Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Research about Administrators' Noticeboard Incidents/Full survey data

< Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia‎ | Research about Administrators' Noticeboard Incidents
Research about Administrators' Noticeboard Incidents
Reports
Previous research
Community health initiative on English Wikipedia

Section 1: Demographics edit

Question 1 edit

How long have you been a Wikimedia contributor?

0% did not select an option [?]


1 – Less than 1 year (2.21%)
2 – 1 to 2 years (6.62%)
3 – 2 to 5 years (17.65%)
4 – More than 5 years (73.53%)
Three-quarters of survey participants reported being a contributor for more than five years.

Question 2 edit

Which gender do you identify with?

0% did not select an option [?]


1 – Male (79.41%)
2 – Female (11.76%)
3 – Non-binary / third gender (0.74%)
4 – Prefer not to say (8.09%)
Almost 80% of participants identify as male.

Question 3 edit

Which region do you usually edit from?

0% did not select an option [?]


1 – North America (62.50%)
2 – Western Europe (22.79%)
3 – Oceania (6.62%)
4 – Asia (4.41%)
5 – Sub-Saharan Africa (2.94%)
6 – Other (0.74%)
More than 85% of participants are from North America or Western Europe.

Section 2: Use of AN/I edit

Question 4 edit

How often have you reported incidents to AN/I in the last 12 months?

0% did not select an option [?]


1 – Never (32.35%)
2 – Once or twice (46.32%)
3 – Between 3 and 10 times (18.38%)
4 – More than 10 times (2.94%)
Almost one-third of survey participants had not reported an incident to AN/I in the past year.

Question 5 edit

How often have you been an uninvolved participant in discussions on AN/I in the last 12 months?

0.74% did not select an option [?]


1 – Never (22.96%)
2 – Once or twice (25.93%)
3 – Between 3 and 10 times (28.89%)
4 – More than 10 times (22.22%)
More than three-quarters of participants had been an uninvolved participant at AN/I in the past year.

Question 6 edit

How often have you been involved in an incident reported on AN/I in the last 12 months?

0% did not select an option [?]


1 – Never (27.94%)
2 – Once or twice (46.32%)
3 – Between 3 and 10 times (20.59%)
4 – More than 10 times (5.15%)
Almost three-quarters of survey participants reported being involved in an incident reported on AN/I in the last 12 months.

Question 7 edit

In the last 12 months, how often have you been admonished or sanctioned as a result of being involved in an incident that was reported to AN/I?

0% did not select an option [?]


1 – Never (89.71%)
2 – Once or twice (9.56%)
3 – Between 3 and 10 times (0.74%)
4 – More than 10 times (0%)
Almost 90% of survey participants have not been admonished or sanctioned as a result of being involved in an incident that was reported to AN/I in the last 12 months.

Question 8 edit

How often did you visit AN/I to follow or read about reports on incidents that do not involve you in the last 12 months?

0.74% did not select an option [?]


1 – Never (7.41%)
2 – Once or twice (9.63%)
3 – Between 3 and 10 times (22.96%)
4 – More than 10 times (60.00%)
Three in five survey participants visited AN/I to follow or read more than ten reports on incidents that did not involve them in the last 12 months.

Section 3: Perception of AN/I edit

Question 9 edit

On a scale of 1-5, how satisfied are you with the way reports are handled on AN/I?

1.47% did not select an option [?]


1 – Dissatisfied (24.63%)
2 – (19.40%)
3 – (29.10%)
4 – (21.64%)
5 – Very satisfied (5.22%)
Almost a quarter of survey participants are dissatisfied with the way reports are handled on AN/I – but more than a quarter are satisfied or very satisfied with it.

Question 10 edit

Have you ever disagreed with an AN/I outcome, such as the wrong person being sanctioned?

1.47% did not select an option [?]


1 – Never (6.62%)
2 – Rarely (29.41%)
3 – Sometimes (46.32%)
4 – Frequently (16.18%)
More than six in ten participants reported "sometimes" or "frequently" disagreeing with the outcomes of cases at AN/I.

Question 11.1 edit

How often, in general, would you say the following statements apply to discussion on AN/I? — The closing result to a report on AN/I is too harsh.

3.68% did not select an option [?]


1 – Almost never (13.74%)
2 – Rarely (43.51%)
3 – Sometimes (33.59%)
4 – Often (7.63%)
5 – Almost always (1.53%)
Less than one in ten of those who responded said that the closing result of a report on AN/I "often" or "almost always" too harsh, while more than half said that the result is "almost never" or "rarely" too harsh.

Question 11.2 edit

How often, in general, would you say the following statements apply to discussion on AN/I? — The closing result to a report on AN/I is not harsh enough.

3.68% did not select an option [?]


