Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Header

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a separate header for the Incidents noticeboard, so changes to it may not be not reflected in other noticeboards.

The main discussion page for headers is here:

As a courtesy you must...[edit]

That's kind of a convoluted way of saying things. No other noticeboard expects a "must" action, and this is not generally reflected in practice. Anyone object if I go ahead and standardize the "you must" "you are expected to"? It may be less terse, but more consistent with current usage and other notification expectations. Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outing[edit]

In a hurry to address a problem, I just missed seeing the "dangerous personal information" because I was looking for "Outing". Any chance of tweaking that banner wording to add "(Outing)"? LeadSongDog come howl 22:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walls of text[edit]

It seems that we get a number of posts where the text is so lengthy and convoluted it's hard to tell what is being asked of admins. I'm thinking that we should be adding a new point to "How to use this page" and also Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that says that notifications on here must be short and to the point. What are others opinion? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 00:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good. When I see walls of text, my head explodes. --Tom (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frivilous and unsubstantiated?[edit]

Do we really need to tell folks that, and how do we define those? --Tom (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification[edit]

Yesterday, there was a discussion at the ANI Discussion page about slightly modifying something in this template. The template currently says: "You must notify any user that you discuss." Thus, when a user opens an ANI thread, he may purposely discuss the alleged offender plus also discussing various editors who deplore the alleged offender, but carefully not discussing anyone who agrees with the alleged offender. The latter people do not get notified. Anyway, here's the language that was suggested to me: "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion." Of course, further people could be notified, but that would be covered by WP:Canvassing. I plan on making this change later today.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autocollapse[edit]

Equaczion set the header to autocollapse, which I, personally, find annoying. I've reverted the change, and am opening up this discussion to see where consensus lies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically copying my response to BMK on his talk: I had set autocollapse as the default to tone down the header clutter on ANI. It seems like overkill to have such a large nav always displayed there, and takes focus away from the ANI instructions, which are more important. I think people tended to ignore everything at the top due to it being too confusing before. People who want to see the other available noticeboards can still show it when needed. Equazcion (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think not having the header there for reference whenever it's needed is simply going to increase the number of times people post inappropriately to AN/I instead of to the other noticeboards. And then when they do, if they're told "You should have posted on X", they're likely to say "But I didn't see that" because it's collapsed and not staring them in the face.

I'm sympathetic with the desire to streamline the mass of text at the top of AN/I, but I don't think collapsing the noticeboard header is a good idea. Of course that's not a deal-buster, just a preference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intent is sound, I just doubt it works this way in practice. There's so much going on up there right now that I think it's more of a tl;dr. Equazcion (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was pretty smooth EQ [1]. At least you didn't delete the front page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant to do that. Sort of a test to see if people were paying attention. Equazcion (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure you did.... but more on topic, I use the top header very often as my dramah menu. Not that my convenience matters, but I'm likely not the only one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ug, and it looks like you did it at AN as well. I won't block you for it, but I'm not a fan ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) Do you think it's worth the clutter though? I do see the benefit to it, I just think the cost is too high. The ANI instructions matter more and they're currently drowning in the other boxes. Less-experienced individuals need to be informed of things like "discuss on user talk first" and "notify users you bring up here", which are always difficult to get across, only made more so right now due to their relative lack of prominence. Actually I didn't touch the AN header, though it might still be my fault -- someone else changed [2] it to match ANI. Which I think counts as proof they agree with me (yay?) Equazcion (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I uncollapsed the AN header for now too, til this is settled. Equazcion (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is just a matter of opinion. For example, when the average person looks at a 32 channel audio mixing board [3], they see a confusing mass of knobs and sliders. I see a beautiful harmony of organization and purpose. Maybe you just aren't a music person. That doesn't mean we can't discuss it or do it, that is just my opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no preference on whether or not it is autocollapsed, but I do think it is misplaced. As far as I'm concerned when a page has a "Welcome to the incident noticeboard" message that should come first. After reviewing the other noticeboards though, I see that continuity may be a valid reason for keeping it at the top. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like User:Nyttend proposed this too, based on this test change, but I'm not sure where it might've been discussed. I tested such a change on the current header here if you want to see what that would look like. Failing the autocollapse, I think that would also be a good change. Equazcion (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having a larger discussion on the overall design might be a good thing. I have to give you credit for your boldness EQ. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Blech. I hate larger discussions. They often lead to more people commenting. But seriously, it seems like a relatively minor issue to start big thing over. I left notices at ANI and the AN talk page about this discussion, so it might get large here anyway... Equazcion (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the purge? It just loaded yesterday's page for me again. --64.85.220.231 (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had taken out purge, but just re-added it (different place, but should be just as easy to find). Equazcion (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This header is an unmanageable wall of cluttered text; on the Internet banners are invisible. Anyone expecting users to actually see the notify notice buried in it has unrealistic expectations, as evidence by the frequent fail to notify incidents we have. I had previously suggested this much cleaner version but it got committeed back into the horrible ugly camel it is now. I support any and all reductions down to the bare essentials and was glad to see Equazcion's efforts head in that direction. With regard to other boards -- A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds (Emerson). Nobody Ent 03:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, I'd love to be able to get stats on how often the "show" links are actually clicked next to "how to use this page", "are you in the right place", and the RFC nav box (I know that's currently impossible). I stuck to more-or-less uncontroversial changes for now though. Equazcion (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding "unmanageable wall of cluttered text." Support for cutting way down, but not for auto-collapse. Please also note that auto-collapse is pointless for people (like me) on slow connections: You still see the whole thing while the page loads, and then it folds itself away. - 124.148.129.70 (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removed oversight link[edit]

