Forum:Making changes to the admin portal talk page

''The text below is copied over from The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal (the "Admin Portal talk page"/"APTP"). It was an addition to a proposal to create the Administrators' noticeboard (which has been created), which asks what should happen to the APTP itself. Since the discussion below has evolved beyond the scope of an administrative question, I have chosen to move it here so that the general community can weigh in on it. This is important, considering that one of the proposed actions is to lock the APTP to non-administrative edits. Please weigh in below so we can resolve these questions.'' --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 07:40, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

I am an impatient person, and I see the creation of this noticeboard as being pretty un-controversial, so I've created the noticeboard. There are a few questions that remain, namely:
 * 1) Should we lock this talk page to administrators only?
 * 2) Should we eliminate the report page and direct those reports to the AN?
 * 3) How will we encourage use of the new noticeboard?

Personally speaking, I think the answer to the first two questions should be "yes." Setting up the AN means we can have open administrative discussions there if needed, whereas this page can be reserved for admins-only discussions where public input is not proper (e.g. block/unblock discussions). In the event that a user thought an Admin Portal Talk Page discussion should be open to the public, they could make such a request on the AN, and we could move the discussion to the forum... but I don't see this happening very often, and that option would be left open only as a check against admins having closed-door discussions that affect the greater community. I also think that the reports page is redundant now, and it's easier to direct users to a single page to make all admin inquiries and reports.

As for the third question, I think would be helpful to link to the AN from the welcome messages. Something like "if you have any problems and need administrator assistance, contact us on the administators' noticeboard" or something like that. It would also be useful to have a link to the AN on The Sims Wiki:Administrators, in the Community Discussions forum page, and maybe even at the top of the Admin Portal talk page. If we choose to keep the report feature, we should cross-link between the two, as well. Any other ideas? --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 00:11, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Discussions of a sensitive nature such as blocks shouldn't be open for the community at large to just wander into.
 * Makes sense on a practicality level.
 * Welcome message (that could do with a revamp anyway), linking via the Admin Portal main page. That's all I got right now. 00:20, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Here's another thing I can suggest - we can make The Sims Wiki:Report similar to Wikipedia's Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. TSW:Report should only be used for blatant, obvious cases of vandalism. On Wikipedia this noticeboard is extremely busy, requiring three bots to maintain it. Users come in with reports, and an admin reviews them and blocks when necessary. If blocked, the report is removed by a bot - if not, the admin leaves a message explaining why the report was declined (i.e. insufficiently warned, not enough edits, or complex abuse should've been reported to WP:ANI.

Also, what should the archive system for TSW:AN be? If you look at WP:ANI.... the archives are insane. I'm an impatient person like LiR is, though in terms of archiving I prefer regular, routine archiving, and adding gradually to the archives instead of all at once. Of course, WP:ANI is busy, with hundreds of users frequenting the noticeboard and even more watching it. A bot carries out archival tasks and another bot signs unsigned comments... but enough of the bots. Our TSW:AN isn't going to come close to being that busy, but it's still worth a thought.

Just a word from an editor that has been on WP:ANI before. Don't believe me? Search the archives for my username. It's not a fun or pretty place, but every editor, at some point in their WikiCareer, does end up on that noticeboard. At least we don't need an Arbitration Committee, do we? --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 00:30, June 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: Just a thought I had. I think that The Sims Wiki:Report could be used as a "first step" for vandals. Like, for example, if ILoveSims5 vandalized the wiki, warned several times, and persisted, she would get reported on that page. A temporary block would be placed and for the duration of the block, we sleep well at night.