1 – Almost never (6.87%)
2 – Rarely (29.01%)
3 – Sometimes (41.98%)
4 – Often (18.32%)
5 – Almost always (3.82%)
62.12% of those who responded said that the closing result of cases at AN/I is "sometimes", "often", or "almost always" not harsh enough.

Question 11.3 edit

How often, in general, would you say the following statements apply to discussion on AN/I? — Threads typically stay on AN/I for the appropriate length of time.

3.68% did not select an option [?]


1 – Almost never (9.92%)
2 – Rarely (18.32%)
3 – Sometimes (30.53%)
4 – Often (32.06%)
5 – Almost always (9.16%)
Four in ten of those who responded said that the threads "often" or "always" stay on AN/I for the appropriate length of time; three in ten instead said this only happened "sometimes".

Question 11.4 edit

How often, in general, would you say the following statements apply to discussion on AN/I? — Discussion is focused and neutral.

2.94% did not select an option [?]


1 – Almost never (18.94%)
2 – Rarely (29.55%)
3 – Sometimes (33.33%)
4 – Often (15.91%)
5 – Almost always (2.27%)
Almost half of respondents said that discussions on AN/I are "almost never" or "rarely" focused and neutral.

Question 12 edit

On a scale of 1-5, do you agree with the general process of how AN/I reports work? (e.g report, discussion, and then decision?)

2.21% did not select an option [?]


1 – Strongly disagree (9.02%)
2 – (20.30%)
3 – (19.55%)
4 – (38.35%)
5 – Strongly agree (12.78%)
More than half of users "agree" or "strongly agree" with the general process of how AN/I reports work.

Question 13 edit

In your opinion, what changes should be made to how reports are made on AN/I?

Participants could select more than one answer

5.88% did not select an option [?]


1 – Use of structured reports (e.g. form-based submission) (59.06%)
2 – Private reporting (11.02%)
3 – Multiple options for reporting (e.g. public reporting and private reporting) (35.43%)
4 – It's fine the way it is (25.98%)
5 – Other (see next question) (31.50%)
More than a quarter of respondents thought that AN/I was fine the way it was, but almost 60% wanted some form of more structured reporting.

Free-text question 1 edit

What are some other changes you would like to see in the AN/I reporting process?
participants (n) = 74
response buckets[a] = 103

62 participants (45.59%) did not enter a response for this question

1 – Clerking and moderators (14.86%)
2 – Closer adherence to policy (6.76%)
3 – Boomerang (5.41%)
4 – General rules (2.7%)
5 – Sanctions against abusers (5.41%)
6 – Fairness / Merit-based process (6.76%)
7 – Punish bogus reports (4.05%)
8 – Referring people to different processes (2.7%)
9 – Training (4.05%)
10 – Misc. policy suggestions (4.05%)
11 – Environment (6.76%)
12 – More civility in general (6.76%)
13 – Grouping related (4.05%)
14 – Other technical solution (2.7%)
15 – Misc filters / limits (4.05%)
16 – Structured forms (4.05%)
17 – Time limit / subpages (8.11%)
18 – More structure in general (10.81%)
19 – Generate data / metrics (2.7%)
20 – General reporting (10.81%)
21 – Separate or ban uninvolved editors / non-admins (14.86%)
22 – Negative feedback (2.7%)
23 – Unsorted (4.05%)

Section 4: Experiences with AN/I edit

Free-text question 2 edit

What do you like about the AN/I process?
participants (n) = 66
response buckets[a] = 76

70 participants (51.47%) did not enter a response for this question

1 – Versatility (3.03%)
2 – Ease of use (4.55%)
3 – Visibility (10.61%)
4 – Handles some issues well (10.61%)
5 – Efficiency/quickness (12.12%)
6 – Thoroughness of process (13.64%)
7 – Openness/transparency (18.18%)
8 – Community-led nature (7.58%)
9 – Fairness/consensus (4.55%)
10 – Best of a bad bunch (3.03%)
11 – Nothing/I don't like it (22.73%)
12 – Other (4.55%)

Question 14.1 edit

On a scale of 1 to 5, how well are specific types of problems are dealt with at AN/I? — Sock puppetry

5.15% did not select an option [?]


1 – Very poorly (5.43%)
2 – Reasonably poorly (8.53%)
3 – Neither poorly nor well (27.13%)
4 – Reasonably well (43.41%)
5 – Very well (15.50%)
The majority of respondents (58.91%) said they believe sock puppetry cases are handled well on AN/I.

Question 14.2 edit

On a scale of 1 to 5, how well are specific types of problems are dealt with at AN/I? — Personal attacks

5.15% did not select an option [?]


