human nature. The key is handling things as fast as possible and closing the discussions. ANI is messy by design, because it has to be in order to deal with the wide variety of issues. Other venues, like Arb, AE, SPI, AN3 are much more structured and less messy, but they only handle specific problems and will shut down anything that doesn't meet the criterial. They are also overseen by admin only, even though anyone can opine, so admin have more authority to shut things down. ANI is more community run, so it's like trying to herd cats. Admin can exert some control here, and obviously take action, and sometimes we do have to be pretty bold and shut things down, but again, it is community run, so it's always going to be a mess. I think we usually get it right, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  I tend to agree with Dennis, but there are definitely times when no admins are active or working the board and it can get a little messy. I'd like to see more assertive moderation with hatting off-topic threads and taking a more constructive role in guiding discussions at times. Andre🚐 16:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEDCOM? I think I may have been the individual who brought about the abolishment of it. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The closing of medcom is here: [20] I started on Medcom in 2004. There were definitely some good things that having such a process brought about, but by the time it was shut down, it had been floundering and on life support for some time. Andre🚐 16:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

TransporterMan was one of the few that worked it regularly, and did a splendid job, but I think the main problem is the same with WP:RFC/U and the etiquette noticeboard (forget the name, NE Ent and Kim Dent-Brown used to man that). Content boards have no teeth. No authority to block someone, so if one party is acting in bad faith, it ends up at ANI anyway. The other boards just prolonged the inevitable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, there were some users like TransporterMan, AGK, Daniel Case, Sunray, and others who did some really good work, I'm sure I'm forgetting a lot of people. A lot of Medcom cases ended up being referred to Arbcom when the teeth were needed. There was also the WP:MEDCABAL. Andre🚐 17:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I went through one of those WP:RFC/U, many years ago. Figuratively speaking, the WP:RFC/U setup? was a torture chamber. Thankfully, it was discontinued. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• I definitely think that there needs to be either a word limit or something resembling a word limit. A lot of the threads on here get to be absolutely ridiculous. For example, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083#Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_is_getting_problematic was a gobsmacking 538 kilobytes. To put the absolute in perspective, the entire uncompressed text of the Odyssey is 701kB. Treasure Island is 390kB. So, essentially, what we're asking people to do is read Treasure Island and write a book report on it. And we are asking everyone to do this -- the parties to the dispute, the people stopping by to leave comments, the people proposing remedies, and perhaps most ghastly of all, the admins judging consensus to close it. And it's self-reinforcing, as well: since it's patently impossible for anyone to read and remember the entire discussion when they start writing a comment, it's guaranteed that multiple people will say the same thing, further adding to the bloat by creating multiple redundant threads of conversation. It's a total clusterfuck. I'm fairly busy at the moment, but I've done actual analysis of the section sizes on various noticeboards over time, and I have been planning to make a proposal to address some of these things for a while. I don't know that a word limit would be the most useful thing to do -- the ideas I've had floating around in my head are a little more complex than that -- but I think it's obvious that something has to be done. jp×g 23:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  A message word limit is too restrictive, while a thread word limit is absurd. So here's my proposal: if the message feels too long, admins can leave a message that basically says shorten the text or risk being ignored/boomeranged. There is no hard limit on word count, so admins should rely on common sense to determine when a thread is too long. The warning should use a template and be systematic like {{ANI-notice}}. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• One way to reduce toxicity would be to give admins the authority to ban an editor from an ANI thread and/or remove their edits to that thread if they violate WP:Civility. When I was a noob the editor who initiated a boomerang against me on ANI did so with all-caps and obscenities, but as far as I was aware no one but me was bothered by that. (A few months later that editor was site-banned for unrelated reasons, so I never had to deal with him again.) NightHeron (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  We can kind of do that now, in part. If someone is making personal attacks, we can block them for that just as we can anywhere else at enwp. We really can't remove their edits unless the edits are themselves purely vandalism or unrelated disruption. I would be against allowing admin to ban them being at ANI, however. That is too much power, and is likely to cause more drama by multiple appeals to it. The community can ban them, but it's not something I've seen a lot of. As a rule, admins tend to be fairly tolerant of mild/moderate incivility if the points are being addressed, understanding that ANI is a messy place. It's never going to be a genteel place. Part of the issue is that while ANI is an admin board, the administration is done as much by non-admins as admins, which is generally a good thing, except non-admins lack the ability to block if needed. Most non-admin actions (ie:closings) are done proper. In the end, one of ANI's weaknesses is also one of its biggest strengths: A lack of formatting and structure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. One clarification: I wasn't proposing that uncivility should result in banning from ANI, only banning from the thread where the uncivility occurs. That's milder than a tban or ban from a noticeboard, and perhaps the offending edits can be struck through (and hence ignored by the closer) rather than removed. NightHeron (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

BLUDGEONING, in Community ban proposals

I think WP:BLUDGEON should be applied to ANI reports. If an editor takes a position on whether or not another editor should be community-banned from Wikipedia. Then that editor shouldn't face attempts by others to change their position. We just support or oppose the proposed community-ban & leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's already a de facto rule at ANI, but it's helpful to codeify it to a guideline or something like that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON applies to all discussions already. (Disclosure: I started the essay). It is "only" an essay, but it sums up policy fairly concisely, as it applies to all talk pages, including in admin space, article talk page space, AFD, RM, any discussion, as the policies it is based on apply everywhere. No need to mention it specifically for any type of discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

And it's worth noting that responding to a comment isn't necessarily bludgeoning. GoodDay's comment seems to imply that any discussion is bludgeoning and that it should be a vote. That's not how it works. Andre🚐 16:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The beauty of the essay is that is gives specific descriptions that make it very easy to tell if someone's actions are bludgeoning. Those formulas aren't chiseled in stone, but they have been around for almost 15 years, so are widely accepted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, "one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you." Andre🚐 16:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not that clear cut. There's a distinction between bludgeoning an editor because they've made an unpopular contribution, and pointing out additional information that may prompt an editor to change their mind about their contribution. The later includes information that the editor may not have been aware of, correction of a misunderstanding of information they were aware of, and/or how their contribution may be improper based on policy or guidelines. While the later may feel like bludgeoning to an editor who has strongly held if not immutable opinions, it is not and is a necessary component of finding compromises. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The essay explains it adequately. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Requesting talk page access revocation via AIV instead of ANI. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Moved to WP:ANI (diff)