 * Now, if ILS5 comes back to vandalize the templates again, gets blocked, and creates a sockpuppet to evade the block... that's where we "escalate". That's when she'd go on the administrator's noticeboard. I can get why non-admins shouldn't be discussing blocks, but I think sockpuppetry is something that can go on the administrator's noticeboard instead of the APTP, since having an extra pair of eyes to look out for sockpuppets is always helpful. Non-sysops can report a sockpuppet on the AN and alert the administrators quickly. I can only catch the most obvious of socks - so don't throw me into the laundry hamper. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 00:35, June 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * The report page here isn't active, and it can go several days or weeks without new reports. So, I don't think it needs bot maintenance. The lack of activity is, I think, another reason to just combine it with the AN... why confuse users with multiple locations to report things. "Does this belong on the Report page or the AN?" It's easier to just allow all reports to be placed in the same location.


 * As for archival... It probably makes sense to keep the noticeboard free of outdated messages. Accomplishing this would require admins to mark discussions as resolved, so they can be archived in a timely manner afterwards. We could modify Resolved to be placed at the top of sections that have been dealt with, and we can archive those sections on an as-needed basis.


 * As for sockpuppets... I think the reports themselves should go on the Noticeboard, but discussion of outcomes should be strictly limited to the APTP since it's discussing blocking of a user. That's if a discussion is even necessary... if a user reports an obvious sock on the AN, an admin could block the sock without needing to start a broader discussion. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 00:42, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

What about the opinion I had above? --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 00:38, June 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Another comment: Just came to mind that, since AN isn't going to be a place of sunshine and rainbows, there has to be a time where the discussion has to be closed. On Wikipedia's administrator's noticeboard, there are templates that can be used by uninvolved editors to "close" a discussion. It's usually an admin, though non-admin closures are not uncommon. Go there right now, see the "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it" things? Closures are used when the discussion really needs to end, but it's too early for archiving. Archiving is used for old discussions, closing is used for fresh discussions that need the anvil dropped on them. The templates Wikipedia uses are Template:Archive top and Template:Archive bottom. Should we incorporate that, in case we ever need to stop blood and tears? --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 00:40, June 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * We could use the same template to archive and to close discussions, it would just take a bit of modification. I don't think we need separate templates for both cases. This is an example of where TSW is not Wikipedia and where we don't need to duplicate their level of complexity when it comes to managing the AN. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 00:44, June 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright then! I assume we'll redirect The Sims Wiki:Report to The Sims Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard. Resolved... is there an Unresolved? Oh, and by "the same template", do you mean we simply use Resolved and the non-existent Unresolved to close discussions? --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 00:50, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't know. I think you could have a template that handles all of this. Maybe we could call it " ", and have the parameter stipulate the manner in which it was closed:  for sections that have been decided,  for sections that need to be locked down for whatever reason, etc. I also don't see why we can't just use one template without any special parameters to catch all of them. Any archival we would do would probably be manual and not bot-based, so the person archiving would only have to look at the date of the last message in the section to see whether the section is ready to be archived. --  LostInRiverview talk ~  blog 01:07, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Admins are the only ones that ought to be discussing blocks, but us non-admins with a strong history of contributions (both with a high quality and quantity) should at least get the basic picture, with or rather without directly discussing blocks.

Non-admins with a lower editing experience probably don't have the need to be talking about these sorts of things. When I first joined the Sims wiki, I intended to be an editor and nothing else. So those things wouldn't have concerned me anyway.

But as editors become more experienced, some may start to feel the need to know more about what's happening in the Sims wiki. These users are usually - 1) rollbackers, 2) experienced users both with a higher quantity of and high quality edits, 3) potential future admins. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 01:10, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * You would be able to do this even if the talk page is locked. For non-administrators, the page would be readable but you wouldn't be able to edit it. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 01:15, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

