Some off-wiki response-seeking...
A couple of comments at the administrator's noticeboard (AN) about the quality of ANI discussion have led to a short post on-wiki asking for perceptions:
A user's suggested in passing in an AN discussion, that they feel there can be issues at ANI:
- *"For whatever reason, discussions at WP:AN seem to be a little more calm and rational than ANI"* - *"ANI is a bit like throwing chum into a pool of sharks. It's just the mentality there"* - *"AN doesn't seem to attract as many drama seekers [as ANI]"*
Quick feedback: some truth to it? A lot? Not much?
A simple request for thoughts.
Since ANI and VP tend to be followed by more experienced users and admins, I'm posting it on the en mailing list to increase the exposure and odds of feedback being given from non-admins. Link to on-wiki posthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#ANI_curiosity
FT2
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:34 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Some off-wiki response-seeking...
A couple of comments at the administrator's noticeboard (AN) about the quality of ANI discussion have led to a short post on-wiki asking for perceptions:
A user's suggested in passing in an AN discussion, that they feel there can be issues at ANI:
- *"For whatever reason, discussions at WP:AN seem to be a little more calm and rational than ANI"*
the mentality there"*
- *"ANI is a bit like throwing chum into a pool of sharks. It's just
- *"AN doesn't seem to attract as many drama seekers [as ANI]"*
Quick feedback: some truth to it? A lot? Not much?
A simple request for thoughts.
Since ANI and VP tend to be followed by more experienced users and admins, I'm posting it on the en mailing list to increase the exposure and odds of feedback being given from non-admins. Link to on-wiki post< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#AN...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#ANI_curiosity
FT2 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I recently unwatched AN/I because I felt pretty much those exact feelings. I wasn't personally affected by issues raised there, and nor did I post there a lot, but the amount of stupidity that showed up in my watchlist often made me involve myself. The same goes for RFA talk, which I no longer watch either.
There are differences between the two pages. My view is that incidents should be for messages that require immediate intervention - i.e. an incident that requires attention now. The other noticeboard should be for things less urgent, such as community bans, general notices, major changes to policy, RFCs needing input etc. Many seem to interchange the two noticeboards.
AN/I has its uses, but could very easily be split off into other places and marked historical.
Probably due in no small part to the fact that AN is the official "administrator's board," while ANI is the incidents board, the "i'm telling on you" board where any user can report any perceived threats. Just tends to lead to more outrageous, drama-inducing posts, I'd wager.
- GlassCobra
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:34 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Some off-wiki response-seeking...
A couple of comments at the administrator's noticeboard (AN) about the quality of ANI discussion have led to a short post on-wiki asking for perceptions:
A user's suggested in passing in an AN discussion, that they feel there can be issues at ANI:
- *"For whatever reason, discussions at WP:AN seem to be a little more calm and rational than ANI"*
the mentality there"*
- *"ANI is a bit like throwing chum into a pool of sharks. It's just
- *"AN doesn't seem to attract as many drama seekers [as ANI]"*
Quick feedback: some truth to it? A lot? Not much?
A simple request for thoughts.
Since ANI and VP tend to be followed by more experienced users and admins, I'm posting it on the en mailing list to increase the exposure and odds of feedback being given from non-admins. Link to on-wiki post< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#AN...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#ANI_curiosity
FT2 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Rename to "Wikipedia:Administrator help requests" or "Requests for Administrator assistance"?
Sometimes a name can have an effect.
FT2
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Alex Sawczynec glasscobra15@gmail.comwrote:
Probably due in no small part to the fact that AN is the official "administrator's board," while ANI is the incidents board, the "i'm telling on you" board where any user can report any perceived threats. Just tends to lead to more outrageous, drama-inducing posts, I'd wager.
- GlassCobra
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:34 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Some off-wiki response-seeking...
A couple of comments at the administrator's noticeboard (AN) about the quality of ANI discussion have led to a short post on-wiki asking for perceptions:
A user's suggested in passing in an AN discussion, that they feel there
can
be issues at ANI:
- *"For whatever reason, discussions at WP:AN seem to be a little more calm and rational than ANI"*
the mentality there"*
- *"ANI is a bit like throwing chum into a pool of sharks. It's just
- *"AN doesn't seem to attract as many drama seekers [as ANI]"*
Quick feedback: some truth to it? A lot? Not much?
A simple request for thoughts.
Since ANI and VP tend to be followed by more experienced users and
admins,
I'm posting it on the en mailing list to increase the exposure and odds
of
feedback being given from non-admins. Link to on-wiki post<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#AN... < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#AN...