Primefac (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Ayaltimo (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Ayaltimo This user is vandalizing. He is removing the most reliable sources and adding poor unrelated sources to Somalis inorder to write what he wants. I didn't add or remove anything, I only reverted the last reliable sources he had removed before and this isn't vandalism Please stop him from making violation on the wikipedia page. And now he is reporting me here to you that I am the one who is disrupting wikipedia. He is so smart enough. At the end, I am always ready to respect the wikipedia rules and law and I am here to guard the wikipedia pages that I have created and the wikipedia pages that is vandalizing by such disruptive users. Thanks for your review Seepsimon (talk) 08:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Seepsimon This page is for discussing the operation of the noticeboard, and is not the noticeboard itself(which is at WP:AN). Urgent conduct issues may be reported to WP:ANI. Unambiguous vandalism may be reported to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to split the discussion on placing extended-confirmed protection on all Russia-Ukrainian War articles into its own section? It started as an offshoot of the Volunteer Marek discussion, but the two discussions have diverged and the overall section is now enormous and unwieldy. They are separate topics, since the ECP proposal wouldn't even have any effect on the Volunteer Marek discussion, since all editors directly involved there are extended confirmed already. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

in the talk page for Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 I realized that a user have completely removed a whole section of the gameplay section and stated "Apart from needing a c/e, most of this is not sufficiently verified (simply citing official websites is not evidence); a lot more reliable sources are needed, even if it means waiting until nearer release.)" despite there being hundreds of hours worth of content on multiple platforms and despite several of the citations containing quotes from the devs. I was wondering if this was the proper response? Td^she/her 19:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I request to make a draft for Adrenaline Rush Professional wrestling. Picturefoxinvasion1 (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Picturefoxinvasion1 This page is for discussing the operation of the Administrators Noticeboard, and is not the board itself. Furthermore, you don't need anyone's permission to create a draft article, though it is a difficult task. Please see Articles for creation. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:CESSPIT and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 14#Wikipedia:CESSPIT until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Levivich (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1111 -- the {{section sizes}} template at the top of this page is helpful for navigating the current page, but we do not have this benefit while trying to find something in archives. I have messed around a little in userspace when trying to find specific threads, but it occurs to me that other people may find themselves in the same situation; I propose, therefore, that I do a run and put the section sizes template on the talk pages for archives. A preliminary review shows that there are precisely ten extant talk pages, almost all of which contain just a couple comments (which would not be removed -- the section sizes header would just sit above them, as it does here). Here they are:

An example of what I'm talking about can be found at Wikipedia talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1111. jp×g 08:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC) jp×g 08:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you clarify please - are you wanting to add {{section sizes}} to every ANI archive talk page, or just these ten? As a note, I've un-transcluded those pages, since I don't think it is necessary. Also, to ask the potentially dumb question - what does this template do that the ToC on the primary archive page not do (other than give the sizes of the sections)? Primefac (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I would support this (for either these 10 pages or for any page -- As long as it were by default collapsed). It's essentially an index of each page, included on each page. It has the sizes per-sub-section and per-section and it helps verify the overall Byte-size of the page, which is also useful for archive maintenance and finding where to manually archive something to maintain, for instance, a 100k limit. I really like this idea. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

If it's just the ten pages, I don't think anyone needs consensus to do that (be bold and all that). If it's all 1k pages a bot should probably deal with that. I still don't really see how it's all that much more beneficial than the ToC (especially since the "page size" thing is kind of controlled by bots these days) but don't take that to mean I'm strictly opposed. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone know why I got a notification saying that jp had mentioned me on this page? I don't login that often these days, so maybe I am missing something here, but it seemed a bit strange. Carcharoth (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it was an accidental transclusion of the above linked archives page. Happy to have you here! :) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Primefac:: Well, depending on people's reaction, my ultimate proposal was going to be that I take an hour in AWB to create the full thousand pages (if everyone clearly thought this was dumb, I would just drop the issue). I wasn't sure if something like this really requires consensus, since none of the pages apart from those ten even exist to begin with, but I figure it is worth trying to get at least something before just barreling through through with the whole thing. I'll make a couple for the most recent ones and then I guess I will wait around a bit to see if anyone here says "don't do them all, that is stupid". jp×g 09:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've made them for the most recent twelve archives (1100, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112). jp×g 14:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

As I said earlier (and I promise it will be the last time I do) I don't see the point, so while I fall into the "don't do them all, that's a waste of your time" camp, I'm not going to stand in your way if you find it useful (and don't mind spending an hour of your life on it); it doesn't really affect me at all. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, it has been a month, and nobody has had anything to say about this being a bad idea, so I'm going to go ahead and let 'er rip. jp×g 00:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed a closed post on the noticeboard, titled "Re RFC that is malformed and misleading". I skimmed through it and I noticed that in a link provided by the ip there is an edit war going on in the page List of chief ministers of Tamil Nadu. I think it could be worthwhile to see what's the situation there. Thinker78 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious that ANI is a cesspit, and I probably don't need to repeat the benefit of making ANI a more chill and welcoming place. It is also pretty well known that there has been a lot of failed initiatives to reform this place, and they all ended up with "ANI is inherently like this, so it isn't a fixable problem". But I don't think that's the case, and that's because the user actions are mostly motivated by the environment, not by the people that discuss in the ANI. This is why social media is so toxic/dumb/unreceptive/unreasonable, even though an average person is well, average.

