![]() |
This page has been mentioned by a media organization: |
---|---|
|
![]() Archives |
---|
Threads older than 8 days may be archived by ClueBot III. |
Contents
Pro-Trump POV-pushing the Donald Trump article by topic-banned editor
Wrong place. --NeilN talk to me 15:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Anythingyouwant is an anti-abortion POV-pushing editor who was topic banned by a 12-0 vote on all "abortion-related pages, broadly construed" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Anythingyouwant_topic-banned). He is now POV-pushing Trump to be the next President per his agenda to illegalize abortion. Is there anything that can be done about this? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- 1. Unless the edits are specifically related to abortion then no. Every US politician has a stance on abortion, broadly construing a topic ban that widely would be the same as topic banning someone from US politics. Unless Anythingyouwant is editing about Trump's stance or plans RE abortion, they are not restricted. If you feel they are not editing neutrally, take concerns to the NPOV noticeboard where they will get a more in-depth dissection.
- 2. This talk page is for issues about the Admin noticeboard, not for concerns that should be *on* the noticeboard. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Where is the talk page for Admin noticeboard policy? There is a huge difference between "Every US politician" and a Presidential nominee polling at around 50% in the polls who has provided a list of potential Supreme Court nominees and (according to the Political positions of Donald Trump article) The Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group, praised Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees as "exceptionally strong," while the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America called the candidates on the list "a woman's worst nightmare." Every US politician's would clearly not be an abortion-related page, while the Donald Trump page is likely the most abortion-related page on Wikipedia with regard to the future of abortion policy. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is the wrong place to discuss either content issues or conduct issues. If the editor in question is editing with respect to abortion in violation of a topic ban, the place to report them is Arbitration Enforcement. If they are editing disruptively about American politics, but are not addressing abortion, they can be notified of discretionary sanctions and then reported to Arbitration Enforcement. However, this is the talk page for the administrators' noticeboard, and is the wrong place to discuss conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Where is the talk page for Admin noticeboard policy? There is a huge difference between "Every US politician" and a Presidential nominee polling at around 50% in the polls who has provided a list of potential Supreme Court nominees and (according to the Political positions of Donald Trump article) The Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group, praised Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees as "exceptionally strong," while the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America called the candidates on the list "a woman's worst nightmare." Every US politician's would clearly not be an abortion-related page, while the Donald Trump page is likely the most abortion-related page on Wikipedia with regard to the future of abortion policy. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please do not One-Click Archive threads until at least 24 hours after close
I'd like to remind One-Click Archiver users that threads on ANI need to stay visible on at least 24 hours after closing, in order to accommodate all time zones, sleep/wake schedules, and wiki log-in habits. The best and easiest way to refrain from too-early archiving is to Google utc time, subtract one day from that, and then avoid archiving anything that was closed later than that. Thanks very much. Softlavender (talk) 03:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Bringing back this thread as it got archived. Also pinging EEng -- could you take a look at the above? Thanks very much for archiving -- please ensure you aren't undercutting the 24-hour window. (Unfortunately ANI does not have it's own talk page for some inane reason so I am told I need to ping people instead to alert them to this thread.) Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I usually wait 48-72 hours after the last comment (not necessarily the close, unless the close is itself informative) depending on the content, the level of controversy, and the extent to which there's something bystanders might learn. For example, a thread that ended with a block for an IP-hopper I'll usually leave to be auto-archived, because of the likelihood the issue will return. On the other hand [1] I archived relatively quickly because it was completely mundane. Have you seen any problems? EEng 04:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- The ANI board usually averages at least 28 to 34+ threads, so when it suddenly dipped to far less than 20 that tipped me off that the most recent archiver (that would be you) was probably archiving too quickly. I checked the most recent thread you archived, and it was approximately 21.75 hours after close rather than 24+. So yeah, check UTC time when archiving. Anyway, I hate to ping people out which is why this stupid ANI board should have its own stupid talk page so people who have it on their watch list but do not have AN on their watch list can see threads. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- I would argue that the best and easiest way to refrain from too-early archiving is to not use OCA at all, and instead wait for one of the archiving bots to come by. →Σσς. (Sigma) 04:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I personally disagree with that in that I think that removing closed threads after 24+ hours is useful because one reason ANI lacks sufficient input from administrators is because there is way too much text to wade through. Keeping the deck cleared helps people see what still needs to be addressed. When there are 70+ threads and millions of bytes of text, often only the brave have the time and energy and focus to wade past all the purple boxes and all the 70-odd threads to spot the threads that need attention but may go unnoticed and under-responded to. Many of these important but incompleted threads get bot-archived without attention because there is simply way too much clutter on ANI. 24 hours provides an adequate window for anyone actually truly interested in the thread to re-view it when they wake up and log in, no matter what their time zone or work schedule. Threads get auto-archived by bot after 72 hours of inactivity, but that is too long to wait for closed threads because the board quickly fills to 80 or more threads. Lastly, anyone who for some reason misses seeing the close result can find it in the archive after that 24-hour window following the close. Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, you could always change the archive age to 24 hours! In fact, I've gone ahead and done that - without prejudice to being reverted, of course. →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I used to use OCA to only archive threads that have been closed and are still visible on the page many days later. Archiving open threads which have not seen activity for 1-2 days is not a good idea in my book. Blackmane (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- Agree re hasty archiving. There's nothing wrong with archiving threads (say) 24 hours after they are closed, but archiving threads 24 hours after the latest comment reduces the effectiveness of these dispute resolution pages. Some issues require time for discussion before they can be resolved, and that means waiting to let all sides have a say. 24 hours after the last comment is not an unreasonable time for a closer to consider and resolve the issue, especially for those of us in faraway time zones, but this can only really occur if the thread is visible on the page.The alternative - vanishing open disputes into the archives - means no one resolves the dispute and it is left to fester. Mildly, I'm not convinced that a long ANI thread scares potential closers away, and there seems no other reason for the rapid removal of unresolved discussions. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- I used to use OCA to only archive threads that have been closed and are still visible on the page many days later. Archiving open threads which have not seen activity for 1-2 days is not a good idea in my book. Blackmane (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
What is a troll?
