Template talk:Admin review

Ban tag
I agree with deletion. --Rezyk 11:56, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I would rather see a re-wording and re-naming of the template (as well as re-naming the associated category) rather than a full elimination of it. --Barek 12:31, 15 February 2007 (PST)


 * Hmm...to what? Something like "Request for administrator review"?  That'd be a bit better in my book, although I still prefer Skuld's reasoning that one should just notify an admin directly. --Rezyk 13:35, 15 February 2007 (PST)
 * Rather than the current "This user is a candidate for blocking, because: ...", I was thinking something like "A request has been made for an administrator to review this user's edit history". Also, remove the word "banning" from the category - either call in "administrator user review", or at least soften it to "requests for temporary blocking".
 * What I dislike about the option of leaving a note on an admins page is that the person who faces potential administrative intervention may not be aware, and therefore not know that someone feels their posting behavior is disruptive, as well as not knowing that they have an oportunity to defend their actions by making a statement on their talk page. Also, a single notice with a category allows all admins to be notified at one time, while notes on an admins talk pages require leaving notes for any that appear to be on at the time. --Barek 14:02, 15 February 2007 (PST)


 * I'd much rather have a noticeboard to review these things rather than a template to smack onto user pages. Scarlet A's are never a good idea. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2007 (PST)
 * But the template lets the person being reviewed know that they are under review. I disagree with the primary method being something where the user affected may not even be aware of it.  Where's the openness in the process?  I believe that the template name, wording, and category used needs to be re-thought, but a template solution is my preference.  A template is both simple as well as being fair notice to the user being tagged by it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:17, 16 February 2007 (PST)
 * Then it should definitely go on the talk page, not the user page, as an "I have brought you up for review, here's a courtesy message" kind of thing. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2007 (PST)
 * Agree &mdash; Skuld 00:45, 19 February 2007 (PST)


 * I agree to the idea of renaming this template into something a little less harsh. I was never really comfortable with the wording back on guildwiki. However, the template was a very effective tool and I think the general mechanism should be kept. Putting it on the talk page is a good idea, as it can prevent a lot of faulty bans. --84-175 (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2007 (PST)


 * Agree. If we want a period where the user has been told they are under review, it should be built into the blocking policy to ensure it anyways. The template is simple to use but causes instant negativity and sometimes worse complications. Noticeboard is also a good idea, for other stuff too. --Rezyk 01:45, 19 February 2007 (PST)


 * Rewording it to something less "harsh" is ok and probably a good idea, but there haven't been many disputes regarding a potential ban using the template in the past and I see no reason to delete it completely.


 * A noticeboard doesn't inform the potential ban-to-be that they are under review and you know that many users are not going to place courteousy statements on that user's talk page to inform them they are on a noticeboard. It seems that this discussion is trying to make ban awareness more complicated than it needs to be. &mdash; Gares 10:54, 22 February 2007 (EST)


 * If we do re-word this and rename the template to make it less harsh - to what should it be renamed? template:UserReview?  template:AdminReview?  template:UserDispute?  template:PostReview?  Something else?  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:14, 22 February 2007 (EST)


 * Out of those, Template:AdminReview would be more fitting or just Template:Review for easy rememberance. &mdash; Gares 17:40, 22 February 2007 (EST)


 * Agree, AdminReview sounds best. --84-175 (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2007 (EST)


 * No cammelcase please >.> &mdash; Skuld 10:47, 26 February 2007 (EST)


 * I agree - but, do you have a suggested alternative? Template:Admin-review?  Template:Adminreview?  Template:Admin review?  Something else? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:58, 26 February 2007 (EST)


 * admin review is good :) &mdash; Skuld 15:06, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Revision first draft
I've created a first draft of a substitute template at Template:Admin review. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:29, 26 February 2007 (EST)
 * Much better ~ Kurd [[Image:Kurdsig.png]]17:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Admin Review tag - keep or not?
I don't know who is watching this :P but I still think it is rude to simply dump this on someone's talk page. I recommend we add a notice to the top of this article saying something like "If the user under review is not anonymous, please discuss their actions before posting this on their talk page." That's an awful sentence :P LordBiro 13:55, 10 March 2007 (EST)
 * As I mentioned at User_talk:Rainith, I originally argued for keeping this as a less offensive version of the ban tag ... but, the recent usage has been to slap up the tag with no attempts to first try to help or discuss the questionable postings with the user. This tag and pulling in admins should be a last resort, not the first re-action to relatively minor issues.  Just this morning, I removed three of these tags from user talk pages because they were placed with no attempt to allow time to resolve the matter by first helping or discussing the postings.  In all three cases, I viewed the issue as just being a new user unfamiliar with wiki practices - this tag is not a good welcoming message.
 * Seeing as the trend is now to place the tag with no attempt to first assist newer users, I've changed my opinion to fully support elimination of this tag and its related category. In this environment, I'm forced to support using an admin noticeboard instead of this tag - despite the shortcoming that the user discussed on a noticeboard may not be aware that their actions are being questioned, I now view that limitation to be outweighed by the damage being caused by the abbusive over-use of this tag. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I support eliminating this tag. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 22:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Of course, now that the tag has been deleted, we really should have a substitute method documented and referenced in the policies or guidelines ... do we want users to post to admin talk pages? Personally, I now think a centralized admin noticeboard (as was proposed in an above discussion) would be the better option. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Agreed. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 15:21, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Definitely. There are editors on this wiki who are far too tag-happy. "despite the shortcoming that the user discussed on a noticeboard may not be aware that their actions are being questioned" - so put a "Please see here on their talk page :) -- Snog  rat [[Image:User Snograt signature.png]] 17:58, 23 April 2007 (EDT)


 * There needs to be some way to flag a user for an admins attention -- Scourge  [[Image:User Scourge Spade.gif]]


 * We should create at Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard page (it could have a shortcut like GWW:NOTICE or GWW:AN) where such users can be listed. Include directions for use of the page (telling users to first try politely asking the user to stop the questionable behavior and/or linking to help documents). Once created, post on each admins talk page to ensure they are aware of the page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)


 * K, first version of the Admin noticeboard is up. Going to wait 24 hours for any immediate changes that the page might need that I may have missed, then going to spam that link on the talk pages of all admins here. Hopefully that won't get me banned. :) --Dirigible 17:14, 26 April 2007 (EDT)