Just like making social media less toxic is not an impossible task, so do to is making ANI less toxic. The trick here are to remove dark patterns that inadvertently incentivize bad behaviors and nudge people to make constructive discussions. Here's are a few suggestions on how to do it, without any use of administrative powers, redesigning of MediaWiki and Wikipedia, change in Wikipedia culture, etc.:

1. Use neutral wording when describing the issue. We know how to do this since we are Wikipedia editors. This is already an implicit assumption, but if everyone does so it would create a social pressure to be constructive. One suggestion is to allow other editors to make the topic header more neutral. Simple, but can be very effective.
2. Keep the header short and intelligent. People are currently treating it like those 40-pages terms of service page and at the bottom there's a tick mark for you to just skip the whole thing. The current header has a noticeboard banner and a 15-lines long notice all vying for attention. In fact, in my opinion this is a classic case of a dark pattern. Why not make the banner more useful for long-term and newcomers alike?
3. Remove those gravedancing, "good block" impulsive comments. It does not contribute to the discussion, nor helping the blocked user from not making the same mistakes again and helping administrators to better detect the same kind of issue. It only makes the users to become more aggressive. Doing so would also force comments after the sanction to be constructive.
4. Encourage editors that give professional and receptive responses by thanking them. I think that this is already a good practice in ANI, but why not do that more often? It would be like giving a comment upvotes/likes but without the nasty effects of them.

I certainly do believe that my suggestions are incomplete, but I hope that it is a step in the right direction. What do you think of my ideas? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

At the root of the problem is that the English Wikipedia relies on consensus agreement to make decisions. For example: I don't think your first sentence uses neutral wording in describing the issue. What's the next step? Do we spend time on a meta-discussion on how to word the first sentence? Regarding thanking editors, I do think it's helpful to provide feedback with the thanks feature or on the user's talk page. But I'm not sure it can have the type of widescale effect you're envisioning, because it's not readily visible to others. For instance, how do you know that it's not being used as often as you think it should be? It's not that easy to check.

What it comes down to is that a large proportion of the editors who like to discuss these matters favour having unmoderated discussion forums, out of concerns of the moderation being unduly restrictive. A change in culture is only going to be possible if there is agreement on a way to enforce it. isaacl (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane, I am noticing this discussion about three week later, but will respond anyway.

To start, I do not believe that the "cesspit" analogy is accurate, even though I have been hearing that claim since 2009. I think of it instead as an unorthodox "Night Court" administering a rough version of "justice" in an allegorical sense. In my opinion, overtly unfair results at ANI are rare, and usually reverted promptly when they occur. Wikipedia's scope encompasses all of the passions and prejudices of the incredibly diverse wider world. And sometimes swift action is required to deal with disruption, and that is one of the functions of ANI.

1. Yes, ideally, neutral wording should be used, bit it is also true that ANI reports are often filed by editors feeling indignant. Their indignation may or may not be justified, but calling on editors (especially less experienced ones) to file 100% passionless reports is not a reasonable expectation.
2. I agree that concise and specific section headers are optimal, but we have no way to enforce this. We can only encourage it, primarily by good example.
3. I very much disagree that "good block" comments amount to gravedancing. An administrator who makes a difficult block and reports their block deserves an evaluation of their block. Endorsing the block gives the administrator very valuable feedback that their action is supported by the community. The opposite is also true. Thoughtful "bad block" feedback allows an administrator to learn and develop and self-correct.
4. Thanking editors is a good thing that should take place across the project, not just at ANI. Cullen328 (talk)

I think Cullen is likely right that overtly unfair results at ANI are rare, and usually reverted promptly when they occur. That said it is not a forum which even tries to promote respectful discussion. There are other places where we miss the mark on this (RfA and even ArbCom cases I'm looking at you) but we at least try. At ANI we don't even try. And that has real impacts on real people, some of whom are even quite committed to Wikipedia. The most vivid example for me is I had gotten to know someone when we were both regularly attending meetups some of which he'd helped to organize. Then at one meetup he shared that he was currently at ANI and how distraught he was about the experience. When I later looked at the ANI, I agreed with the substantive complaint against that editor, and the outcome was fair. Yet that person stopped showing up to meetups and generally left the movement. That's too bad for us. This kind of example is why I wish ANI were a better place and I wish we'd at least have some commitment towards trying to make it aw better place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

One structural issue is the drama boards are all oriented towards whether or not to hit the person with a block or restriction or desysop or other such remedy. The impact of those is usually backwards. They are a hard hit if the person cares about editing on wikipedia and meaningless to someone who doesn't. We should more routinely have findings of fact (e.g. "you were wrong to do that") and guidance. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

+1. Too often the process is either "requires admin action" (==problematic) or "doesn't requires admin action" (==not problematic, though that's not true). I often try to get things "closed with a warning" to prevent that, but generally there seems to be little appetite for that. It's like, "either you need an admin to do something or else it doesn't matter go away". I wonder if splitting "general conduct complaint" from "administrator's noticeboard" would be a solution. But then, creating new noticeboards never really works. Levivich (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I would just say @Levivich I think this is a good strategy, trying to close more things with warnings. Warnings are a pattern, and if they happen often enough, it becomes easier to show the user is disruptive. It is something concrete, despite what people say or gripe about in these threads post-hoc. I think the general feeling is that warnings are useless, but they do matter. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Another is that they are sometimes used to conduct clever wiki-warfare. We need to learn to recognize these situations and boomerang them. There is one editor who is one of the most cautious careful wiki-complioant editors that I've ever seen who has been subjected to several such ginned up deceptive attacks by POV warriors. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

If we were starting again, ANI would probably function more like ArbCom and we wouldn't have to pretend that ArbCom had anything to do with dispute resolution. For complaints about misconduct, it makes sense to have one person presenting the evidence to a small body that is empowered to decide whether misconduct has occurred and, if so, what action (if any) is necessary. What we have is a system where the peanut gallery is a party to the case and discussions are easily derailed or degenerate into a car crash. Unfortunately, a car crash is a good show, which is why all the traffic slows down to look at it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The WMF, by the way, much as I dislike the opacity of their bans, seem to have realised the futility of trying to have a rational conversation about a complex matter with an amorphous group in an unstructured discussion forum. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