Re: [3]
@RickinBaltimore: Per Internet troll, trolling does not include being completely wrong, or even showing a propensity for disruption or troublemaking. It's posting for no other reason than to get a big reaction. Since the term justifies a dismissive response (removal without discussion), the distinction is important. We can debate whether being patently wrong justifies unilateral removal, but let's please at least avoid the misuse of the term "troll". And the same goes for "vandal", BTW. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Respectfully, this user IS trying to get a reaction, hence the trolling comment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- And for no other reason? I see no evidence of that. What I see is a person who is incorrectly feeling persecuted. And that is not a troll. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- However look at the SPI for this user. I am always welcome to assume good faith. I also know when, pardon my language, when the piss is being taken from us. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- If it's a sock, call it a sock, not a troll, for accuracy's sake. Even if the response is the same. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, sorry for the conflict! RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- We could also link to the SPI in the editsums of such reverts. Not everybody will know that RickinBaltimore is a 10-year editor who consistently shows fairly good judgment in these things, so we can accept his judgment at face value. I didn't. Takes another 30 seconds give or take, well worth it in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, sorry for the conflict! RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- If it's a sock, call it a sock, not a troll, for accuracy's sake. Even if the response is the same. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- However look at the SPI for this user. I am always welcome to assume good faith. I also know when, pardon my language, when the piss is being taken from us. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- And for no other reason? I see no evidence of that. What I see is a person who is incorrectly feeling persecuted. And that is not a troll. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:ANI playground for inexperienced users
Since the project page clearly states that ANI is for administrators and experienced users it's time to put an end to the constant disruption from inexperienced users here, with edits ranging from trying to give advice in fields they clearly know nothing about to NAC-closing threads almost before anyone else has had a chance to read them. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Thomas.W: Is there anything in particular you'd suggest? The blanket removal of comments from users which aren't deemed experienced? I do agree that the NACing of threads can sometimes be a little hasty. Also, yes, AN/I's talk page redirects here - gotcha! -- samtar talk or stalk 20:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- (edit conflict) I suggest one or more admins keep an eye on new and inexperienced users posting in threads where they shouldn't post (check this thread), and tell them to go play somewhere else. And topic-ban them from ANI if they don't heed the advice (it has been done before, both telling inexperienced users to stop posting on ANI and topic-banning people from ANI, so it's nothing new). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- Is there anything special about "inexperienced users"? My impression is that AN and ANI have always been perceived as a place where bad things happen, considering redirects like WP:CESSPIT. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's a term which is too broad - some "inexperienced users" can make relatively logical and policy-based responses (though, I have no examples to hand!). I believe this thread shows the type of comment Tom may be referring to - the accusation of sockpuppeting here is just completely unnecessary, and was likely made due to an "inexperience" in Wikipedia's own brand of common sense -- samtar talk or stalk 20:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) They are more prone to giving well-intentioned but poor observations or advice. Not calling for any substantial change though. It's always been that way. --NeilN talk to me 20:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Is there anything special about "inexperienced users"? My impression is that AN and ANI have always been perceived as a place where bad things happen, considering redirects like WP:CESSPIT. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- In absence of a couple of admins keeping an eye on these types of comments (which, to be fair, is just another thing to ask them to do), would a quick note on the inexperienced editors talk thanking them for their comment but noting that it was unhelpful/etc help guide these well-meaning editors? Failing that, a stern "please stop" would make the point I'd hope -- samtar talk or stalk 21:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Is the sky blue? :-) If experienced editors/admins would do this, that would be great. --NeilN talk to me 21:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- It's not as simple as "old vs new"; the really problematic people at ANI aren't generally newcomers, but old sweats who feel they've been around long enough that they're infallible; with overenthusiastic newcomers, a quiet "cool down" is usually enough. The undisputed champion for making really harebrained comments on admin boards and for making up non-existent policies and telling new editors they're obliged to comply with them has been around for nine years and has over 12,000 edits, and everyone who's watched a noticeboard for any length of time probably has half a dozen names they'd add to that list. ‑ Iridescent 21:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Surely a TB on ANI removes the level of protection that every editor on here deserves. There must be a better way. DrChrissy (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'd hope it wouldn't have to get to that, a gentle mention of the unhelpfulness of their comment up to a stern "please stop" would hopefully stop most over-eager editors -- samtar talk or stalk 21:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- TB means "topic ban", yes? I wonder if a more general requirement for AN(I) commenters to have a degree of dispassionateness, judgment and intelligence would help, but to enforce that you'd need another layercake of process. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: judgment and intelligence - some would argue that the majority of the admin corp doesn't have that :-) samtar has it right. As a first step, address the issue on the user's talk page. --NeilN talk to me 22:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- TB means "topic ban", yes? I wonder if a more general requirement for AN(I) commenters to have a degree of dispassionateness, judgment and intelligence would help, but to enforce that you'd need another layercake of process. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- @DrChrissy: The topic bans on ANI that I have seen only covered threads that didn't directly concern the editor who was topic-banned, it didn't remove their right to post (valid) complaints, or comment in threads that directly concerned them. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks for the clarification. DrChrissy (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'd hope it wouldn't have to get to that, a gentle mention of the unhelpfulness of their comment up to a stern "please stop" would hopefully stop most over-eager editors -- samtar talk or stalk 21:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)