Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Admin on mission...

Unofficial anagram of ANI

Notifying editors on ANI

APologies if this isn't the right place to ask this, however I notice that whenever someone forgets to notify a user on ANI, another user will notify the user for the poster. However there seems to be no consequence in forgetting to notify someone as someone else will always notify them for you (not saying you should forget to notify someone because of this). Is there supposed to be some sort of consequence or is this simply just a formality? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that what's really at issue is the practical effect--that is, making the editor aware the conversation exists. So, in my experience, no consequence (nor do I think there should be one). I, personally though, think there is value in making the person who opens the thread do it themselves, so when I see this, I will say so, but I don't do it myself. As ever, just one opinion! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I certainly don't think there should be a consequence, unless there's reason to believe it's deliberate or a repeat occurrence. Some people might genuinely forget, others might not read through all of the info at the top of the page. It's not a big deal, as long the subject is eventually notified. Dare I say the "consequence" is that people might not take the report as seriously. — Czello 14:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Manual archiving at ANI

Hello everyone,

NebY and I have had a discussion on my talk page about my manual archiving of closed ANI discussions, which we agree I may have been performing in an untimely fashion. NebY suggested I carry on the discussion here. My main concern is the notice about manual archiving added to the header in June 2018. In my opinion it may be worthwhile establishing what type of discussions fall into the category of "routine matters", and how much more time is implied by the term "longer", and adding these specifications to the notice, which in its present form reads as so. Linguist111 (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

You definitely need to slow down. I was involved in an ANI discussion and went back to see how it was going and then had to hunt around and waste time working out what happened. I saw that you archived a bunch of ANI discussions including the one I needed. That was way under 24 hours and I guess you archived it because it was marked as closed withing a few hours. I suppose that annoying me is not a big deal but the problem in that case was that the newbie in that discussion would probably never have found it, and they would not have received the feedback of seeing the comments made by other editors. If needed, a bot could archive closed discussions. Don't do it. Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm startled to see that Linguist111 has put "Retired" on their talk page and set a Wikibreak Enforcer on their account up to 2099. I guess there's now no immediate need to review the specifications on the header notice. NebY (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

ANI for EC only

The above discussion is focused more on behavioral, so putting these thoughts under a new header.

Assumptions

• A new editor either has potential to improve the encyclopedia or not
• Significant number of new users reported to ANI are really socks/evaders
• The hostile environment of ANI is more likely to drive a new editor away than an experienced editor especially new editor operating in good faith, but on wrong side of policy.

Proposal

• Create Administrator Intervention Board
• Any editor not extended-confirmed is reported there in format similar, but simpler than AE
• Any admin may act unilaterally on a report or move it to ANI for community discussion.
• On-board discussion would be limited/non-existent as Admin can take it to the user's talk page

Goal

• Retain new editors by not having their first experience be the dramaboards

Extreme version

• All reports start at Intervention and are only sent to ANI by an Admin.

Slywriter (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I have an issue with the name. It could easily be confused for WP:AIV as this would be WP:AIB. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

If the name is the worst part of this proposal, I'll take it. :) I don't love it either, just needed something there Slywriter (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Archiving at WP:AN

The page is not long; is a 48-hour archival time necessary or can it be extended ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell recently shortened the archival time from six days to three. Personally I prefer a longer period since sometimes there are discussions awaiting formal closure for multiple days (plus the wait arguably makes AN a bit less frantic than ANI), but there are pros and cons to both approaches, I guess. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought the idea at AN was that the urgency was removed and we could allow time for feedback; with a three-day archival, we reinstate the crazy-frantic seen at ANI. With only ten threads on the page, why so short? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It's currently 72 hours, which seems reasonable to me. But that's 72 hours from the most recent comment, not 72 hours from the start of the thread. If a thread has had no comments at all for three whole days (plus however long it takes until the bot next checks), it's not really active. I'm not sure what the advantage is of leaving a thread lingering for six days after anyone has commented, but I'll defer to consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell the problem with The Banner thread is that several of us specifically said we wanted to allow a chance for them to respond, since they hadn't edited ... those statements would then discourage others from responding. Maybe instead I should go ahead and start a proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

If 72 hours generally works, and there is just one thread where you'd like to make an exception, you can use the {{donotarchiveuntil}} template to prevent it from archiving. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah ha ! Thx, HJ, what do you think in this case ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)