During an arbitration case a few years ago, there was discussion of having a quiet word with editors who behaved poorly in some manner. One of the commenters said that it sucks having that conversation. Giving feedback in a sensitive manner is very hard, and receiving feedback is also very difficult, so it's unpleasant on both sides. It's even worse when done in public, which is why in offline-life it's usually done privately. At that time I had the idea of a group of respected editors taking requests to have quiet words with someone and deciding whether or not to proceed. I didn't proceed with a proposal as I felt it would fail to get consensus support due to concerns of this group becoming a clique. Perhaps we should brainstorm more on this concept of encouraging better behaviour: how can we get more people skilled at providing feedback to have quiet words with editors who can benefit, in a way that maximizes the chances that the feedback will be taken under consideration? isaacl (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The crux of the matter is that ANI (and related fora) don't benefit from maximum participation, and it's all but impossible to determine beforehand who will and won't be helpful. I'll define helpful as this: lowering the temperature of the discussion, determining what the actual issue is, helping good-faith editors find their way toward a resolution, and identifying which editors (if any) aren't going to be part of that solution. Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, that's more in response to my earlier comment, that the English Wikipedia community tries to make all decisions through consensus building in an unmoderated group discussion. For there to be a change in this approach that limits the participants in some manner, the community will have to agree to it and accept the limitations that come with moderated discussion. isaacl (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think that editors who aren't an admin or aren't related to the discussion (e.g. being accused, etc) should not comment on ANI. Any comment that are made by them should be flagged and deleted on sight. CactiStaccingCrane 04:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Being an admin only gives you the tools to perform the blocks and so on. It does not confer wisdom on the person nor is it any kind of mechanism where the community separates wise editors from ignorant windbags. So some kind of "go away, you are not an admin" policy is never going to fly.

There is a bad idea that ANI's purpose is only to produce an outcome that requires admin tools, hence the "no admin action required" refrain. Sure, it is an Administrators Noticeboard, but there isn't another equivalent for escalating issues and surely the best outcome is that the tools are not required but that someone gets an education. So the message that "the community does not approve of what you did; don't do that again" is a reasonable outcome, and it doesn't require an admin to say so. But that, and other kinds of message, should not be viewed as a failed outcome. -- Colin°^Talk 09:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Barkeep and Cullen328. Expecting neutral posts misunderstands the point that this is a place where unresolved conflicts are taken. We need to accept that someone posting here may be very upset, and may express that upset in decidedly non-neutral language. It is harmful then to tone police that post and I agree that meta discussions on that sort of thing can be a distraction. Obviously people can say things here that do cause offense or indicate wrongheadedness and that needs to be addressed, but to expect anyone to file a neutral post is not going to work.

I think the "having a quiet word" thing works best if you have a group of friends you can talk to off-wiki and are good enough friends that they will offer advice you didn't want to hear. I'm not sure how well that kind of thing would work if a total stranger emailed you with advice, and I could see it being abused. There do seem to be editors, some very longstanding, who do not appear to have any kind of genuine friendship group (vs mutually-supporting clique), or whose personality seems to be one where they don't take advice, never accept failings and never apologise. -- Colin°^Talk 10:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The thing is having a quiet word is expected to be the first step for complainants. If someone doesn't first open a discussion on the user's talk page, often they'll be directed to do so, even though it sucks even more so for them than for a trusted collaborator. Should a pattern of behaviour be investigated in future, editors will look for user talk page discussions and, absent any, will claim that no one tried to address the issue directly with the user in question (that is, no one tried to have a quiet word). If the community expects this behaviour, it should try to figure out how to make it more effective. isaacl (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think what you're proposing is what WP:3O and WP:DRN were supposed to be, even if they haven't actually achieved that goal. It is certainly expected that ANI complainants have tried these things (or RFCs) before escalating to ANI. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think 3O and DRN both resolve disputes that hadn't been getting resolved. I think they are reasonably achieving the goals of what they were set-up to do. Having some kind of 3O equivalent but for conduct is an interesting idea to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, that's kind of like the idea I had for volunteer group of respected editors screening requests and deciding when a quiet word would be helpful, and who would be the best to provide it. isaacl (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Both of those are for content-related disputes, whereas the previous discussions on having a quiet word were about behavioural issues. (Third-person opinion is also specifically limited to disputes between exactly two people.) isaacl (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

ah I see. Yes that could be very valuable. I think probably DRN and 3O get a lot of incomers from conduct disputes and have to sort the noise. A hybrid of these for conduct could be extremely valuable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

One thing that I think is potentially actionable is for uninvolved admins to get comfortable with the idea of taking actions that will halt discussions that are going off the rails, and keep discussions focused on the actual issue at hand. By "taking actions", I mean closing or hatting discussions or parts of discussions that are degenerating into insult-trading and are clearly not leading to anything that can actually be resolved by administrator tools. Such closing or hatting does happen, of course, but there's a lot of room for it to happen more.

About it being rare for there to be overtly unfair outcomes, I think a distinction needs to be made here, and hasn't been. I guess it's true in terms of decisions about blocking or banning, at least on the whole. But it's not true, in my opinion, about the path and tone that discussions at AN and ANI take. I've never been blocked as a result of a discussion at AN or ANI, but there have been many, many times where I've felt badly about the way other editors have directed comments at me, even when I was simply trying to help resolve the issue. I think that's where the CESSPIT really resides. When we tolerate editors beating up on one another, and then close the thread with a benign outcome, we really should not regard it as having had a fair outcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

"Often unfair process, generally fair outcome" is a pithier way of summarizing my initial comment in this discussion. The thing I wish we'd change is that I don't think there's any real commitment, from the broader editing community, to try to fix the "often unfair process" part (which happens for a number of reasons including disagreement with the premise that the process is unfair). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a very good way of putting it. I agree about that absence of a real commitment, although I think if one scratches under the surface, it's more like the absence of a local consensus about what should be permitted in any given dispute (which, in part, goes back to what isaacl was saying about consensus). In other words, a lot of editors really do agree, in principle, with the idea of the need for more kindness, but they will also insist that I get to say what I'm saying here the way I'm saying it because it's important to me, and if a big bad admin hats my comments, they are abusively shutting down open debate. For me, this means thinking back to WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and for the more responsible people in the room to say no, you are not being helpful here, even when there will be pushback. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as I mentioned, the key issue is that many of the editors who like to discuss these types of matters are more concerned about the drawbacks of managing comments versus the advantages. The open source maxim, "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow," ignores the cost of getting all those eyeballs, and those who think the best way to investigate problems is to open up discussion to everyone are ignoring the costs of having a sprawling discussion amongst an unlimited number of participants. There are multiple ways to measure the fairness of an outcome. For things to change, the community has to agree that the costs of generating that outcome is a measure that shouldn't be downplayed. (On a side note, a round-robin discussion phase is my proposal to try to add a light management touch that still allows everyone to comment but manages the flow to try to break escalation cycles.) isaacl (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I like the concept of the cost of getting a fair outcome. It can be argued that a toxic noticeboard culture that gives "a generally fair outcome" by way of an "often unfair process" (Barkeep49's words) is getting to that outcome at too high a cost. That's why I feel that it's not a matter of treating admin opinions as more important than the opinions of others, to seek to keep that cost down. Indeed, I'm a pretty strong advocate that admins' opinions are not more important than those of us non-admins (for a stroll down memory lane, see WP:CDARFC), but I'm also a strong advocate that Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

