Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

More harm than good?
I know that some discussion at AN or someplace led us to create this edit notice, but is that formatting suggestion really helpful? As far as I can tell, the cases that we really want formatted in the suggested fashion are raised by editors who ignore the edit notice and the cases raised by editors who follow the edit notice tend not to need the formatting it suggests. Protonk (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also I semid it because I don't need vandalism on the edit notice to AN/I. Protonk (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found it distinctly unhelpful most of the time, I'd support removing that formatting suggestion. The only people that seem to follow it are the people that are already conscientious enough to provide the relevant info - the people who it most applies to are those that are least likely to bother reading it. ~ mazca  talk 23:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly doesn't help me... but it's really not directly for users like you and I, is it? It's for newbies or people who've only ever figured out one place to post complaints. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The formatting templates really need to go. Most people, as Mazca pointed out, don't use it, and when someone does it makes responding to a request awkward. Some tips on what information to provide would be good, but the template we have is more suited for better-structured areas like SPI or RFAR. ANI is by nature unstructured and dramatastic and nothing short of a miracle is going to make it otherwise; an edit notice certainly won't do the job. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we move this discussion to a page where people will see it? We're not going to get enough participation here to develop a consensus. Jehochman Talk 02:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's linked from AN. Not sure where else it needs to be linked from. Protonk (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so this is why some ANI posts are formatted all weird and clunky. When I'm browsing ANI and I see a post formatted like that I usually just skip reading that topic rather than wade through it. Propaniac (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like somebody wanted AN/I to run a bit more like arbcom. No harm trying it, I guess. Encouraging a listing of involved parties and pages under discussion is probably helpful, but some of those suggestions are a lot more formal than people here are used to. Indeed, users should be notified when they're under discussion, but requiring confirmation diffs is probably overboard. Pre-emptively breaking discussion down into those pseudo-sections breaks a lot of threaded discussion, which in turn makes it more difficult to comment, and makes it very difficult to break off new subsections -- all of which strike me as bad things on a noticeboard that tends to move faster than the blink of an eye. Formal process can keep things in line, but it's also time-consuming and confusing, both of which are probably counter-productive here. Just my own two cents. – Luna Santin  (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

While I understand and sympathise with the desire to streamline submissions so that everything goes to the appropriate forum and those issues that are raised at AIN are done so in a clear and proper fashion, I agree with removing the template. It is confusing, onerous and puts yet another barrier between less experienced editors and administrators. Skomorokh 11:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see ANI as a place to get urgent things done. Wading through a template slows that down.  Admins/editors at ANI can refactor as needed to "align" things as needed. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't even fit half the reasons people come here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

New page version
Per consensus above, I'm altering the page with this edit; starting a new section to hopefully make chronology clear to anybody reviewing this discussion later. – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Div fix
editprotected Can an admin please close the &lt;/div&gt;? It's messing up the MediaWiki sidebar (at least in Ffx2). Thanks. • Anakin (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 10:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it's fine now. • Anakin (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Bolding
I would like to suggest bolding (instead of italics) for the words "notify editors under discussion". Also adding "on their talk page" after the ANI-notice template. Basket of Puppies 00:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Make notification requirement even more prominent
Since for roughly a quarter to a third of AN/I entries the initiator hasn't notified the subject of the report, and needs to be reminded to do so -- which gets kind of repetitive and boring to read -- I think that even the bolding is not sufficient to do the job of attracting attention to this requirement. I'd like to suggest that the final two lines of the notice ("Please provide links to involved pages and editors. / You must notify any user that you discuss. You may use to do so.") be seperated from the rest of the notice by putting them in their own box, with a larger font size and bolding to attract attention. I suggest this because the amount of text in the box as it is lends itself to ignoring it as boilerplate, which the eye just glosses over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you can't keep making it bigger and harder to ignore ;) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but it can be somewhat bigger than it is now, and seperate from the rest. I would think that it's worth a try, if it doesn't get results, then it can always be changed back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. It's a rather frustrating situation, but let's see if highlighting the requirement helps. Much beyond that, I'm out of my css/template element. —DoRD (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Worth a try. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The required notices are still too often being skipped, so I've decided to try something different. I've moved the messages out to a separate tmbox below the existing heading. If anyone feels this is too strong, please don't hesitate to undo my changes. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what I was suggesting above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * tmbox is not the right way to go. We have consistent styling for our message boxes on Wikipedia and this one is for talk page notices, not edit notices. The correct template is fmbox which can be styled to whatever colour you wish. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes
editprotected I do not think the changes made by MSGJ are an improvement, could someone take a look and revert them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted part of them, but since this is already being discussed at ANI itself, let's not duplicate any discussion here. Ucucha 12:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've moved that thread here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

