Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Shortcut:
WT:AN
This is not the page to report problems to administrators,
or discuss administrative issues.
This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard page itself.
Archive
Archives

Contents


[edit] POV Acupuncturist

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV Acupuncturist

[edit] User:Mccready - endless, disruptive, repetitive edit warring

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mccready - endless, disruptive, repetitive edit warring

[edit] Betacommand and size

Would it be worth removing the issue to a separate page? Agathoclea (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It is 137kb so... Y Done. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry. FunPika 17:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Size

Currently the noticeboard is at 416KB. HappyMelon has tried to help in the past by early archiving and splitting threads, but it seems like this page is constantly above the 256KB goal. Maybe a more aggressive archiving or splitting system (say once a thread reaches 25KB it's shunted to a Holding Pen or something similar) is needed. MBisanz talk 04:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Check above. There was already discussion on this. I still feel something needs to be implemented, but this just hasn't gotten enough notice to be changed yet. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I believe that we need to change the amount of time that MiszaBotII archives this page to something like 12 hours or 24 hours (and even then, it might still be too large.) Cheers, Razorflame 20:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stale time limit proposal

Being the only regular administrator at 3RRN, it's very hard to enact blocks from old, untended-to reports. If I make a block to a user whom has broken 3RR but hasn't made a revert for a number of hours, then I run the risk of making the block punitive and not preventative. Administrators do not make punitive blocks, blocks/page protections are in place to prevent damage to our encyclopaedia.
I cannot, in my conscience, make a block 3-4 hours after a users last revert, it's unethical and totally punitive. I propose that a) more admins work on 3RRN regularly in order to process reports b) more non-admins work on 3RRN reports to quicken the process and c) we work on establishing a rough guideline (3 to 4 hours, in my opinion) on what is considered a "stale" report [where no action can be taken as it can be perceived as "punitive"]. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't think, given that it actually takes quite a while merely to generate such a report, and that reverts in a 3rr violation can take place over four hours apart (indeed, they frequently do), that this places an undue burden on editors trying to prevent violations, and encourages edit-warring and system-gaming. IronDuke 21:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want something done, consider getting other admins to regularly keep an eye on this noticeboard. It's difficult coping with the stress of numerous people breathing down your neck for decisions you consider logical. Is 6 hours a better timeframe? If we agree on this, perhaps I can re-analyse those other posts? ScarianCall me Pat! 21:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's quite true that you're the only regular administrator there, Scarian. But I'll see if I can contribute there a bit more. At any rate, though, I think 3-4 hours is far to short a timeframe to consider an edit war stale. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I've generally used 24 hours as a stale timeframe. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see a time limit, but for a violation measured in days, the time limit should be somewhere around a day. Forcing users to generate the report and get it processed within 3 hours seems incredibly rushed.Kww (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Violations are measured in 24 hours! We don't block for 3RR violations made within 36 hours or 48... it has to stay within 30 tops... otherwise it just becomes too punitive. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Is 6 hours okay? Any longer would just seem punitive as the user may not have made a revert since then. We're not punishers. It can take 10-15 minutes to compile a report after the user has violated WP:3RR. That would leave 6 hours (subject to the individual admins discretion) for an admin to notice the report, reports can be dealt with within less than 10-15 minutes. That's 6 whole hours for an admin to turn up. We have 900 active administrators and, recently, it's just been me. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

We should be able to find a middle ground. I think the main problem is that there simply aren't enough admins who regularly patrol the 3RR noticeboard. WP:SSP suffers from a similar problem. If we could get a few more admins at WP:AN3, we could ensure that blocks are not punitive by shortening the time limit to under a day. Enigma message 22:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems like an entirely novel interpretation of 3RR, at least in my five years or so experience with it. Does this mean to Scarian, that as long as admins are slow to read the notice board, no one will ever be blocked for violations? I guess that when User:Fovian Author next violates on this same edit of Barack Obama, I'll post the report again. 3RR should provide slightly less gentle encouragement to editors to refrain from edit warring, not simply to prevent the one next reversion. FWIW, I've been blocked a couple times over the years (mostly correctly), always more than 12 hours after my last edit; in one case I think more like 48 hours afterwards. I've also filed a pretty large number of reports, and have never seen a report addressed within 3-4 hours, even where a block resulted (or especially then). LotLE×talk 02:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that since the "rule" refers to the number of reversions within a 24-hour period, a report should only be marked as "stale" once 24 hours has passed since the last reversion in a report. If a shorter time limit is set, you could find yourself in a situation where warring editors will be able to watch for stale results and then begin warring again. On a related note; if there is a problem of a lack of administrators to monitor the noticeboard, it adds weight to the argument that the barrier to becoming an administrator should be lowered. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Scarian here. The entire purpose behind the 3RR rule is to stop edit wars. If an editor hasn't made a further revert in more than three or four hours, then we aren't really seeing an edit war. The objective is for everyone to take a step back, and once that has clearly happened over a few hours (e.g., editor participates in talk page, stops editing completely, responds to a warning on their page by saying they are going to bed, or otherwise refrains from editing the page further) then there is only a punitive element to the block. Edit warring is not being prevented by blocking someone while they're sleeping. Risker (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Certainly, sometimes 3-6 hours is enough that it may be stale. But not always, especially with slow revert wars. Something like this really needs to be up to administrative discretion (which is why if I'm in doubt, I generally just leave the report to see if another admin wants to take any action). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
You have to take into account the need for escalating blocks. In cases where there have been multiple acts of edit warring that have resulted in earlier blocks, the length of a block is necessarily extended to discourage future edit warring. This discussion arose from a report about an editor who had already previously been blocked for edit warring, so a block of longer than 24 hours would probably have been appropriate. Since no block of any kind was enacted, the editor in question will probably edit war in the future. In fact, the previous report on this editor was also marked as stale, and so the editor came right back and edit warred again. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Fovean Arthur hadn't been blocked before, but you are right to object in his case. Clearly an abusive editor and Scarian enacted a block. Enigma message 16:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Scarian has raised a very important issue. I fully agree that there comes a point when the 3RR report is stale and then our objectives are better accomplished by a warning rather than a block which would be punitive. The problem with arbitrary time limits is, as Scjessey says, warring editors will game the system by pacing their reverts. The way forward is, as suggested, firstly for more administrators take an interest and secondly for reporting editors to accept that when admins come to the board they will use judgement in deciding if a block is still going to be preventative and, if not, they will not block. Smile a While (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree. As WP:BLOCK#Purpose and goals says, blocks "are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern." If an edit war is not ongoing, there is no current conduct issue of concern. That's not to say that there is no conduct issue of concern, but at that point it would be better dealt with by counselling the user rather than blocking. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I don't know, am I in the right place?

This might be subtle, but I think it'd be a good idea to state what the board is actually used for. Maybe the problem is we don't know anymore, but as of right now the page instructions only say what it is not for. Clarity? Keegantalk 05:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Traditionally, we've tried not to limit any page by listing criteria for inclusion, perhaps because this would WP:CREEP into either a long, long list or into a short list that was then rigorously enforced. So we stick to criteria for exclusion, so we don't get instruction creep and we don't get a situation were we have no page for discussing something. But if you think you could come up with a list, feel free to give it a try. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 08:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
As commented, since the instructions don't specifically say that it shouldn't have a list of what can be discussed then it could have one. Just make sure that the list includes having a list of what can be discussed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 :o) ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)