FT2 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:43 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Rename to "Wikipedia:Administrator help requests" or "Requests for Administrator assistance"?
Sometimes a name can have an effect.
FT2
I have never really liked the structure of the admin noticeboard pages - in that they are subpages with a rather ambiguous sort of name. Requests for admin assistance is much more obvious and direct.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:43 PM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Rename to "Wikipedia:Administrator help requests" or "Requests for Administrator assistance"?
Sometimes a name can have an effect.
FT2
I have never really liked the structure of the admin noticeboard pages - in that they are subpages with a rather ambiguous sort of name. Requests for admin assistance is much more obvious and direct.
-- Alex (User:Majorly)
I've mooted this idea at WT:ANI < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#AN... to see what people think.
Notified as well, at VP and CENT.
FT2
People need a single main point of contact for problems; If we removed AN/I, then the confused complaints would come to AN. If we could keep all the miscellaneous nuisance contained within AN/I, that would be helpful, large as it might get.
The various specific boards for reporting problems, SPI in particular, are more apt to confuse new people than guide them in the right direction
On 7/23/09, Alex Sawczynec glasscobra15@gmail.com wrote:
Probably due in no small part to the fact that AN is the official "administrator's board," while ANI is the incidents board, the "i'm telling on you" board where any user can report any perceived threats. Just tends to lead to more outrageous, drama-inducing posts, I'd wager.
- GlassCobra
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:34 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Some off-wiki response-seeking...
A couple of comments at the administrator's noticeboard (AN) about the quality of ANI discussion have led to a short post on-wiki asking for perceptions:
A user's suggested in passing in an AN discussion, that they feel there can be issues at ANI:
- *"For whatever reason, discussions at WP:AN seem to be a little more calm and rational than ANI"*
the mentality there"*
- *"ANI is a bit like throwing chum into a pool of sharks. It's just
- *"AN doesn't seem to attract as many drama seekers [as ANI]"*
Quick feedback: some truth to it? A lot? Not much?
A simple request for thoughts.
Since ANI and VP tend to be followed by more experienced users and admins, I'm posting it on the en mailing list to increase the exposure and odds of feedback being given from non-admins. Link to on-wiki post< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#AN...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#ANI_curiosity
FT2 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I wouldn't be so quick to call it nuisance. We have thousands of active users, hundreds of thousands of occasional users, and a wide range of warriors, promoters, and people who don't get the plot (or would rather not do so). There's a very wide range of reasons someone might want an administrator to help, and most users aren't admins.
There will be a constant flow of misplaced, bad faith or confused requests, but many of those may yet have a fair right to be asked.
Far more so, there is a far larger flow of completely legitimate and reasonable requests for admin help. I wouldn't call it "nuisance", as if it's just an undesirable annoyance. Its a result of being the size of the user base that even a tiny proportion validly seeking admin help might add up to hundreds a day.
FT2
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:57 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
People need a single main point of contact for problems; If we removed AN/I, then the confused complaints would come to AN. If we could keep all the miscellaneous nuisance contained within AN/I, that would be helpful, large as it might get.
The various specific boards for reporting problems, SPI in particular, are more apt to confuse new people than guide them in the right direction
On 7/23/09, Alex Sawczynec glasscobra15@gmail.com wrote:
Probably due in no small part to the fact that AN is the official "administrator's board," while ANI is the incidents board, the "i'm
telling
on you" board where any user can report any perceived threats. Just tends
to
lead to more outrageous, drama-inducing posts, I'd wager.
- GlassCobra
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:34 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Some off-wiki response-seeking...
A couple of comments at the administrator's noticeboard (AN) about the quality of ANI discussion have led to a short post on-wiki asking for perceptions:
A user's suggested in passing in an AN discussion, that they feel there can be issues at ANI:
- *"For whatever reason, discussions at WP:AN seem to be a little more calm and rational than ANI"*
- *"ANI is a bit like throwing chum into a pool of sharks. It's
just
the mentality there"* - *"AN doesn't seem to attract as many drama seekers [as ANI]"*Quick feedback: some truth to it? A lot? Not much?
A simple request for thoughts.
Since ANI and VP tend to be followed by more experienced users and
admins,
I'm posting it on the en mailing list to increase the exposure and odds
of
feedback being given from non-admins. Link to on-wiki post<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#AN... < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#AN...