1 – Very poorly (24.03%)
2 – Reasonably poorly (24.81%)
3 – Neither poorly nor well (14.73%)
4 – Reasonably well (27.91%)
5 – Very well (8.53%)
Almost half of respondents believe that AN/I reports of personal attacks are handled poorly. Less than 10% of respondents felt they are handled very well.

Question 14.3 edit

On a scale of 1 to 5, how well are specific types of problems are dealt with at AN/I? — "Bot" or automated script problems

10.29% did not select an option [?]


1 – Very poorly (2.46%)
2 – Reasonably poorly (9.02%)
3 – Neither poorly nor well (27.05%)
4 – Reasonably well (41.80%)
5 – Very well (19.67%)
Three-fifths of respondents believed that problems involving bots or automated scripts were handled "reasonably well" or "very well" at AN/I.

Question 14.4 edit

On a scale of 1 to 5, how well are specific types of problems are dealt with at AN/I? — Impersonation accounts

10.29% did not select an option [?]


1 – Very poorly (6.56%)
2 – Reasonably poorly (5.74%)
3 – Neither poorly nor well (21.31%)
4 – Reasonably well (42.62%)
5 – Very well (23.77%)
Two-thirds of respondents said they believe that impersonation accounts are dealt with well at AN/I.

Question 14.5 edit

On a scale of 1 to 5, how well are specific types of problems are dealt with at AN/I? — Long-term user disputes

2.94% did not select an option [?]


1 – Very poorly (30.30%)
2 – Reasonably poorly (23.48%)
3 – Neither poorly nor well (25.76%)
4 – Reasonably well (16.67%)
5 – Very well (3.79%)
More than half of respondents said they believe that long-term user disputes are handled "reasonably poorly" or "very poorly" at AN/I.

Question 14.6 edit

On a scale of 1 to 5, how well are specific types of problems are dealt with at AN/I? — Short-term user disputes

5.15% did not select an option [?]


1 – Very poorly (11.45%)
2 – Reasonably poorly (19.08%)
3 – Neither poorly nor well (19.08%)
4 – Reasonably well (41.98%)
5 – Very well (8.40%)
More than half of respondents said they believe that short-term user disputes are handled "reasonably well" or "very well" at AN/I.

Question 14.7 edit

On a scale of 1 to 5, how well are specific types of problems are dealt with at AN/I? — Topic-related problems

5.15% did not select an option [?]


1 – Very poorly (16.28%)
2 – Reasonably poorly (18.60%)
3 – Neither poorly nor well (36.43%)
4 – Reasonably well (24.03%)
5 – Very well (4.65%)
Fewer than 30% of respondents said they believe that topic-related problems were handled "reasonably well" or "very well" at AN/I.

Question 14.8 edit

On a scale of 1 to 5, how well are specific types of problems are dealt with at AN/I? — Copyright violations

7.35% did not select an option [?]


1 – Very poorly (2.38%)
2 – Reasonably poorly (6.35%)
3 – Neither poorly nor well (17.46%)
4 – Reasonably well (42.06%)
5 – Very well (31.75%)
Almost three-quarters of respondents said they thought that copyright violations were handled "reasonably well" or "very well" on AN/I.

Free-text question 3 edit

For which types of problems does AN/I work well?
participants (n) = 98
response buckets[a] = 166

38 participants (27.94%) did not enter a response for this question

1 – Urgent (7.14%)
2 – Straightforward (44.9%)
3 – Short term problems (3.06%)
4 – Many eyes on problem (2.04%)
5 – Limited discussion (8.16%)
6 – Single problem editors (5.10%)
7 – No need for kindness (1.02%)
8 – Tech problems (6.12%)
9 – Bot problems (2.04%)
10 – Sockpuppetry (16.33%)
11 – Copyright violations (7.14%)
12 – Legal threats (4.08%)
13 – SPA, POV (5.10%)
14 – Rules other (2.04%)
15 – Misuse of admin tools (2.04%)
16 – Personal attacks (8.16%)
17 – User issues (7.14%)
18 – New editors problems (6.12%)
19 – Serious vandalism (19.39%)
20 – "Nothing" (4.08%)
21 – "Everything" (3.06%)
22 – Other (5.10%)

Free-text question 4 edit

For which types of problems does AN/I NOT work well?
participants (n) = 99
response buckets[a] = 186

37 participants (27.21%) did not enter a response for this question

1 – Conflicts with long history (21.21%)
2 – Complex conflicts (24.24%)
3 – Content conflicts (17.17%)
4 – Certain topics (4.04%)
5 – Unclear issues (11.11%)
6 – Conflicts better suited elsewhere (7.07%)
7 – Conflicts that attract attention (3.03%)
8 – Bot problems (2.02%)
9 – Admin conduct (4.04%)
10 – Bad faith reports/"gaming the system" (5.05%)
11 – Conflicts between factions (cabals) (13.13%)
12 – Conflicts with a certain type of editor (25.25%)
13 – Interpersonal disputes (21.21%)
14 – Threats (1.01%)
15 – Civility violations (18.18%)
16 – Reports from minorities, minority editors involved (3.03%)
17 – (Almost) all problems (7.07%)

Question 15 edit

How confident are you in taking part in discussions on reported incidents?