...which I don't think were improvements. Could some admins take a look? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC) The main change I made was to replace the use of tmbox. This is the talk message box, to be used in the Talk namespace. Edit notices use the fmbox meta template. If the previous orange colour is desired the fmbox can be customised by using the style parameter. Personally I prefer "should" because I am a volunteer here and dislike being told what I "must" do. I would prefer to give editors advice not orders! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unilateral changes made to [AN/I's] editnotice template
 * This refers to these edits. I changed "should" back to "must"; the other changes don't seem to change the appearance of the editnotice. Ucucha 12:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC) (Actually, they did; I compared the wrong revisions. Ucucha 12:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC))
 * And the place to discuss this is Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, of course, where one will find discussion of the wording, and how big and how orange the box can be before banner blindness sets in, in preceding sections. Uncle G (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I had forgotten there was discussion on that page, even though I have participated there before! Anyway I have reverted my edits for now as they seem to be controversial. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * this was changed from should to "must" a bit ago after someone got all in a tiff about not being notified I believe. It was a tangent being used to bludgeon someone reporting an issue, which is often how it's been used since it was changed.--Crossmr (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved from ANI

Use fmbox, but keep "must", as it is a requirement now, AFAIK. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And how did you propose to enforce this new requirement? Will you remove valid posts where the OP didn't do it? That would be a bad idea. The word to use is "Please". Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's another valid reason to yell at users, which many people love. But anyway, "must" is not uncivil. Many users ignore "please". / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

fmbox
So, wording aside, … any objections to using fmbox instead of tmbox? Please work out what style parameter should be used. Uncle G (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it's more powerful and attention getting than the previous -- and I have no problem with "must" either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly hideous, so if anything can be done in the way of colour to get attention this could be it. Must is still bad though. Costs nothing to pretend to civility. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Change the color and it will work. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? The color on my monitor is ... strong! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I picked the  entirely off the top of my head.  As I said, please work out a better one. Uncle G (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of the two presented here, the top one seems very attention-getting to me, which is pretty much the point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

edit request
Reduce the vertical padding around the words "For all other issues start a thread at this noticeboard." Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 02:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Are the e-mail addresses correct?
Are the e-mail addresses on this editnotice correct? They look like they've been vandalized. WikiPuppies! (bark) 14:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of vandalism. Which email address specifically? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
I would like to change the content noticeboard and put Dispute resolution noticeboard instead. Ebe 123 (+) $talk Contribs$ 22:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Text regarding oversight requests
I'd like to make some changes to the oversight-related bit of this edit notice. Currently, it says: Oversight & Revision Deletion

If you need an edit or log entry to be deleted or suppressed (oversighted), or if you have another privacy-related matter, do not post those links here. Please email the relevant diffs internally via this form or to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org If a suppression action is pending, consider asking an administrator privately to delete the revision in the meantime.

This is great...if the person posting knows they need oversight and/or knows that they have a "privacy-related matter". However, most of the people who post things that need oversight on ANI don't seem to realize this. How about a rewording like:

"If you are posting about an edit or log entry which contains private information about a person, or which contains information which might be libelous or defamatory, do not post that here . Please email the relevant diffs or links internally via this form or to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org If you have already done that and it hasn't been replied to, consider asking an administrator privately (via email or IRC private message) to delete the revision in the meantime."

Thoughts? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - Pipe for DRN
Please change the piped link for the DRN to " Content Dispute resolution" as it otherwise gives the impression that it is for resolving disputes between users on any matter. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The link connects to Dispute resolution noticeboard, not the Wikipedia: Content Dispute resolution noticeboard. If you want to rename that noticeboard, there's a big discussion to be had and consensus to be sought. If you're worried about spurious disputes at that noticeboard, that's a matter for the policy & editnotice on that page. Bazj (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Add a new edit notice about WP:BOOMERANG?
I've come across a few threads on the noticeboard where incidents were resolved with the filer being banned. I think we should warn them before they are surprised with a boomerang by adding a third edit notice (open to suggestions for the wording): Emphasis intended. Ordering of edit notices should be discussed if people are receptive to this idea. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  00:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone's behavior is such that the a block or ban is justified, why would we help them avoid that? As for recommended to bring their concerns to other noticeboards, the head of the page already has an extensive list of places to try first.This is a good time to note that there is, indeed, a lack of coordination between the editnotice and the material at the head of the page. If I recall correctly the editnotice is protected and as a result is frozen in time. EEng 14:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest this in the spirit of WP:RETENTION. Some filers appear to weaponise ANI in order to silence opponents, which I'm aware would be blockable as disruptive behaviour; my hope is that with an edit notice as such it will give such editors pause, consider their own actions before shooting themselves in the foot, and find ways of collaborating with other editors, be that with the help of a WP:MENTOR or learning to accept compromises.
 * I can foresee a potential downfall in that some editors with legitimate concerns may be afraid to file a claim as they might be potentially blocked themselves, but I think that warrants further discussion.
 * the head of the page already has an extensive list of places to try first. Perhaps the wording in that can be amended. I think a minor sentence like Before you file a claim, please check to see if your claim contains the following:—emphasis intended—could be added after This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * the head of the page already has an extensive list of places to try first. Perhaps the wording in that can be amended. I think a minor sentence like Before you file a claim, please check to see if your claim contains the following:—emphasis intended—could be added after This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * the head of the page already has an extensive list of places to try first. Perhaps the wording in that can be amended. I think a minor sentence like Before you file a claim, please check to see if your claim contains the following:—emphasis intended—could be added after This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  20:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvement: thread parameter
Please see the suggestion at Template talk:You should notify any user that you discuss. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)