I guess I should have noted I was already aware of that. But what if non-admins felt that they desperately needed somewhere to write info based on what I described? What are we supposed to do instead? --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 01:21, June 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * I must admit, I have to agree with C.Syde on this one. Really, a key for "training" to become an administrator is to know how the processes work. By participating in discussions, users can gain experience and knowledge on how the admins resolve disputes and what they do in specific circumstances. While you can obviously say "People can lurk", it's different. Some people learn just by reading it, but most of us learn best when we actually do it. Get a yellow belt in taekwondo to go to their first tournament and they gain experience. Get a black belt to go to their first tournament and... things turn ugly, because they had no experience. Kinda like trying to teach someone how to walk when they're 21, when you should've taught them when they're just a toddler. Mistakes is how we learn. If a non-admin gets the wrong idea or makes a mistake, that shouldn't be reason for us to lock the page from further non-admin editing. That's not how people learn and that's certainly not going to help potential admins hiding amongst the crowd. If we are going to elect future admins to replace those that retire or are unavailable, it's important that they know how it works and that they get their feet wet. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 01:31, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've been trying to say. I feel that my feet are a little dry, and I need to gain more experience. But if the page gets locked (which I now believe shouldn't) then how do we learn if we can't do? --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 01:36, June 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Also, I find that having an "admin-only talk page" gives the idea that "administrators are in charge of the wiki", when The Sims Wiki:Administrators clearly says that admins are equal to all other users on the wiki. They're just users who have a few extra buttons to click. I get the fact that some pages do need to be locked and limited to only administrators, such as MediaWiki pages. But discussion is different. Discussion is the engine behind the entire wiki, and the nature of a wiki is that anyone is welcome to contribute. Therefore, I find an "admin-only talk page" to contradict this very statement that admins are equal to all other users. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 01:37, June 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * You add it to the noticeboard. The noticeboard would be where non-sensitive discussions will take place from now on, or else they would be in Community Discussions. The admin portal talk page would be reserved for those things too sensitive to leave open to regular contributors, like user blocking. I simply cannot agree with letting regular users participate in those matters. If regular users are allowed to discuss blocks and unblocks, then they might start proposing blocks and unblocks, despite being in no position to take action in those cases. On top of that, if they're allowed to discuss, then it becomes a matter of community consensus, and community consensus should not ever be used to decide whether a person is or is not allowed to edit the wiki. Period. full stop. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 01:44, June 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * As well, the concept of admins and regular users being equal to each other applies most of the time. But there are instances where it's not practical to treat them the same. One such instance is with user blocking. The reality is that admins are in charge of blocks - that's the way it has been and is and always should be. To say different just because "admins and regular users are equal" completely ignores the reality of the situation. The real nature of equality is that admins and regular users have the same rights and responsibilities - they are meant to be protected by policies and obligated to follow policies as well. But there are real matters that do occur where a regular user simply doesn't belong. That's the cold hard truth. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 01:44, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Yes but some of us experienced editors feel that we are simply more than just regular users, if we're admins or not. Locking this page is just going to cause protests and in actual fact I believe that it will undermine those who have a good editing experience or are planning to become admins in future.

P.S. I don't think it does ignore the reality of the situation. I mean, admins still have their admin tools so they can still do more than regular users can. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 01:47, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

An experienced non-admin should still have some suggestions, and although I understand that a non-admin shouldn't start proposing a block, I still stand by my previous comments. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 01:53, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * Whilst discussion is encouraged, it's just not meant to be for some topics. Discussion regarding somebody's block and whether or not they should be blocked is absolutely not one of them. Blocking users was, is, and always will be strictly an administrative decision. Blocking somebody is not to be taken lightly and we can't just let anybody have a say in that because the weight that it carries can mean the difference between being able to edit and not being able to edit the wiki. If users want to learn from the admins then they can just as easily observe and learn from that; that's fine but as far as I'm concerned, allowing non-admins to get involved in discussions like these is not a good idea. 01:56, June 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict for the millionth time...) Personally I'm not ready to put the brakes on yet. The thing is, while admins are indeed in charge of blocks (being technically the only users who can impose blocks), I'm not exactly sure why consensus isn't a tool for deciding what to do with a misbehaving user. While I do get TSW isn't Wikipedia - * sigh at another Wikipedia reference, but hey, we pretty much stole this idea from Wikipedia, right?* but community consensus is basically how sanctions are decided. The community as a whole can, together, impose blocks and bans towards other users. If I vandalized the wiki heavily, but a crat was hesitant on de-sysopping me because I simultaneously uploaded helpful images and improved an article to near-Featured Article status, I don't see why the community as a whole, who compose the majority of the content here, can't see fit to have my mop and pail removed because of my abuse of the tools. Doesn't matter whether I founded this wiki or not - I must pay the price of punishment.