The chronic problem with the header here is there's so much stuff it doesn't get read because banners are invisible. There is a prominent notice about oversight on the edit notice -- folks who don't notice that are not going to read the the stuff at the top of the page; while should be oversighted stuff appears at ANI the existing issues -- failure to discuss first, failure to notify other editors et. al. are more common. NE Ent 23:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly doesn't hurt to add it. If even one person notices that line and makes their report via email rather than on ANI, that's a good bit of work saved for an oversighter, and more importantly much less visibility for the information being reported. Due to the size of this noticeboard, it may not be practical to remove these reports unless they're caught very quickly, and doing so often breaks the page history. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 16:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that's added makes it less likely the rest of the header will be read -- per usability practices there should be way less here but I've never been able to get consensus to trim it down very much. NE Ent 19:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It's one line of text. Considering the importance that oversight reports not be made in public, I think it's an important one to include. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 20:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about this, then - there's already a line in the "Are you in the right place?" box on this. Rather than adding anything more, let's just move that where I tried placing the line yesterday so it's not hidden when someone goes to look at the header. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 20:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not following; added oversight and removed a couple lesser nags -- how's that look? NE Ent 21:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 22:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked?[edit]

@EEng:, why do we need a link for people that are blocked? They can't post on this page anyway, and won't their talk page have a template with instructions? Natureium (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! For a second when I saw the title of your ping I thought I'd got blocked again. Of course, I'm used to it by now. Anyway, I was thinking the same thing, but I wasn't sure so I left it (transferred it from the AN header, actually). I guess we can remove it. I assume that when someone's blocked with no TP access, the can't-edit banner that comes up when they try to edit directs them to UTRS? EEng 21:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, no I just didn't want to try to load your talk page on my tablet and figured the question was appropriate for here anyway. Natureium (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think all these directions of where else to post things need to be made larger or in flashing lights, because so much of what is posted here should have been at AIV or RPP or AN3. Natureium (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding long threads not being read[edit]

I now believe this is a confirmation bias. For a sample of 50 recent threads, number of characters excluding user links and signature was plotted against minutes to first reply (a surrogate for having been read), which yielded an R^2 value of .061. The medians were 571 characters and 24 minutes to first reply. Natureium (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sureNo idea what you're trying to say. EEng 00:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to say that I was bored in bed sick long enough to run statistics and determine that there's no correlation between how long a post is and how long it takes someone to respond. Natureium (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No correlation isn't the same as no relationship. My claim is not "as length increased, time-to-read increases", rather "long posts don't get read" i.e some effect sets in after a certain "TLDR" point (though I don't know what that point is). Anyway, doesn't matter whether it's true. I'm willing to lie in order to terrorize people into keeping their posts short. EEng 01:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to lie in order to terrorize people I'll save that quote for later :)
My sickness boredom only goes so far. In the small sample of 50 threads I looked at, there was only one time outlier which was about average in terms of length. Natureium (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you quote me I hope you'll make it clear that my terroristic goals extend only as far as trying to get people to keep their posts short. It's for a good cause, like when my dentist shows me scary pictures of what happens when people don't floss. EEng 02:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility of links[edit]

Best practice for web page is not to use "here" as hyperlink text, both for accessibility and readability. What does everyone think of changing click here to visit "page title ? In some cases, perhaps a shortened version of the title can be used (for example, "noticeboard for edit warring"). isaacl (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried this but it was reverted. Natureium (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I explained in my edit summary [4] why I reverted Natureium's suggestion. Adding "a shortened version of the title" would add clutter – and confusing clutter at that, since the titles won't match anything seen anywhere else – to an already daunting list. For X click here is clear and simple, and I don't see what it has to do with accessibility. EEng 19:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care all that strongly about this proposal, but how is less words more clutter? Natureium (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed versions use more words, not fewer. EEng 19:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See the WCAG guidance on link text. Users reading screen readers benefit from descriptive text, rather than just hearing "here" for every link. Best practice is for link text to be descriptive of the destination; this helps distinguish them. isaacl (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote up two different versions that I think could work, one that rephrases just the end of the line and one that changes how most of the lines are written:


Version 1

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.