In the offline world, usually disputes are resolved through some form of hierarchy that has authority to make a decision. This doesn't always result in the best solution, but it generally produces solutions in a more time-effective way than a mass conversation, which is in itself a significant process cost, on top of the increasing risk of an escalation cycle as the process is drawn out. It also avoids the constant uncertainty of "consensus could change at any time". English Wikipedia, though, uses large group discussions, which provides incentive to gather more and more participants in support of your point of view in order to establish strength of argument. With a hierarchy, there's no need for this; one person making a good argument that convinces the decision makers is all that is needed. isaacl (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

isaccl, I think we may mean different things by "a quiet word with". I see from this that it is a British idiom. You seem to be saying it is like when the complainant goes to the other guy's user talk page and asks him to stop or whatever. That's lower-key than going to ANI but still not exactly what the idiom means, which is to do it privately. And what I was suggesting was that it should be done by your good friends, not by your opponent or their friends.

Wrt ANI going off the rails. Well just like the poster may in their initial post express their upset, there is a place to for a community to express their upset about something too. Some of the comments here read a bit like "Would feminists stop going on about Jeffrey Epstein already please, we know, and in case you didn't realise, he's dead". Yes there are times when the discussion is toxic and when people are contributing toxicity that doesn't help. But admins hatting a community venting its spleen may well frustrate rather than de-escalate. -- Colin°^Talk 21:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I was the one who referred to going off the rails. And I've seen the comparison to anti-feminist comments before, and it's not apt; in fact, such a Jeffrey Epstein comment is the sort of thing that I would want to see hatted. There's a difference between "a community venting its spleen" and just a few members of that community doing so. One can vent one's spleen in a constructive manner, by pointing out how one might have been treated unfairly, but that's not the same thing as insulting other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I was making a general point with my Epstein comment, and not making any kind of anti-feminist point or accusing anyone of being anti-feminist. I am just noting that sometimes people do really really bad things, and there is a place for the community to be really really unhappy about that and say so. You suggested discussions be hatted if they "are clearly not leading to anything that can actually be resolved by administrator tools". I'm very much against that. Both for the reasons I said, that a good outcome might be a resolution where someone is whacked with a wet fish or warned or simply accepts they messed up and apologises, none of which are admin tool related. And also because I do think there is a place for people to collectively express their upset, whether that is just a few people or a broad crowd. There are all sorts of times when we give people a space to vocalise their feelings. Think of the example of a court case, where the defendant is found guilty of murder. The journalists don't just stop once they heard the judge's verdict, but they interview the victims family as they leave court, and offer them space to say something. This is all natural and your suggestion just feeds into the myth that only admin actions and admin opinions count. -- Colin°^Talk 21:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

If I were King of Wikipedia, the first thing I'd do to improve ANI is to categorically exclude certain classes of editors from being able to comment on threads there:

• If you're currently the subject of an ongoing ANI thread, you shouldn't be allowed to comment on any other ANI threads that don't involve you while your conduct is currently being reviewed/discussed. No dispute resolution system in the world allows "defendants" to act as "jurors" or "judges" in other cases, but at ANI, you can.
• If you are currently under an active sanction, like a TBAN, you shouldn't be allowed to !vote on sanctions for other editors. No dispute resolution system in the world allows prisoners to act as jurors or judges, but on Wikipedia, we do.
• Involved editors should not be able to !vote on the outcome. No dispute resolution system in the world allows parties or witnesses to act as jurors or judges. Like admin actions, TBANs and such should also be decided by a consensus of totally uninvolved persons.

These changes are just a start, but they would have a much more profound effect than changing the headers or using a template or anything like that. It will also increase the bureaucracy involved in processing an ANI complaint and create side-disputes about who is and who isn't allowed to !vote, so there are drawbacks. But in sum, the biggest flaw about dispute resolution at ANI is that we allow almost anyone, literally almost anyone, to participate in the dispute resolution, even if they have a giant COI, even if they are otherwise disrupting Wikipedia. That's too much of a free-for-all, and it's at the root of the unfairness of the process. Levivich (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

+1. Here's my understanding of your points:

1. Don't wander off your thread
2. Don't !vote if you are sanctioned
3. Don't !vote if you are involved

CactiStaccingCrane 15:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Now that would make a great header! :-) Levivich (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

As I discussed previously, I agree that trying to have conduct dispute resolution in a large, unmanaged group conversation is a problem. However, I don't think the primary issue is the categories of editors you've listed, as editors evaluating consensus can accommodate for conflicts of interest. I think we get escalating cycles from editors impatient to move onto next steps, without waiting for the global community to consider the situation and provide measured feedback, and from the resulting towers of speculation. Because strength of argument is frequently measured through number of supporting statements, there is an incentive to make flamboyant comments, which also feeds escalation. I appreciate why people like English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions, but they lead directly to these problems. isaacl (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I can imagine some very difficult disagreements about being involved. Is having expressed a sympathetic or an unsympathetic opinion of an editor during a previous noticeboard dispute enough to make someone involved for the purposes of a new discussion of that editor? And I'm somewhat uncomfortable about having one's views disqualified on the basis of any sanction, no matter what that sanction is. The issue of wandering off your thread brings up a point that I find quite interesting, though. One of the things that makes AN and ANI toxic is that there are some editors who make a habit of going to pretty much every thread and offering a drive-by opinion. And our belief in crowdsourcing notwithstanding, a lot of these comments are simply uninformed, and often have an element of either me-too or virtue-signaling. Some of this comes from editors who think (usually wrongly) that if they do this enough, that will count in their favor in a future RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Have to say I agree with Tryptofish, at least the first half, and there are more ways to be biased than to appear directly involved. I don't think a comparison with the judicial system is a good enough metaphor. In a real judicial system, the people who pass judgement and make the final sentence are not self-appointed on a case by case basis. An active sanction like a topic ban is not like being in prison. The reason we have topic bans as a choice less than total bans, is that we recognise (hope) that some people's problems are limited to an area. And wrt !voting, surely there is a place for involved parties to comment whether they think the proposed sanction is appropriate?