 * And even if you disagree with the above... I still find locking other editors out to be detrimental to, erm, "administrator training". It's one thing to discuss sanctions against a user, and it's another to discuss sanctions but simultaneously have the tools to just end the whole debate and block the user. There's a reason why you don't get into the driver's seat of a car before you take a test. There's a reason why you don't fly a real plane before undergoing extensive pilot training. I say the same goes here... there's a reason why we don't give such dangerous tools out without first knowing when and when not to use the tools. Blocks aren't as simple as they seem - you can get into a heated dispute with an editor that, at first glance, might seem to require a long WikiBreak, but has also been a helpful, crucial editor. In that case, try dispute resolution. Sometimes, a block can be the most difficult thing an admin has to do, even if sometimes it's the easiest. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 02:01, June 21, 2014 (UTC)


 * @Lab What I said about how people learn differently. It's different when you just look at someone do something than it is actually doing it. It seems easy when you kick in taekwondo, but when you actually do it, reality dawns on you. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 02:01, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

@Lab: That's a good point. I like that.

Indeed some situations should not be taken lightly and getting involved in discussions like these is not a good idea, I agree.

But I still think that locking the page will contradict this very statement that admins are equal to all other users. Also how are non-admins supposed to become more experienced? If some of us are going to become admins in future then we need to have better knowledge on what discussions we ought to be participating in.

So basically for the most part, I still agree with K6ka's opinion. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 02:03, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't gain experience by jumping headlong into situations that you're not prepared for. The reason we don't just promote any old editor who wants to be an administrator is because you have to demonstrate that you're able to handle these situations. You demonstrate this by being level-headed and participating in non-sensitive things, but you don't prove this by getting involved in things you don't understand, or becoming a vigilante and fighting against sockpuppets and arguing for blocks against users. Locking the page also doesn't defy the idea of equality, because equality doesn't mean that everyone is the same. Equality means that everyone has the same rights, and they do. But, admins are not the same as regular users because admins have extra tools and extra responsibilities, and are held to a higher standard. Their discussions are held to a high standard too, and until a regular user proves that they're ready, I don't think it's unfair to ask that they leave the big problems to those people who have the faith of the community to handle the problems. As for this idea of experience... Users demonstrate their readiness for promotion by being level-headed, active, engaged in community discussions, and helpful to the wiki. Users don't demonstrate this readiness by jumping headlong into situations that they don't understand, or acting as a vigilante against suspected sockpuppets.
 * Also, user blocking and sysop demotion are not the same thing. In the hypothetical case of sysop demotion, that would be a community discussion because it was community consent that promoted that sysop in the first place. -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 02:22, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

That is most certainly true. I'm not going to say that I disagree on that.

Would I be correct in saying that there are some users out there that are ready for something but aren't sure what they're ready for? And that there are users out there that may seem much more level-headed than they actually are? --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 02:42, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is that there are people out there who are concerned due to underestimating their own readiness-es and that it leads them level-headed-ness and all that. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 02:46, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so here's my proposal for a compromise between the two sides. Though I should probably get some sleep... at 10:30 PM, I should really be asleep or cheating my way through the night with a mug of coffee.


