Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Clerks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

1 Proposals
2 Why restrict this to "clerks"
3 Case study

[edit] Proposals

Right here are the proposals at the moment:

[edit] Move very long threads to subpages

When a thread becomes more than 50k in length, create a subpage.

Agree. This can help stop the ANI board being overloaded. Dav nel 03 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with this. Per the above; threads often become to lengthy. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagree - subpages are not helpful, in my opinion. length should be dealt with by collapsing sections, creating subsections, moving discussion to other venues, and so on. But not subpages of ANI. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That would make the section hard to edit, as said by an admin on ANI right now. 哦， 是吗？(review O) 01:30, 05 December 2007 (GMT)
Disagree - as with Carcharoth, subpages are ~~helpful~~unhelpful [sorry about that slip... --20:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)], in part because the creation of a subpage generally prolongs a dispute. --Iamunknown 16:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've pulled this one since it's controversial. Keep in mind that some users don't have fast connections, so a 500k page is a real obstacle to their participation. When the page gets too huge, we do have to remove stuff somehow. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But move to a more visible place than a subpage and change the nature of the discussion from a noticeboard one into what ever it should be. Carcharoth (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, if an issue cannot be settled by a discussion of reasonable length, then we need to go to dispute resolution. Technically, ANI is not part of the dispute resolution process. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prevent threads from being archived prematurely

The archive bot automatically archives threads 24 hours after the last comment. To prevent this from happening when a thread has not received enough comments, add a timestamp and request more discussion. In particular, reviews of lengthy blocks and community ban discussions need to have significant, representative participation before they are closed.'

I agree, but some threads don't exactly need many comments, if its just informing the main community about something. If it's something serious (like ban, suicide threat etc.), more comment would obviously be needed. In my view, all threads like bans and stuff need a clear consensus before anyone closes them. Dav nel 03 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Can this be accomplished through technical means? e.g. a template that reads along the lines of "This thread is open, and will not be archived", and the bot picks up on the presence of the template. (I've asked about such a feature on Misza13's page) —Random832 19:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A good question worth investigating. Perhaps we can alter Miszabot not to archive threads until they are marked with a {{Resolved}} template for at least 24 hours. It can check the timestamp on the template. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's the best way - archiving has been the default for a while, and it might go more smoothly (with your idea, I can see a lot of stuff not getting marked resolved until it "floats to the top" as it were) to have it remain so, with a template to "hold open" a thread. —Random832 21:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with proposed method (timestamping with request for further comment). Obviously, as stated above, not every thread will need a lengthy discussion, so it should be common sense for the clerk. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with this, this has been an issue that I have run into many, many times. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seek additional comments from uninvolved parties

If a clique grabs hold of an issue, make a request for additional parties to become involved.

Who? Can you ask anyone or just admins? I know one or two admins who I could ask for assistance, I don't think you should go to normal users who don't have admin tools. Dav nel 03 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would post a comment asking for more input, or maybe look at the issue in dispute and find other editors who have been active on the relevant pages and invite them to comment. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Figuring out who to ask would obviously vary on a case by case basis. Seeking administrators' would be the best possible scenario though, in most cases. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This could be very useful. Should be noted in the thread though, so people know that such notification has been posted. Probably best to merge this function with the "notify names users" bit below. A problem here is how to avoid duplication of effort. Also, notifying everyone who is mentioned in long threads could be difficult, and sometimes may only inflame the situation. There are times when someone is mentioned only briefly, but you really don't want them turning up and joining in. Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm very interested in how this particular item could be implemented without maintaining "cliques". In my experience, there are essentially three types of admins as far as AN/I is concerned: Those that pore of it and respond often, those that casually browse it looking for items of interest and rarely comment, and those who don't know or care about it. For those of us in the second group, it can be almost impossible to follow or contribute to threads there. So as a clerk, how do you decide whom to ask? A "regular" who may or may not be part of the same clique? A person from the second group who probably doesn't have time to read the whole thread and accompanying background material? And how does the clerk respond to the inevitable criticism of who they chose to ask if the issue doesn't fall on the side of the clique? Some rhetorical questions there but I'd like to see the matter discussed. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 03:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove improper posts

If sock puppets of banned users post, identify and delete as necessary.

