Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Per WP:AN#An overall concern about AN and ANI, several editors raised the possibility of deleting ANI. At present, ANI is primarily used to bash other editors and complain about their actions. As an example, I have been taken to ANI twice this past week over issues were the editors in question did not even try to discuss the issue with me first. Too many editors are going straight to ANI as soon as they get involved in a dispute. ANI isn't dispute resolution, yet that is precisely what it is being used as.

There are few issues brought up at ANI that should be handled at ANI. Most of the issues brought up here are content/conduct disputes. The few issues that should be handled here, namely complex block requests, block reviews, and legal threat reports, can all safely be moved to the Administrators' noticeboard. Behavior disputes can be taken to Wikiquette assistance and WP:RFC/U, where these issues are supposed to be handled. And the content disputes that tend to come through here can go through the dispute resolution process. We have dispute resolution processes for a reason. ANI simply adds fuel to disputes and creates excessive drama, and should therefore be deleted. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page hardly seems to serve a helpful purpose in Wikipedia right now. About the only helpful use I see it being used for right now is for bringing urgent matters (like compromised accounts or suicide threats) to the attention of admins. However, those could easily be taken to WP:AN instead. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The board serves a useful purpose, and it fulfills that purpose on a regular basis. Human tendency is to focus on the problems while ignoring the positives (I am guilty of this myself sometimes), however there are positives here. Instead of deleting the forum, in which case the abusive behavior will just move to other forums, we need to, as a community, state that the abusive beheavior needs to end, and then enforce this statement with more liberal applications of topic bans from AN and AN/I. There are users that spend far too much time on those boards, and generate far too little constructive input, we just haven't had the willpower to ask them to stay away from those boards. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Drama junkies will just cause drama elsewhere. Deleting ANI would be akin to tossing your garbage over the fence and letting your neighbour deal with it. Reso lute 16:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question The nomination says that "ANI is primarily used to bash other editors and complain about their actions" and that legitimate issues can be handled Administrators' noticeboard. Fair enough. But let's say ANI is deleted. How do you know AN won't also be used to bash other editors and complain about their actions? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep AN and ANI have two separate and disprate purposes. ANI is not a form of DR. This nomination is IMHO either based on misunderstanding of the individual purposes of those boards, or is WP:POINT. I'll AGF that it's the former. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, ANI is not a form of DR. However, that is precisely what ANI is being used as. There is very little brought up at ANI that shouldn't be handled elsewhere. The few things that should be handled at ANI can be resolved on WP:AN. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think a deletion discussion may be a blunt force tool for real changes that could be proposed and discussed elsewhere. I rather liked the ideas of clerking as mentioned on AN, and such a structure could remove a lot of the chaff. Deletion indeed would just let teh dramaz settle out in other places. Syrthiss (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict) – I believe the concerns are genuine, however the problems arising from inappropriate posting at ANI are best taken up by dealing directly with those posting them - either redirecting them to the appropriate venue or applying sanctions as appropriate. pablo 16:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: WP:DR says:

“

The Administrators' Noticeboards are not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. Reports that do not belong at these noticeboards will be closed, and discussions will need to be re-posted at an appropriate forum, including the new dispute resolution noticeboard.

”