 * 1) TSW:AN will be used for vandalism, inappropriate usernames, sockpuppetry, and bad user conduct reports. This page will be open for editing for all users.
 * 2) TSW APTP will be used by administrators to discuss what to do with users reported in TSW:AN. This page is administrator-editable only.
 * 3) Users can suggest what they think should be done with any reported users (e.g. John Doe should be given a temporary block, since he has made many useful contributions but I feel his recent behavior falls at the bottom of the Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement), but this is merely a suggestion and the administrators are in no manner required to follow suggestions. In short - they should use their judgment.
 * TSW:AN can be used to request speedy deletion of pages (though editors are encouraged to use speedydelete instead when possible - they can use TSW:AN if a user has mass-created lots of pages and it's a waste of mouse-clicks to tag them all with the speedydelete template. However, if possible, users should go to the VSTF IRC channel and add  and ask a task force member to Special:Nuke the pages). TSW:AN is also for bot approval requests (which require a bureaucrat), page protection/unprotection requests, and for advice only an administrator could possibly provide. Editors should use Category talk:Candidates for deletion for page deletion discussions instead, The Sims Wiki talk:Development Portal for development proposals and bot tasks instead (you know, just in case a non-sysop has a bot for us in the future), and TSW:CD for other community related discussions instead. In short - if it doesn't require an administrator, it doesn't belong at TSW:AN.
 * 1) Both TSW:AN and APTP are not for editing disputes. If there is a disagreement but there is no edit warring, nor is anybody being uncivil or if there are no insults being hurled across the room, the discussion should be closed (if it wound up on TSW:AN) and the user(s) directed to WP:DR. TSW:AN is for cases that have gone beyond the edits and have turned to personal attacks, legal threats, and "Commenting on the editor and not the edits themselves".
 * 2) Both TSW:AN and APTP are not for community discussions over something that 1. Is not related to user misconduct and 2. Does not require administrative action that involves blocking a user (obviously we need administrators to do some tasks, like editing the MediaWiki page. It isn't all gloom and doom). Try TSW:CD.
 * 3) APTP should be limited strictly to user sanctions, namely blocks. It's not a "Teachers Lounge where the teachers sip coffee and devise new ways to torture their students", nor is it a "Moderator's only club room. We have pool tables and TVs and couches in here." Most other things, like MediaWiki changes and page deletions, should be open to the community to discuss.

Undiscussed: What do we do about editing restrictions? Are these imposed at APTP as well?

I might type up a revised version of this compromise, which you are free to mend if necessary. But if you'll excuse me, it's time for me to take a WikiBreak - not because I'm furiously hot (stay cool as cucumbers regardless of the situation), but because I'm about to use my keyboard as a pillow. Good night. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 02:53, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

That explains alot. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 02:57, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you've proposed, K6ka. The only thing is that I don't think the APTP should be strictly limited to user citations, but should instead be limited to discussing only those things which are the administrators' responsibilities. There's a bit of nuance to this, but basically the idea is that the APTP would be used to discuss things which are controlled by the admins and which regular users don't need to be involved in. The discussion could be a natural branching-off of a community discussion or a point of consensus, in which case the APTP is used simply to help facilitate the administrators' achieving the tasks or goals laid out in the consensus or the public discussion. And in the event where a discussion took place on the APTP that someone felt should be publicly discussed, they could request that the conversation be moved over to the Community Discussions forum and, if a consensus was there, it would be moved. As for ERs, I think those would also be properly handled in APTP. -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 04:29, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, my current point is that being or not being an administrator does not necessarily determine trustfulness or capability. And I'm not going to be involved in administrative discussions because I simply don't understand them - which I do understand. I certainly have the experience, and if I sound as if I'm too level-headed, I'm not nearly as level-headed as I sound.

I am aware that it's because I'm simply not an administrator.

But some user's comments seem as if they're suggesting that administrators are 'more important' or 'superior' to other users. I am aware that that's probably not the case. But I just wanted to point it out.

By the way, this discussion is getting awfully long. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 04:38, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

(end of copied text)