Version 2

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

If others have thoughts on how things should be written, those specific suggestions would of course be welcome. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]



Current version

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

  • Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • To report a threat of violence, suicide, etc., click here.
  • If you're just plain confused, ask at the Teahouse.
  • To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here.
  • To challenge deletion click here.
  • To request page protection, click here.
  • To report edit warring, click here.
  • To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here:
  • Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here.

Above is the current version. It's clear at a glance how much less cluttered it is than the proposals. The logic that "Users [using] screen readers benefit from descriptive text, rather than just hearing 'here' for every link" would apply equally well for those not using screen readers, if it were valid in this situation. But it's not. This list is primarily for newbies. If you tell them, To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here you're telling them what they need to know: if I want to report X, I click, which will (presumably) take me to wherever it is that I, well, report X. What does it help our newbie (whether using a screenreader or not) to know that the place they'll be going is impressively named the "Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism"? Why barrage them with Wikipedia:This and Wikipedia:That and Such-and-such Noticeboard? The sea of bolded page names completely swamps the much terser descriptions of things the user might want to do, which is what we want to catch the eye.

Or let's consider the proposed

To request page protection, visit requests for page protection.

Well, DUH! This has nothing to do with accessibility. It's about common sense and what will actually help the reader in this particular situation, not obeisance to some one-size-fits-all pronouncement.

Final point: In the current version I made an exception by using the phrase "visit the Teahouse", in that one line, because I wanted it to sound especially inviting (which it certainly is, in large part due to the efforts of the redoubtable Cullen328). EEng 19:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand why some people like the "click here" style, in spite of it being counter to best practice guidelines published by many, including WCAG and Tim Berners-Lee. Nonetheless, the web has been around for quite a while, and Wikipedia newbies will typically have a lot of experience in following links, so they'll quickly find the link associated with the keywords they are interested in. Readers appreciate having an indication in the link text of where a link is going, whether or not they are visually impaired, and the visually impaired will benefit greatly. (Although it isn't too important for this case, recall that the most common visually impaired readers are search engine bots; descriptive link text improves search results.) I agree the links ought not to be bolded with something like the proposed versions 1 or 2 headers. isaacl (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Readers appreciate having an indication in the link text of where a link is going – To do X, click here already gives the reader an indication of where the link is going -- it's going to where you do X. Repeating, in the link text, what you just said -- but repeating it in a slightly different way -- only confuses things (whether it's bolded or not).
  • I have no idea why any of this reasoning applies to the visually impaired differently than it does to the sighted.
  • How a search engine bot processes this special-purpose header is of no consequence.
EEng 00:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As described in the guideline I linked to, visually-impaired users will often move quickly from link to link on a page, seeking the desired destination. Accordingly, the only indication they have regarding a link's destination is the link text. Regarding repetition, there are ways to word the text to avoid it entirely. I agree, though, that for those looking for a cookbook "if X, then Y" set of instructions, this may be less effective. (Yes, as I said, the search engine bot is indeed irrelevant for this header.) There are different reading styles; some users focus on link text, and so putting the description of the destination elsewhere is less effective for them. It is of course hard to satisfy everyone; the accessibility concerns are the key issue. isaacl (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the greatest good for the greatest numbers is the key issue. ANI has 1300 active watchers and gets 4000 views, 200 posts, and 10 new threads per day; diverting threads that belong elsewhere is an important part of reducing the amount of community time sunk into it. Someone using a screenreader, after spending 10 seconds hearing here, here, here, here, here, here, will go back and listen to the full text, which has been carefully crafted to be brief – for everyone. EEng 02:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accessibility is not about the greatest good for the greatest number, it is about accommodating a small number of people. Natureium (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are being accommodated, but they don't take ultra-super-hyper-override priority for red-carpet super-fast optimized experience over everything else and everyone else at all costs. EEng 22:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
don't want no free ride / just sick and tired of runnin'. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly, AntiCompositeNumber, I shared EEng's concerns about conciseness and clarity in your proposed version and my attempt. Yet, like Natureium and Isaacl but I thought, well, the blind people who contributed to the various recommendations for web accessibility matter.[citation needed] I also agree with Natureium's but how is less words more clutter?; I thought Special:Diff/849314868 admirably concise and clear, which seems to be EEng's main concern. Before I go on: what'd I miss? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've missed anything, it's just a content dispute of the simplest type. Person A likes version A, person B likes version B, and neither version is objectively better in all measurements. There's three ways to resolve that: find a compromise version, start an RfC to figure out what the community thinks is better, or just let it go. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI indefinitely protected[edit]