Wrt "me-too or virtue-signalling", well that's attempting to get into the mind of the writer and establish motive, and doing so may well tell us more about the person trying to do that, than about the person who wrote a comment. Whether one thinks a comment is "yet another measure of community displeasure" or a "pile-on of me-too virtue signallers" probably depends on one's view of the case. -- Colin°^Talk 16:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I wrote 'dispute resolution system', not 'judicial system'. Think of a disciplinary board at a university, or a human resources review committee at a company, or private arbitration, or private mediation. These dispute resolution systems are analogous to ours. And our system of bans is analogous to probation. Two things we should not kid ourselves about:

1. We are judging, at ANI/AE/etc. We sit as judges, we judge others, and in this way, we are like judges (or jurors, who also engage in judgment)
2. We are restricting other people's freedoms based on our judgment. That's what a sanction is.

There are other systems that human beings created where people sit in judgment of other people's actions and make decisions about restricting other people's freedoms based on those judgments. We should learn from those systems.

My idea of 'involved' is involved in the dispute, not involved with the editors based on prior disputes (that would be too hard to police). So not allowing involved people to !vote means that if there's 4 editors in a content dispute and one of them files an ANI against another based on, say, incivility in the discussion, the other two editors can't !vote go vote on that, because they're involved in the dispute. The reporting editor also could never !vote. The reported editor couldn't !vote on a boomerang, etc. Levivich (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Is having expressed a sympathetic or an unsympathetic opinion of an editor during a previous noticeboard dispute enough to make someone involved for the purposes of a new discussion of that editor?

@Levivich: Involved editors should not be able to !vote on the outcome. No dispute resolution system in the world allows parties or witnesses to act as jurors or judges. Like admin actions, TBANs and such should also be decided by a consensus of totally uninvolved persons.

I actually agree with all of your points, Levivich, and most of your points above @Tryptofish. I think these are excellent ideas, even though I disagree with the basis of the metaphor. But I think this idea is pretty useless without a more firm definition of what "involved" actually means. I think it would have to be "involved in the current dispute".

It would be a bad idea if Tryptofish's more expansive definition became a universal interpretation of WP:INVOLVED. Eventually, you run out of uninvolved editors if this is expanded back say, 10 years or so. Some threads have such high participation, or some users have been brought to ANI so many times, that pretty much everybody has said something or "thanked" someone on the thread, or edited the implicated articles, etc. I'm not sure this level of WP:INVOLVED actually impacts ones judgment in closing discussions, for example. I think the fact that close review has a bar that is pretty high is a good thing. You'd really have to demonstrate the user has a pattern of bias in the situation, not just that they previously weighed in on the user's behavior ever.

I agree with Tryptofish especially, though, that the issue is the mean-spirited comments people make, or insults they trade, at ANI. I think I've probably been mean-spirited myself, if I'm being truly honest with myself. I'm sure most of us have crossed the line at least once. That's the nature of a CESSPIT that is also a BATTLEGROUND. It draws in well-meaning editors, too. Even those who try so hard to keep their cool. I'd want to emphasize that such mean-spirited edits should clearly indicate the user has a bias in any closure review (and should probably mean they shouldn't be "counted" in future discussions about that person). At the same time, their testimony still clearly matters. We should still have a place for involved editors to contribute, because they are the "aggrieved parties". If they can't say anything at all, most ANI threads would be closed without action, and most disruptive editors would continue their disruption.

@Colin: Whether one thinks a comment is "yet another measure of community displeasure" or a "pile-on of me-too virtue signallers" probably depends on one's view of the case
100% agree with Colin on this. And this is part of why the 48 hour (or whatever it is) mandatory window before closure (and the more common 3-5 days custom) is/are such an important thing. it allows more reflection and less pile-on. I'm yet to be convinced that this particular argument is actually true (in large part) about ANI. I'm sure it's happened that someone has been unfairly community banned. But surely many of those cases are overturned at closure review or unbanned here at AN. Definitely the community gets things wrong, but we aren't a judicial system and our primary goal is the protection of the project. Not trying to be truly "just" a la Blackstone's ratio. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I apparently need to clarify what I meant. I'm referring specifically to some editors, and there are a considerable number of them, who hang out at the noticeboards, and go through pretty much every thread with more than one or two comments, and register their votes (not !votes) with little effort into understanding the underlying history. This is a real thing, even if some editors have not noticed it. I'm not practicing pop psychology. I'm basing this on repeated observation. It often goes hand-in-hand with that "this user might want to be an admin someday" userbox, as well as going to AfDs that are clearly reaching consensus, and agreeing with the crowd in order to improve their apparent AfD score. If some editors here haven't noticed it, so be it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

No I 100% agree this is an issue, the fact that such editors are not very helpful when so clearly uninformed. I just don't think the reason it's an issue is that they are somehow "involved" by commenting on past disputes involving that user or related users. They are the opposite end of the spectrum, so far uninvolved that they are too lazy to actually investigate the issue, facts, or behavior of the persons implicated. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should apply a soft limit on how many threads you can participate at ANI? Of course, this limit would exclude those that make routine closes on "trivial" matters such as vandalism. CactiStaccingCrane 12:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish especially, though, that the issue is the mean-spirited comments people make, or insults they trade, at ANI. I think that you are absolutely right about this one. It seems that at ANI you can more freely make insults to others without being punished because it is the norm, and that toxic environment makes some people to think that such behavior is tolerated on ANI. I think that we should apply WP:BOOMERANG at those being a dick more frequently using some sort of a probation. Instead of an admin informally warn that editor being rude at the ANI thread, they could make a warning directly on the talk page via a custom ANI warning template and any uninvolved admin can block the account for 31 hours if the disruptive behavior continues. CactiStaccingCrane 12:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

