Template talk:Non-admin comment

Harmful?

I'd like to propose this template for deletion; it seems to be harmful in that it promotes the false idea that the observations of non-admins are significantly different and less valuable than admins'. Thoughts? ElKevbo (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No. --Σ _☭^★ 05:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Parameters

I have supremely expanded the template. It now uses the #switch parser function. Feel free to revert and tell me if you don't like it. --Σ _☭^★ 05:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What to do with this template

This template has now gone through MFD twice, and in both cases it has received a "no consensus" closure. That being the case, I think that we should discuss the use and existence of this template for a while, in order to reach some sort of consensus on what should be done with it.

The discussion over deleting the template revolves around a couple of central points: First, the opinion that this template works to perpetuate a false dichotomy between editors without sysop privileges and editors who are in the administrators group (For full disclosure here, I feel that this is true personally). The counter to that is the opinion that it is important to distinguish non-administrators in certain venues, primarily because it is seen as lessening confusion.

If there are additional topics to be discussed, or any comments that anyone would like to make in order to expand those rationals, I for one would like to see them. Thanks,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

(Former non-admin observation) It can be annoying if you're a new user and you go to a noticeboard and say "help, this needs to be done" and a non-admin (whom you don't know is a non-admin, because you're a new user) says "yes, it does need to be done" but doesn't actually do it. It's like going to a store to buy something, and a non-salesman comes up to talk to you but won't actually ring up your merchandise. Before I was an admin, I made the observation that, in certain places (a blocked user's talk page, for example), the presence of non-admins often does more harm than good. They can demand the blocked user acknowledge their mistake, promise not to do it again, etc., but they can't actually unblock them if they do. Which annoys the hell out of the blocked user when they do what's been asked but are still blocked. "I did what you asked, why am I still blocked?" "Oh, I'm not an admin. I was just being helpful. Good luck!" So I guess I sort of agree with Fetchcomms. 28bytes (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

But isn't that all the more reason for the template to remain? So that when a non-admin wants to make a helpful comment in one of those situations they can make it very clear to a potentially inexperianced user that they are not in fact admins? I fully support reducing the dichotomy between admins and non-admins, but the dichotomy is never going to be totally eliminated for the situations 28bytes mentioned. Its those situations that this template should exist for. Monty₈₄₅ 22:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I came here rather indifferent, but 28bytes' comment actually convinced me to fall on the side of saying this has legitimate uses and should be kept around (even though it seems his intention was otherwise). Personally I think I generally manage to communicate this fact without a template in those situations, but there are those who like to use such things instead, and I don't see anything wrong with it. 28bytes implies that removing this template would somehow stop non-admins from commenting where it isn't helpful, but I don't see why it would. At least with this they can make things clearer when they do. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:27, 28 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I must have been accidentally using reverse psychology or something, I guess. 28bytes (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well if so it sure worked on me. Don't let it go to your head though, you could reverse your reversal. I'll nominate this for deletion again just to save my pride. ;) Equazcion ^(talk) 16:19, 28 Apr 2012 (UTC)

It's become clear to me that there really is a dichotomy between admins and non-admins. So the way forward is for the community to more clearly delineate the areas where non-admins are not welcome or where their opinions count for less. ElKevbo (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of dichotomies, a rough count at the last MfD shows that non-admins wanted the template kept more than admins did. (18 of 33 non-admins vs. 6 of 13 admins.) Make of that what you will. 28bytes (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

One possible interpretation is that non-admins know that their opinions are worth less and don't want to offend their betters who can block them with impunity. Some may believe it better to be able to whisper in safety than to speak with risk there's a good metaphor somewhere in that convoluted, misshapen sentence.... ElKevbo (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I guess that is one interpretation: the template is a magical talisman that protects against an "impertinence block." 28bytes (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And here is a timely example of how editors are taking pains to unnecessarily identify themselves as non-admins even in situations when it doesn't make any difference. Of course, he or she was posting to the Administrators' Noticeboard, a noticeboard owned by administrators. So let's abandon the idealized fantasy that everyone here is equal, perhaps by encouraging lowly non-admins to make consistent use of this template when we have the audacity to wander into territory owned by admins. ElKevbo (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I asked Plastikspork (talk · contribs) if he would care to add to his closing rational, and he replied on his talk page: 20:38, April 17, 2012, so I wanted to say thank you to Plastikspork for that. The one additional observation that I noticed he makes there is that the marking of a comment is voluntary, and performed by the person adding the comment. Marking others comments could be seen as disruptive. Those are valid observations, in my mind.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

Add clear and direct instructions to this template that it is only to be added to comments by the user who is making those comments.