The incidents page has been indefinitely protected due to persistent block evasion. Maybe reflect this in the Incidents header? Plankhouse0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader has been indefinitely semi-protected since October 2008. This page transcludes {{Noticeboard header}} which in turn uses this code to display the small padlock on the upper right corner of the page:
<includeonly>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|{{pp|small=yes}}}}</includeonly>
The protection log for the main Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page is very long, with over 500 entries. Generally protections of this page are only short-term. The protection that was in effect at 19:39, 14 February 2020 expired 04:04, 15 February 2020 – it was only 24-hour protection, not indefinite. The most recent protection expired 12:44, 4 March 2020. While the page is protected the padlock icon should be transcluded by cascading from {{Noticeboard header}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Chronic, intractable behavioral problems"[edit]

Regarding this – Search

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajiul Huda Dipto: Comment on "the user should be reported to admin board". I suppose that you mean WP:ANI. That page says: "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." There is no urgent incident, and no evidence of a chronic, intractable behavioral problem.
  • Talk:William Ferrers, 3rd Baron Ferrers of Groby: ANI is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems".
  • Talk:Falkland Islands: All edits were overturned twice with no discussion, then referred to some 'Incident' board for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems".
  • Talk:Grievance studies affair: WP:ANI is not the appropriate venue, it's meant for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems."
  • Talk:The Real Housewives of New York City: If you feel I've been exhibiting chronic, intractable behavioral problems, feel free to report me here.
  • Talk:Amy Winehouse: If you need to report a chronic, intractable behavioral problem, or edit warring, rather than a content problem, consider WP:ANI instead.
  • Talk:2019 World Snooker Championship: I therefore see the live scoring as a form of disruptive editing and suggest we move to WP:ANI which is specifically for "discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems."
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1019:
    • Not sure what part of "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" this falls into, but a close of this is probably for the best.
    • The purpose of ANI is to report specific incidents that require immediate action from administrators. Actually, the top of the page says "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". This seems like the latter.
    • (this board is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, among which "showing ignorance"—itself verging on an aspersion and certainly lacking good faith—is not yet numbered)
    • As it pertains to a "chronic, intractable behavioral" issue, this discussion is best suited to take place at ANI.

Hmm. wbm1058 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm indeed. <nudge nudge> EEng 21:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Help button[edit]

I think this link would condense a lot of links presently at ANI header. What do ya think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Skip to bottom" button[edit]

I really like having this button and didn't want to see it removed, but I don't feel confident enough to revert the change. It's a long noticeboard and sometimes I just want to see what the latest discussions are without committing to clicking on any in particular. What do others think? The Moose 17:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for improvement: thread parameter[edit]

Please can we alter 

'''You may use <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Wikipedia:Substitution|subst]]:[[Template:ANI-notice|ANI-notice]]<nowiki>}} ~~~~</nowiki></code> to do so.'''

which displays as

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

to 

'''You may use <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Wikipedia:Substitution|subst]]:[[Template:ANI-notice|ANI-notice]]{{!}}thread=''thread name of the discussion''<nowiki>}} ~~~~</nowiki></code> to do so.'''

which will display as

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice|thread=thread name of the discussion}} ~~~~ to do so.

This is so that the recipient (and other people reading the notice) can reach the relevant thread directly. See also Template talk:You should notify any user that you discuss#Suggestion for improvement: thread parameter and Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header#Suggestion for improvement: thread parameter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"If you are prevented from editing"[edit]

@Ca, as you're working on improving this, one thing that would be nice would be to improve the functionality here. This notice should ideally be quite prominent for those affected and disappear for those not affected. {{If autoconfirmed}} would be the template to use to start (be careful — sometimes users you'd expect in a group aren't in it, e.g. admins aren't technically extended-confirmed), and perhaps there's some template that checks the page's protection status. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that was a thing — thank for the tip! Ca talk to me! 07:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ca, to clarify, {{If autoconfirmed}} is not sufficient by itself, since if I understand correctly, this applies only when the page is protected, which is not always. So the protection status ideally needs to be checked as well (which can be done through a magic word, it appears). The edit you attempted failed, I think, because it included div tags within it, which the autoconfirm check (per its documentation) doesn't handle well. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That fixed it! Ca talk to me! 08:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Header&oldid=1202934021"