One way to fix the problem, 50% fix RFA, and fix the scale gap where Arbcom is overkill/unwieldy is to develop a subset of 20-30 of ultra good admins (I think of them as Yodas) with extensive experience, policy and guideline knowledge, cool-headedness, empathy, kindness, analysis capabilities, thoroughness, objectivity. Once an item on a drama board gets bigger, they handle it, take the time to thoroughly learn and assess the situation, and make the decision. They could also review admin decisions. North8000 (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Sort of like a tribunal type thing? I really like this idea. I would also support them being elected by a consensus of admins, in a parliamentary-style system with minimum years broomed, no one who's ever been de-sys-op'd, stuff like that. Not that I think the popular RfA approach is bad, just that I think we're trying to avoid populism here, so maybe let's not bake it into the very fix we're trying to apply. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, 20 or 30 admins trying to solve a problem. Remember how long it takes Arbcom to decide anything. When you have a bunch of people, each on their own scedule, trying to work out a solution, more than 95% of the time you are not going to get an answer back the next day. In the meantime, how do you bottle up the discussion on ANI? This also would be adding another level to the bureaucracy, which we should do only if the benefit is large and obvious. Donald Albury 19:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clearer. I meant that ONE of the 20-30 would handle the issue. And the reason why I said that it would 50% fix RFA is because this would likely evolve into a subset of admins handling any sanctioning/ blocks of established editors. Instead of new admins doing that. Then step 1 of just getting the tools becomes less of a big deal making it an easier decision to "support" at RFA. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread that. Still, that could be seen as creating a class of admins with extra powers. Is the community ready to let an admin, even one that has been given some extra status by a consensus process, take action against an editor or editors that the community has not yet reached a consensus on taking? How would the powers of an admin under your suggested system differ from current practice? Would it mean that the community would delegate its power to impose community bans to those admins? I agree that ANI is a cesspit. I avoid it if at all possible. I don't think giving admins power to short-circuit discussions on ANI is an answer that the community will accept. Donald Albury 21:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Even the newest, weakest admin already has the power to block the most experienced editor, without discussion at any noticeboard. E.G the bad blocks that we've seen. My idea would informally shift that to special admins where such discretion is more appropriate, including those having established and maintained the listed qualities. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

So, some admins are more equal than others. How charmingly Orwellian of you. Hard pass. Zaathras (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not very nice. Of course there are differences in all of the listed areas. There's nothing Orwellian about saying that. North8000 (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

On the surface it sounds like the best way to do this would be to delegate additional powers to a subset of admins who are cool headed and good at reading consensus... but we already have them? Crazynas ^t 08:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats would have to be amended to give them authority to do that. Donald Albury 14:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes of course. I wasn't implying that they have a community mandate to take up this role. Merely that what North was supposing as a group is already essentially what we vet for in bureaucrats.Crazynas ^t 19:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

If I understand the proposal correctly, the idea is for there to be a special group to determine amongst themselves what are the best next steps to take. This is somewhat different than what bureaucrats are vetted for, which is to evaluate the outcome of a group discussion, based on specific outlined policy and guidance. isaacl (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I have a hard time taking anyone serious about wanting to make ANI less problematic, who then thinks it is wise or productive to post this, belittling the grievances and objections people have. Fram (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, Fram, you've just made a "personal attack". The wisdom or otherwise of the OP's posts elsewhere are nothing really to do with whether the post here was wise or helpful. I think most people have said the original suggestions were naive, but it has sparked off some discussion about what others think could usefully be done. However, I also think most people here suspect nothing will be done. -- Colin°^Talk 11:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fram You are right, that thread is pretty useless and will only incite people. I think that you are also right that it is ironic for me to also demand reforming ANI while being like that. CactiStaccingCrane 12:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Fram's not right, but he has demonstrated why ANI doesn't work very well. Fram thought it was a good idea to explain why he does not take another editor seriously. Fram didn't address any of the points or arguments or issues in this discussion, it's just a naked ad hominem. Fram's only contribution to this discussion is mud slinging and nothing more. Fram's not the only editor who thinks ad hominems are a good idea (not even the only editor in this discussion whose sole contribution is an ad hominem: see if you can spot another above). It happens all the time at ANI (go check the page now, you see arguments just like this, naked ad hominems). And most of us tolerate that, when what should be doing is showing such uncollaborative editors the door--excluding them from the discussion at least if not the whole website.

This mud slinging makes having a conversation very difficult. Do you feel free and safe to express your ideas here? I don't think comments like Fram's help create an environment that fosters discussion. Do you think others reading Fram's comment will feel free and safe to join this discussion? I don't. That's why Fram's comment is not right.

Fundamentally you have the right idea, but you are on the wrong page CSC. The talk page archives demonstrate that: the watchers of this page are not the audience you want to be discussing reforming ANI with. You'd get more input at the pump, and if you're so inclined, I'd encourage you (or anyone) to start a discussion there. Levivich (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

What I'm about to say, please everyone understand it as being said in a lighthearted and friendly way, and nothing more. I think that there must be a very unusual alignment of the stars right now, because I agree, simultaneously, with both Colin and Levivich. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It's an ad hominem, all right, but only because I see the same kind of "look at my proposal / comment / whatever, but don't look at what I actually do" all the time here (on enwiki I mean). I have today got an apology on my talk page from another editor, who accused me of being condescending but now admitted that they were, in fact, condescending; here, the editor also acknowledged that they were doing the exact behaviour they hoped to eradicate at ANI, at another discussion. I try, on ANI, to curb the enthusiasm of an editor who incessantly posts variations on "we shouldn't let everyone use X as it is too complex, but I am one of the chosen few who can actually handle it responsably" while making basic errors when using the tool, and so on. It's very hard to read all these discussion straight-faced when the broader picture is so different. So no, perhaps my comment doesn't make everyone feel save, but perhaps it will help some people reconsider posting stuff they don't practice elsewhere anyway. And perhaps it also highlights that the issues at ANI they OP and others want to resolve, are the issues we get across enwiki, from many people (including myself and the OP and some others in this discussion). Fram (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Another similar example: Tryptofish, happy to pile on against me, just happened to post NPA accusations and looking for sanctions threats against a 3rd editor at the talk page of an indef blocked user who coincidentally is an onwiki friend of Tryptofish, for this edit where no personal attack or anything blockworthy can be seen at all. So yes, I have a hard time taking the comments serious of someone who the goes and behaves like that. Fram (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Fram, I strongly defended you during "Framgate", and I supported your unsuccessful re-RfA. And all I did here was make a cheerful remark agreeing with two other editors and implicitly defending CactiStaccingCrane. You apparently took that as a reason to look at what other edits I've made. And I'm quite comfortable with the one that you criticize. And I would have said the same whether or not the talk page was that of a friend of mine – mocking someone for not seeing something is never a good teaching method. Oh well, I guess it doesn't have to be like this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The original poster already created a discussion at the village pump idea lab (and a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard last year). I agree that editors should be striving to foster a collaborative environment. For better or worse, at present there is a significant number of vocal editors who are more concerned about the drawbacks of discouraging unfettered candor. I understand why they feel that way: I've outlined in the past how the requirement to assume good faith can hamper discussion of root causes. All the same, I think dispute resolution would be improved with an approach that has more structure. isaacl (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