So, why aren't these threads being closed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good question. Partially because too often there's an unhappy party and they reopen it, with the potential for drama, and partially I guess because we don't actually have a culture there of closing dead or any other threads that aren't somehow deemed important. If we could implement clerking that should solve part of the problem at least. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm genuinely undecided about this. On the one hand it would be bold, and I do agree that much of what is brought to AN/I belongs elsewhere. OTOH I can see the logic in the points above about the dramaaahhh just being displaced. I made an alternative suggestion at WP:AN about moving to a more moderated system for AN/I in which more constructive and businesslike discussion is actively encouraged. If this MfD fails I'll draft that up as a second option. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is all about user conduct. If prisoner after prisoner escapes from a prison, do you shut down the prison? No, you improve the safety routines. The goal to making ANI work is having routines for posting and better moderation. Paolo Napolitano 16:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if the prisoners keep escaping, it might be better to use other prisons. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since this is pretty major, I tagged it as an RFC Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. I'll notify some of the DR pages. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Moderation might make sense, but not deletion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere does need to be more moderation on the page, as it becomes a "bitch and moan" session by users, and in other cases like clockwork specific users (and I will not name names) will appear with the same complaints abotu the same issues or other users. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"over issues were the editors in question did not even try to discuss the issue with me first" - it may be a good idea to close and hat all threads without diffs proving that problem was discussed and continues Bulwersator (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This will just shift the mess to AN. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We need to address the bad behavior, not the location where the behavior happens to be occurring, if we want the behavior to actually stop. Moderation will do more for this than deleting ANI and shifting the drama that happens there to somewhere else. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I propose we put Fluffernutter on salary so they can quit their job, and give them a button that instantly closes threads and locks them. Fluffernutter (it's NOT a sandwich), this is 24/7, of course, though on Sunday's (or another day of your choosing) you may give the button to a trusted admin of your choosing (not me). Or, we give Bugs the job. (Yes, that's a threat.) Drmies (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer to Keep, and seriously consider moderation options. Begoon ^talk 17:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if the legitimate uses of ANI just migrate to AN, so will the dramafests. So deleting ANI won't accomplish anything, and just confound the different purposes of ANI and AN. Rlendog (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deleting ANI will just cause the drama to migrate. (Likely, as others have said, to AN). Cardamon (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A more decentralised approach, with different boards for different purposes, will help to reduce the drama cauldron effect. --J N 466 17:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and implement clerking If you delete ANI, editors will just go to AN and nothing will be solved. I suggest we implement clerking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ANI; delete the articles, which in some cases distract people from the noticeboards. Seriously, the suggestions for moderation are worth exploring. Someone might create a page and see how it's received. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But I do agree that changes should be implemented. Clerking is the best solution I've seen proposed here. As to why we keep this board... It's simple. People post requests to AN and those requests get rerouted to ANI. If this page is deleted, those requests will have nowhere to go. The need for this board is patently clear, the problem is that it isn't always used properly. Clerks could ensure that it is. -- Atama頭 17:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a necessary evil - not everyone uses the framework of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and alphabet-soup maintenance pages in the ideal manner in which they are intended. I feel we will forever have to accept that people with problems (often genuine) will on many occasions (and in good faith, sometimes) go to ANI when they should go to WQA, AIV, UAA, RFC and what-have-you. Yes it is not ideal, and the system is often broken, failing, leaking, farting, and so forth, but I feel that ANI serves as a necessary evil in that it is a place that catches all the inappropriate problems which should be going elsewhere. Yes it is drama-full, but to be honest I think as a group we can probably handle it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's precisely the problem. If you only have one sewer, you get a Great Stink, and a whole noxious ecosystem feeding off that giant heap of crap. AN/I right now is much like the Thames in 1858. The solution then as now is to build new sewers. --J N 466 18:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but for the love of all that is holy, moderate. I think a lot of ANI is probably necessarily evil - and if we shut it down it will just seep elsewhere - but ANI in it's current form is unnecessarily deleterious to the community. Kevin (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reform needed, maybe a complete renaming that removes the "Administrators" word from the mix. But this is the centralized place for conflict resolution and abolishing it isn't going to abolish conflict. Carrite (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. For what it's worth, I'm the person whose expression of concern last night on ANI (later moved to AN) sparked this discussion. I don't believe that outright deletion of ANI is a viable option; there are legitimate purposes of the page, and even the less useful purposes would merely be driven elsewhere rather than alleviated if we simply deleted ANI. However, for the reasons expressed by many, including myself, the tone, usage, and functioning of both AN and ANI need substantial improvement. My !vote is to keep the page but to convene an RfC on how the noticeboard system can best be adapted to the Wikipedia of 2012. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, moderate, and reform as above. People need a place to vent their frustration, unfortunately, and a Clerk and some moderation, but whatever system is used needs to become something more than just "I'm going to tell the Sysops on you!". Achowat (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the board, delete the trolls. --Laser brain (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps the purpose of ANI should be more clearly defined, because that is the main reason I think people come here. Most do not see anywhere else that their specific concern could be legitimately raised and so they come here. It is taken as a sort of "everything else" board for raising concerns in need of administrative attention. On one occasion an admin suggested that I leave a non-controversial sockpuppet issue here. That is not clearly given as a purpose for ANI or a method of dealing with certain cases of sockpuppetry so I wasn't sure about mentioning it on ANI. Seems part of the purpose for ANI in the eyes of some is to rapidly deal with issues that other processes would deal with more slowly than necessary.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deleting AN/I won't make the problems vanish, it will just redirect them to AN. Did deleting WP:PAIN result in all personal attacks magically ending? Leave AN/I alone, it's fine as it is. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't vote but ANI and AN is a constant source of lulz for vandals and trolls. You are feeding them by having this board around. 89.194.70.107 (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's fine the way it is. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Drmies, Burpelson AFB and others point out above, what this really is is the choice whether to redirect the unending AN/I spew to WP:AN, and as a regular WP:AN visitor I have to say "no thanks" to that. 28bytes (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Keep but for goodness sake, reform the board. ANI has become a very toxic environment. There's a reason WP:DRAMA redirects there. If a few users are needed to "clerk" the board to keep things in check, then so be it. Content disputes should be redirected to DRN (as I suggested back in June), "user X did something I don't like ZOMG" threads should be closed. I don't like ANI in the state it's in at the moment, but I agree with comments by others that deleting the board would just cause the issues to migrate elsewhere. My preferred option would be to decentralise ANI, as I feel that most issues brought to ANI can be dealt with at other noticeboards, the remainder could go to AN, but I think that's unlikely to happen, so happy to go the route of having the board moderated. That, at a minimum, is required. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you have to close it? The discussion was productive and we seemed to be heading towards consensus that reform is needed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a discussion of one possible reform, please see this page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - making a procedural point here. It is rare to actually delete long-established pages such as ANI. The more correct procedure is to suggest marking them historical. The actual edit history should be kept available to admins and non-admins alike, and the deletion log shouldn't be treated as an archive. If the page history needs to be kept (almost certainly), then can those who !voted delete above please consider in future !voting mark historical (the template is {{historical}}. WP:PAIN and Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard are examples of past noticeboards that ended up marked historical. Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.