2.21% did not select an option [?]


1 – Generally confident (33.83%)
2 – Somewhat confident (38.35%)
3 – Not confident (14.29%)
4 – I never feel confident taking part in AN/I discussions (13.53%)
Almost three-quarters of respondents stated they are "somewhat confident" or "generally confident" when responding to discussions on reported incidents.

Question 16 edit

Have you avoided reporting one or more incidents to AN/I in the last 12 months, because you did not think it would be handled appropriately there?

2.21% did not select an option [?]


1 – No (40.30%)
2 – Yes, one or two times (26.87%)
3 – Yes, between three and ten times (17.16%)
4 – Yes, more than ten times (8.96%)
5 – Other (free text) (6.72%)
More than half of respondents said they have specifically avoided making a report on AN/I because they were afraid it would not be handled appropriately.

Question 17 edit

Have you avoided reporting an incident or taking part in a discussion on AN/I in the last 12 months, because you were afraid of retributions of any kind?

1.47% did not select an option [?]


1 – No (56.72%)
2 – Yes, one or two times (21.64%)
3 – Yes, between three and ten times (14.93%)
4 – Yes, more than ten times (2.99%)
5 – Other (free text) (3.73%)
Almost two-fifths of participants reported they had avoided reporting an incident or taking part in a discussion on AN/I in the last 12 months, because they were afraid of retributions of any kind.

Free-text question 5 edit

Have you avoided reporting one or more incidents to AN/I in the last 12 months, because you did not think it would be handled appropriately there?
> If you did not select "no" above, why did you think those incidents would not be handled appropriately?
participants (n) = 62
response buckets[a] = 83

74 participants (54.41%) did not enter a response for this question

1 – Avoiding drama (8.06%)
2 – Complex issues (12.90%)
3 – Toxicity (12.90%)
4 – Civility issues / threats (6.45%)
5 – Biased participants (9.68%)
6 – Defensive cliques (19.35%)
7 – Admin confidence (3.23%)
8 – Certain users protected (4.84%)
9 – Boomerang effect (12.90%)
10 – Easier to ignore the problem (8.06%)
11 – Ineffective / inconsistent (8.06%)
12 – No chance of action (8.06%)
13 – Bad past experience (6.45%)
14 – Too difficult / too much scrutiny (3.23%)
15 – Better options (6.45%)
16 – Other / meta (3.23%)

Question 18 edit

On a scale of 1-5, how likely are you to recommend that an editor who is involved in a dispute make a report at AN/I?

0.74% did not select an option [?]


1 – Very unlikely (20.00%)
2 – (20.74%)
3 – (30.37%)
4 – (17.78%)
5 – Very likely (11.11%)
Two-fifths of participants said that they were "unlikely" or "very unlikely" to recommend that an editor who is involved in a dispute make a report at AN/I.

Free-text question 6 edit

If you could change one thing about AN/I, what would it be?
participants (n) = 110
response buckets[a] = 134

26 participants (19.12%) did not enter a response for this question

1 – Clerking and moderators (21.82%)
2 – Closing cases (4.55%)
3 – Boomerang (2.73%)
4 – Misc rules (0.91%)
5 – Fairness / Merit-based process (10%)
6 – Punish bogus reports (3.64%)
7 – Referring people to different processes (5.45%)
8 – Misc. policy suggestions (2.73%)
9 – Punish incivility (8.18%)
10 – Environment (5.45%)
11 – More civility in general (1.82%)
12 – Other technical solution (3.64%)
13 – Structured forms (5.45%)
14 – Subpages and length (4.55%)
15 – More structure in general (9.09%)
16 – Private reporting (1.82%)
17 – Generate data / metrics (0.91%)
18 – Misc reporting (2.73%)
19 – Separate or ban uninvolved editors / non-admins (10.91%)
20 – Punish derailers (5.45%)
21 – No change (2.73%)
22 – Get rid of it (3.64%)
23 – Not sure (2.73%)
24 – Unsorted (0.91%)

Notes edit

  1. ^ a b c d e f Some responses were sorted into more than one "bucket", which means that the number of actual responses may be less than the total number of bucketed responses.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_health_initiative_on_English_Wikipedia/Research_about_Administrators%27_Noticeboard_Incidents/Full_survey_data&oldid=1034714424"