This may not be worth much but Fram isn't wrong. I don't always agree with their approach but the message Fram is trying to get across is valid. I, for one, ask for and push for civility. I believe it is a critical aspect of this collaborative effort and there is no excuse for not exhibiting it. That is a high watermark but I believe it is necessary. Several months ago Fram pointed out a discussion I was involved in in which several editors and myself didn't exactly live up to that standard. All I can do is acknowledge that and make every attempt to do better. Again, I don't always agree with the approach, just like many don't agree with mine, but it doesn't make the subject of the message incorrect nor does it excuse anyone, including the messenger, from abiding by it. The community's difficult task in these discussions is trying to discern and flesh out those that have no intention or ability to make an attempt to acknowledge their actions and try to do better. I would say, reasonably, everyone in this discussion, so far, falls in the category of those that try to be civil and make every attempt to be collaborative. Fram never claims to be perfect, to the contrary they acknowledge their own faults. I can find plenty of examples of Fram's willingness to collaborate constructively and civilly as I could with most everyone else commenting here. I am not here to defend Fram or their actions. I think some are indefensible and I believe Fram is a reasoned person and can agree with that. I can acknowledge that some of my actions in the past have been indefensible as a well. It's not excusable and we should not let it go unaddressed but it is part of being human. --ARoseWolf 16:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• I find it rather ironic that the same people who ask for civility are often the most uncivil themselves, wanting apologies and sanctions against the people who are standing up for civility. I won't embarass someone who commented above, and who seems to want to be a champion of civility, by linking to the case where that editor made 17 accusations against me, 16 of which were blatantly untrue and the other consisted of me calling another editor an ignoramus when I was at the end of my tether (and for which I apologised), and many of which consisted of me defending myself against death threats. By the time an issue reaches the admins feelings are usually very high, and for anyone to interject themselves into a conversation without checking the facts first is the height of incivility.

Now I've got that off my chest I'll address the original post. The first two points are clear improvements. There are two sides to most conficts, and the complainant shouldn't get to frame the debate by using a non-neutral title. Nobody should be admonished for changing it to a neutral title. The other two seem like pretty minor issues in comparison. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, WP:Civility is often a weapon of warfare. And WP:NPOV is most often used to POV articles. Etc. We really have to get smarter if we want to make this a better place. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't mean to target anyone here, but coincidentally perceived incivility is one of the main reasons why people left Wikipedia, and no doubt ANI is one of the places that perpetuate this kind of behavior. Contrary to what many people has implied here, it has not been a normal thing in the early days of ANI to write lengthy opening statement, nor making the discussion header as pointy as possible, nor becoming an absolute cesspit as it is today. For disputes between experienced-ish editors, ANI is now a gladiator where you are incentivized to make a thread to give you a first-move advantage, where it's increasing becoming a substitute for civil discussion/drop the stick, and where the opinion of a bystander who didn't read the whole discussion and an admin who monitor every single message in the discussion are considered equal in value. All of these has motivated a lot of editors to avoid going to ANI altogether already.

Is it because people are becoming more short-tempered due to social media? Is it because Wikipedia culture has becoming more tolerant to incivility? Is it because the "nice" people has been displaced by "bad" people on Wikipedia? I don't know. What I do know that ANI can be designed to more effective at what it should do and be less inflammatory to the participant, and I know that this is possible because the general Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is more faithful at representing ANI in the olden days and what it should have become. There's a reason why the general AN noticeboard is not labeled WP:CESSPIT. CactiStaccingCrane 04:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's implied that the incidents noticeboard has remained unchanged from over ten years ago. That would be unexpected, given that the editing population has been continously changing, and that evolutionary pressures on editor behaviour have influenced it. Opinions offered by newer editors are often carefully considered precisely in an attempt to avoid having discussions dominated by experienced editors, and it can be very tricky to gently point out that a contributor should be exploring a greater context in order to have a more informed viewpoint.

For any of the many discussions on changing behavioural dispute resolution to succeed, the concerns of those supporting unfettered candor have to be addressed. Additionally, English Wikipedia's consensus-based decision-making traditions stalemate significant process changes, as a relatively small number of vocal opponents can block them. Often the only thing that will get enough opponents to change their mind is for the process in question to become mostly ineffective. I think it's a good idea to continue searching for ways to improve processes, but expectations ought to be tempered to alleviate frustration. Until there's a change in how decisions are made, or enough of the advantages of the existing process (as perceived by those supporting it) can be preserved or otherwise offset by a new process, dramatic shifts won't be readily forthcoming. isaacl (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

There is one structural cause which would not be that hard to fix. By the very naming of ANI defines it as determining whether not actions unique to administrators will be taken. Blocks etc. The solution would to add the practice of simply making findings on behavior. E.G a finding that "your behavior in that situation was wrong" with no blocks etc.. Some of the ways that this would help are:

• For many editors this will have sufficient useful impact and less harmful impact
• For many editors, they are more likely to simply accept that instead of desperately fight to avoid blocks etc.
• For people who deliberately mis-use ANI and similar (e.g. POV warriors trying to remove or deprecate people they see as opposing them) ANI etc. would make some efforts less fruitful.

North8000 (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the proposal: so if an editor's behaviour is discussed at the incidents noticeboard and was found to be wanting, no one would be able to block them, at present and in future, based on that behaviour? isaacl (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)