FT2 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
FT2, why not do a proper analysis of a week or two weeks of requests at the admin and other noticeboards, to get some concrete figures, and not just a general feeling?
Carcharoth
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:26 PM, FT2ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't be so quick to call it nuisance. We have thousands of active users, hundreds of thousands of occasional users, and a wide range of warriors, promoters, and people who don't get the plot (or would rather not do so). There's a very wide range of reasons someone might want an administrator to help, and most users aren't admins.
There will be a constant flow of misplaced, bad faith or confused requests, but many of those may yet have a fair right to be asked.
Far more so, there is a far larger flow of completely legitimate and reasonable requests for admin help. I wouldn't call it "nuisance", as if it's just an undesirable annoyance. Its a result of being the size of the user base that even a tiny proportion validly seeking admin help might add up to hundreds a day.
FT2
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:57 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
People need a single main point of contact for problems; If we removed AN/I, then the confused complaints would come to AN. If we could keep all the miscellaneous nuisance contained within AN/I, that would be helpful, large as it might get.
The various specific boards for reporting problems, SPI in particular, are more apt to confuse new people than guide them in the right direction
On 7/23/09, Alex Sawczynec glasscobra15@gmail.com wrote:
Probably due in no small part to the fact that AN is the official "administrator's board," while ANI is the incidents board, the "i'm
telling
on you" board where any user can report any perceived threats. Just tends
to
lead to more outrageous, drama-inducing posts, I'd wager.
- GlassCobra
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 6:34 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Some off-wiki response-seeking...
A couple of comments at the administrator's noticeboard (AN) about the quality of ANI discussion have led to a short post on-wiki asking for perceptions:
A user's suggested in passing in an AN discussion, that they feel there can be issues at ANI:
- *"For whatever reason, discussions at WP:AN seem to be a little more calm and rational than ANI"* - *"ANI is a bit like throwing chum into a pool of sharks. It's
just
the mentality there"* - *"AN doesn't seem to attract as many drama seekers [as ANI]"*
Quick feedback: some truth to it? A lot? Not much?
A simple request for thoughts.
Since ANI and VP tend to be followed by more experienced users and
admins,
I'm posting it on the en mailing list to increase the exposure and odds
of
feedback being given from non-admins. Link to on-wiki post<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#AN... < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#AN...
FT2 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Mainly I'm on wikibreak and trying to do other things. Though you wouldn't think it.....
It wouldn't be hard to do as you suggest (analyze 2 - 3 archive pages?) but the views of users are in themselves interesting and valuable. It's user feedback, not just internal measurements, that count, when a person asks for help. A user comments that there's issues at ANI, the easiest way is to ask how users see it.
There's another more significant reason too; I'm not sure how statistically measurable it would be. There's consideable diversity on these kinds of issues and where users see a problem, and I'm after a wider view than my own.
Finally it may simply happen that serious issues come up less frequently and the sample chosen wouldn't include any of the kind people mean, even though ANI regulars know they happen often enough.
FT2
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
FT2, why not do a proper analysis of a week or two weeks of requests at the admin and other noticeboards, to get some concrete figures, and not just a general feeling?
Carcharoth
The other day I ran across what is perhaps for me, one of the most bizarre situations with references I've yet to encounter.
Webster's has produced a book.? I found it in some random Google books searches I was doing on a subject.? It states certain facts and a few of them I knew to be without evidence, which made me wonder where they'd come from.? After a few minutes of scanning back-and-forth I realized that their source citation, which is only cited as (WP) stands for.... Wikipedia.
Checking the Wikipedia article on the same subject, that "fact" is no longer present.
I hope we can all see what horror Webster has now unleashed upon us, by this act of intellectual graffiti, not to mention amateurish citation.? They need to be taken to the woodshed.
Will Johnson
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:49 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
The other day I ran across what is perhaps for me, one of the most bizarre situations with references I've yet to encounter.
Webster's has produced a book.? I found it in some random Google books searches I was doing on a subject.? It states certain facts and a few of them I knew to be without evidence, which made me wonder where they'd come from.? After a few minutes of scanning back-and-forth I realized that their source citation, which is only cited as (WP) stands for.... Wikipedia.
Checking the Wikipedia article on the same subject, that "fact" is no longer present.
I hope we can all see what horror Webster has now unleashed upon us, by this act of intellectual graffiti, not to mention amateurish citation.? They need to be taken to the woodshed.
In this case, to be put on the blacklist of unreliable sources. Oh the circularity! It hurts!
Carcharoth