Requests for Comment/Noticeboard for local blocks/global locks/incidents

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Clear consensus against this proposal. Additionally, as many users have noted below, procedurally, this was not appropriate for an RfC. Noticeboards are a communication channel to applicable global functionaries, not a policy or policy amendment requiring community consensus. Discussions on proposed changes to noticeboards can be discussed with applicable functionaries to best serve their needs, but should be done so on the applicable noticeboard. Dmehus (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Hi. I see great use in a noticeboard that will be useful in blocking requests or reporting incidents locally in Meta. Global blocks (made by Stewards/GS) can also be requested on the page with a similar structure to common noticeboards, but with the interesting form of automatic RfA. But for now this will be optional.

I've been thinking about this for a long time. Recently with two users making disturbing edits, being warned several times by other editors and having nowhere to say/what to say to report to the admins, I will first show the reasons:

• You will quickly quote Meta:AN or SN, and even CVT; the problem I see on this page is this: the topics are not very close with blocks or incidents. Here is the ideal place for being the only one. Admins will be able to review each day without skipping as it is specific. In addition, incidents can be reported (remove troublesome bureaucrats, etc.). As it is the proper place for this, it will be more satisfactory in the time of receiving the answers.
• Wikipedia has such a page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard /Incidents. Of course, an encyclopedia with a wiki farm doesn't make sense: necessity says more, actually.

What will be done? Many things. Let's list it here:

1. The similar structure (with informational tables) of the noticeboards at the beginning of the line on the page. The first part will be the key for the requester. We hope to have the same type of button as (RfA, RfP) (which generates the automatic form unlike noticeboards. This makes the page tidy, and most importantly: easy for admins to interact with. If you is against it, calm down! We'll still analyze!
2. Administrators, stewards, bureaucrats will review local blocks in Meta: reporting disruptive edits, users with these rights may Done and Not done at the requester's discretion (good faith, fair, or not). In the case of bureaucrats or other types of incidents not mentioned here, but which require a steward: Stewards. Global lock request (good faith and especially suitable for cross-wiki abuse outside of Meta): Global sysops and stewards. We expect a reasonable response time like common noticeboards and mostly for fitting in scope.
3. Disclosure: Same way with common noticeboards: noticeboard (including what is out of scope or not), pages documenting vandalism, sidebar, main pages and other types.

Posts out of scope should be reverted (moved specifically) to their respective pages.

You think what's best: I've really been waiting for this for a long time. We will decide today. --YellowFrogger (talk) (✔) 06:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support like a good insight into it. It will definitely help users: help more than the noticeboard requests. We must have less bureaucratic options and this entry is the first key. --YellowFrogger (talk) (✔) 06:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose I don't necessarily oppose the idea but I oppose the fact that an RfC is needed to decide such an administrative decision to split noticeboards. Reception123 (talk) (C) 06:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Personally, I'd rather see the Stewards' noticeboard reorganized into different sections rather than a new noticeboard. Additionally, an RfC to accomplish this is a bit too much. Agent Isai ^{Talk to me!} 06:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
3.  Oppose for the rationale posted on the AN, as well as a desire to create a more broad/organized division of the existing noticeboards, rather than adding them in a way that just adds to the volume. --Raidarr (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
4.  Oppose per Agent  Anpang📨  09:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

   @Anpang: You are opposing this RfC here, therefore you support this one, that has a similar idea. I would like to see only sincere or proper points. --YellowFrogger (talk) (✔) 23:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

   @YellowFrogger: just stop bothering voters already. People can change their minds.  Anpang📨  00:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

   @Anpang: I never said I'm shooting at the voters or anything like that, don't generalize. Instead I use votes to get opinions on this, even the name says, "Requests for comment", one of the users just voted against having an RfC for this. Also, forming an opinion about yourself, is that you always get carried away by other people's opinion instead of thinking what's good for you, but it doesn't matter. --YellowFrogger (talk) (✔) 01:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

   @YellowFrogger: What's the problem with your english? Google dictionary definition for "per": "by means of"

   I have decided my opinion and it's the same as agent's.  Anpang📨  01:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

   @Anpang: This is definitely not a way to civilize yourself, to question the user's English for free. I understand your little comment citing the opinion that it is the same as Agent, that's why my last words go back to this, and finally, I ask you to exercise more caution in a discussion. --YellowFrogger (talk) (✔) 01:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

   I did...nevermind, you never understand me. Let's just stop debating.  Anpang📨  01:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

5.  Strongest oppose Yeah no. If this were to occur, things would end up being a disgruntled mess. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

   But here's to undoing mess! --YellowFrogger (talk) (✔) 16:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section