Lately, I have been seeing some reports on the Administrator Notice Board not being signed properly, like they should, with the four tildes ( ~~~~ ). So, I was thinking about creating a template that someone else could use to sign comments that were not signed or were not properly signed. It would look something like this: - The preceding unsigned or not properly signed comment was added by (username here (would also be hyperlink)). What are your opinions on it?
Does this mean that the signature will be left automatically in the right place within the correct report?
@Alabaster
The template shouldbe on the right comment. You would use the template something like this… {{unsigned|Alabaster}} …which would make: - The preceding unsigned or not properly signed comment was added by Alabaster
. Someone else would use it to sign someone else’s comment that was not signed or was not properly signed.
Why not just have the signature be put automatically instead of someone else putting it for you?
In the ANB, the admins have the capability to match the history to the report and take appropriate action, including coaching the non-signator about using quadruple tildes in the future. Placing the template does not address the root cause
. Perhaps a rewording of the instructions could make it abundantly clear what needs to be done and, perhaps, less prone to failure? For example, the instructions for each section could read: - Please copy the following complete lineand paste it below the arrow: {{Userlinks|“Offender’sUserName”}} - “SupportingDiff or Information” ~~~~ - Next, replace the “quotation marks and everything in between” with the information you are reporting: their username and the support which backs your report. - Finally, preview the report and, if it shows correctly, publish it. - If you are unsure that the report is showing correctly, please provide the [[Help Team]] with as many details as possible. - Thank you for taking the time to report this issue. *edit - italics ➛ quotation marks *Reword a bit
Some people just don’t sign their posts properly in general.
That requires even moreconsensus, and I think I am getting enough consensus for one thing.
Any solution to a perceived problem requires consensus and the community should center on identifying the best solution, gathering consensus, then implementing the chosen solution. Looking above, I see only one person supporting the template idea - @McDonalds1
. All of the others are seeking clarification of the concept. Maybe an analogy would be helpful: If farmland is flooding and the crop is ruined several times each decade, it is not prudent to bring in heavier equipment to clean up the damage.—What you need to do is build a dike or divert the water so that the damage does not occur in the first place. There is an elementary concept called “root cause analysis” which works by asking, “Why”? as many times as needed until you drill down to the actual cause of the situation, and, only then, take corrective action. In this case, root cause analysis would first ask, “Why are signatures not left”? The answer might be, “The users did not know to sign.” The question then becomes, “Why did the users not know to sign”? The answer being, “The directions were not followed.” The question then becomes, “Why were the directions not followed”? The answer being, “The directions were unclear.” The question then is transmuted to: “Why were the instructions unclear?” The answer being, “The instructions were not worded and formatted properly.” The question then becomes, "Why were the instructions not worded and formatted properly? The answer is that the creator did not foresee the actual result. “Why”?—Because the creator did not properly visualize the result and test to make sure the desired result was achieved. So,… Root cause analysis would say to properly visualize the result and test it. I have done so. My visualization led to the suggestion in my above post, so let’s test it.
@McDonalds1
, you continue to disconnect from the mindset of doing what is best for the community so that you can prematurely engage with “Let’s implement my template.” I hope, that, with time, the community members can help wean you from this tendency.
system
9
There is no need for this template. As @Alabaster
said, it is easy to see who left the reports, especially since a lot of admins have the ANB on their watchlist and get easy access to the diff of the report, making it obvious who wrote it. A far bigger problem on the ANB is the {{userlinks}} template not being used. I’m in favor of re-wording the ANB instructions as @Alabaster
suggested, which could solve both of these problems. It is a far more reasonable solution than having users edit the ANB to add a template every time an unsigned comment comes through. In the end, it simply matters that the report gets handled. In my experience, it always gets handled.
system
10
@Alabaster
- The only problem I see with your re-wording is that the instructions are placed in comment code, which will show up as plain text—no italics.
@Isorhythmic
- Good point. I am thinking… *smoke*
system
12
@Alabaster
- The instructions *could* be shown on the main page, not in the comment code, but I don’t think we’d want to repeat it for each section. Being present on the page only once would increase the chances of it being missed. If the ANB were formatted a la the Help Team page (a discuss style page, with different sections correlating to the different ANB sections) where users could simply leave comments instead of having to edit the code to make a report, the unsigned comment “problem” would be solved, because the report would be time- and user-stamped and formatted like any talk page message. That doesn’t solve the {{userlinks}} problem, but it would be a lot more graceful of a notice board, IMO.
I changed the italics to quotation marks and am soliciting feedback and suggestions for improvement…
@Isorhythmic
- Good thought. If there were some way to implement the old-style TOC, the format you suggest could be quite elegant and more user-friendly. I am having a hard time visualizing how Solution@ (by Isorhythmic) might work out. I am willing, though, to edit the current ANB to include the above wording and format I suggest and customize it for each section, that is, if I get the go-ahead from the community members.
system
15
@Alabaster
- I’m not sure it could work, it was just a wild thought. I’m not sure how to get multiple message boxes in the same talk page, or if it’s possible, because there would need to be one for each subheading on the page for the different infractions. The only problem I foresee with the quotation marks is you may get entries like {{Userlinks|“Isorhythmic”}} - “Report” ~~~~ which renders the username with the quotation marks, making it invalid.
@Isorhythmic
- Again, great thinking. I have tweaked the wording in my first post above to reflect your concerns. It may still be a bit problematic, but the “Preview” step and the “Contact Help Team” step will get around most problems, if the reporting user follows the directions
. Any remaining rendering glitches, hopefully, could be fixed with a simple edit if all the pertinent information gets into the report—that is the key.
The layout differences between the ANB and Help Team page is due to the namespace. The ANB is in the “wikiHow:” namespace which displays the content like a regular page, which is why the subsections are possible. The Help Team page, on the other hand, is in the “wikiHow_talk:” namespace which is essentially a discussion page, hence the comments being shown in multiple boxes.
system
18
@Illneedasaviour
- I’m aware of the difference in namespace. My idea was to transform the ANB into a discussion page with multiple message boxes for each subheading. I’m sure it can be done, somehow, but I don’t know how to do it. Subsections are possible on a discussion page, but there is only one message box at the bottom.
system
19
@Alabaster
- I think the wording is better on this revision.
Could Google forms be used for ANB data input and a report be generated from that by software?