It's probably a good idea to add instructions to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines stating that adding this template to other people's comments could be seen as disruptive.

We should consider adding instructions to certain noticeboards about when (and by whom) this template should be used.

We should consider changing Wikipedia:Administrators to reflect the practice that only administrators can close discussions on certain noticeboards.

If there's anything I've missed, or anything anyone would like to add, feel free to speak up.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone ever tagged another editor's comments with this template? Just wondering about WP:CREEP here. 28bytes (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but it also hasn't been widely used yet either. If it's going to be acceptable to use this template, then I fully expect it to be in wide use on the noticeboards rather quickly. Seeing as how those noticeboards tend to attract disruptive editors from time to time, Plastikspork's concern seems quite reasonable to me. We may as well address that at the top, in my view (although opinions can certainly vary). I'd rather this template would simply go away, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Outside of deletion venues, the consensus generally seems to be that non-admins can close any discussion that does not require the admin toolset to carry out (and very rarely even those, followed by an admin enacting the close). Trying to form consensus on exactly where non-admin closes are allowed, and where they are not would require a large discussion, and I think is somewhat unrelated to this template. I don't know of any cases of this template being applied by someone other then the commenter, I agree that it would be highly inappropriate to apply the template to someone else's comment, but I also share the WP:CREEP concern. Generally I don't think the use of the template is tied to any particular notice board, but is useful when another editor has specifically requested a response from an admin, but a non-admin wants to offer a comment, or other situations where the context would strongly suggest the commenter is an admin and clarification is warranted. Monty₈₄₅ 16:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd support adding some usage instructions to this template's documentation. I think it'd probably be overkill to add references on the policy and guideline pages (e.g. TPG) until and unless people start using the thing contrary to what's specified in its documentation. (Besides, if it does get deleted, fewer pages to update!) 28bytes (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that how this template can and should be used is outside of the scope of what can be discussed on the talk page here. Besides that, I've advertised this discussion on the talk pages of the guideline and policy pages it may affect, and a few of the noticeboards which it is associated with (in addition to adding the Rfc notice). Adding it to cent would be next, but I don't think we're there yet (although anyone is more than welcome to add it to cent themselves). The noticeboards which were directly identified in the TFD's included: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention, Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism. As for the usage instructions, I understand the point about CREEP, and if that's a widespread view then I'm fine with it. That the template should not be added to others comments was specifically mentioned, however.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've boldly added some usage notes to the documentation per the discussion here. As usual, feel free to tweak/revert/expand/whatever. 28bytes (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

comment

• I don't care about the template as long as no one tries to make me use it (it would be redundant, as I'm eponymously a nobody). However, I think the idea that an editor too new to know how to figure out whether someone is an admin or not would magically know from a nao template that the poster can't unblock / delete / protect etc. is silly. If that's important in context the normal editor should explicitly state "I can't unblock, however I suggest..." Nobody Ent 00:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• The only times I previously used a hand typed (non-admin) in a comment is when I was making a strong enough statement that I felt it was needed as to not cause confusion, such as a recommendation for sanction. Even then I only put it at the END of my sig. I fear that starting a comment with the "disclaimer" discounts the opinions expressed, which should not be the goal. Adding it at the end only tells the reader this fact after they have had time to consider the validity of the comment, rather than to pre-judge it. And yes, I would be strongly against making it mandatory. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Again?

Why is this being brough up just two weeks after MfD closure? Obviously there is no consensus to delete it, so just leave it be for a little while. MrLittleIrish ^(talk) © 19:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There was no consensus to keep it either :) I think it makes sense to try and hold a non-!voting discussion to try and figure something out. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a way to make this better

Without commenting the futility of this based on the fact that barely anyone uses this and it's gone through MfD twice in previous years, I don't know why this template has been limited to "observations" only! I mean, what if a non-admin wants to make a suggestion or a non-observational comment? (okay, semantics on the latter, but whatever.) I've drafted changes at User:Ansh666/Template:Non-admin observation to add a "type" parameter. If anyone sees this, could you look over it and see if it could work here? That is, if anyone cares... Ansh666 20:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC) If it happens, I might actually use this!...

Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2023

Please change "checkuser" to "CheckUser"; per Wikipedia:CheckUser it's the current capitalization. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: That page calls those with the role checkusers, all lowercase. I feel like it being lowercase matches the capitalization for crats and sysops nicely. I will change it here if there's consensus to, though. SWinxy (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)