Same as above point. Only admins should be able to do this. In any case, we could be clearly mistaken, unless it is blatently obvious. Dav nel 03 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Any editor is allowed to remove a post by a banned user. It may be necessary to file a request for checkuser to identify if a suspicious account is a sock puppet of a banned user. Filling out the request is a valuable service that volunteers can perform to help maintain the board. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Specifically from banned users, agree. The clerks shouldn't go overboard though; removing posts unless there is a valid reason, which should be detailed in the edit summary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Could be too controversial and subject to abuse. Best to avoid for now. Carcharoth (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree with my comment? - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think removing posts of banned users is acceptable. Anybody can do that. A further help would be for the clerks to file checkuser requests so any banned users stiring up trouble at ANI could be identified and stopped. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refactor (or collapse) excessively long posts

Unhelpful screeds may be refactored, deleted or placed in collapse boxes if they are completely inappropriate.

Agree. Dav nel 03 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The word "screed" seems pejorative (yes, there certainly are some, but nobody likes to see _theirs_ called one.), it might be worth coming up with a more diplomatic wording. —Random832 21:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Collapsing would be the best idea here (opposed to refactoring). Not only is it quicker, it will avoid accidental changes to context. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Make sure parties are notified

If you see a thread where an involved party has not appeared, make sure they have been notified.

Definitely. I tend to notify others. I was just thinking. Is there anyway we could set up a bot to notify others if they are mentioned in a thread? Dav nel 03 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In general, the party who starts a case is responsible for notifying. Our objective here would be to spot check and reinforce that process. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: This is the template we use to notify others for those unaware. Dav nel 03 19:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously important. Use Template:ANI-notice, or leave a comment on involved users' talk page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Though exercise caution. Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, presently, I think, we do somewhat poorly at this part. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ensure that community bans are logged

When a community ban discussion has closed, and a ban has been created, archive the thread, and make sure the ban is logged at Wikipedia:List of banned users, with a link to the archived thread.

Agree. Dav nel 03 19:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Also important. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Very important. Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why restrict this to "clerks"

This seems unnecessary. All proposed activities are things any user in good-standing should do. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't restrictive in any way. The purpose is to encourage more editors to participate and help them understand what they can do. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think, maybe "clerks" is a bad term to use for it... I'm at a loss for a better one, however... SQL ^{Query me!} 04:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

AN/I and the Administrators' noticeboard both have perfectly good talk pages for questions/issues. I frankly don't see why we need a self selected group of middle managers. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy of course, and we don't need to create another class of user. Any editor can fulfill the proposed functions of a "clerk" so the distinction is meaningless...if someone has a question they should be using the talk pages where everyone will see them and not fork them off to some less visible page. RxS (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but whether they will is another story... this way at least some editors are obligated to do this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Using the term "obligated" loosely, I presume. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is restricted to clerdks. Normal users will also be able to do the stuff, and they can volunteer as a clerk whenever--Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case study

I propose the following sequence be used as a case study. What should have happened here?

[1] - 07:01, 11 December 2007 - I close a long discussion on the basis that it is the wrong venue and citing WP:DEADHORSE.
[2] - 13:04, 11 December 2007 - Chardish reverts me, fearing a conflict of interest as I took part in the discussion
[3] - 13:22, 11 December 2007 - Following further developments I reclose and update to new venue for discussion.
[4] - SwatJester reverts and says in edit summary: "inappropriate template use. These are not intended to be used to stifle discussion, certainly not intended to be used by someone involved in the debate" (I later rebutted the "stifle" allegation and pointed out that I was trying to redirect the discussion, but it is true that I was involved in the debate).
Having encountered opposition, I backed off and am letting the thread run its natural course, though (at my suggestion) someone put a "see also" link to the other discussion at the top of the section.

Thoughts? Carcharoth (talk) 13:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)(Update: 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC))