Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Redesign ANI header

For context, I initially boldly implemented the design change but then it was reverted twice. I want the header to looks shorter so that people will actually read the notice and make it more modern. Here's my proposal:

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. ANI should only be used as a last resort for disputes (here's why). Do not report breaches of privacy here! You must report to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight instead. Before posting a complaint about a user on this page: Discuss the issue on the user's talk page; Consider other options given on the help navigation page; Try following through the dispute resolution procedure; Want to skip the drama? Try contact active admins (list) who may be able to help directly. If you do decide to post here, keep the topic brief and include diffs as evidence. If you cannot add a topic here due to protection, post at /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Archive policy: closed discussions should not be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. (archives, search) When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Start a new discussion

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: The proper page for this is Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard (if moving you can omit this comment). —Alalch E. 12:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Moved from WP:ANI to talk page - CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, you're fundamentally wrong about ANI being a "last resort" in dispute resolution, so we're not off on a good foot here. It was also extremely naïve to think you could just insert this without discussion, the mini-revert war was unwise. ValarianB (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have one question: Why? The current ANI header fucntions just fine. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Because practically everyone scrolls through the header without looking at it. CactiStaccingCrane 14:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed strongly. Sadly, nobody in our volunteer project can be expected to have the time to go back through the ANI archives and compile a jillion diffs of reporters saying, "oh, I didn't see that". I am (only slightly humorously) willing to attest under penalty of perjury of the States of My State and California (where Wikimedia is domiciled) that at least two of every three ANI archives includes a representation to that effect from an original poster who has been called out by a clueful regular for not having abided by that directive. This is ubiquitous. I commend CactiStaccingCrane for trying to come up with a human-factor-cognizant solution to this legitimate problem. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you actually have any proof to back that up? Changing it to look more modern most likely will not solve that issue and people will continue to ignore it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf I actually do agree on this point. Do you have a more radical idea that we can test and see how it works? CactiStaccingCrane 14:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Leaving it alone? We can't exactly force people to look at it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

We could make the banner looks more like one at the WP:Teahouse: simple, friendly, and functional. Perhaps we can incorporate that to the new ANI design. CactiStaccingCrane 14:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

ANI isn't exactly friendly.... and also people don't always look at the one for the Teahouse. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• No one reads instructions anyways. No amount of redesign will fix this. It's a function of human behavior, not of what the header looks like. Which doesn't mean we don't need some kind of header, which is going to be useful for those that do read it. The current one functions well for containing the necessary information we need if anyone is interested in reading it, but you actually can't design any header that will increase compliance. --Jayron32 15:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  • It would be trivially easy to design a header which reduced compliance (a simple edit to tank compliance would be to make the text and background colours identical), so obviously some headers are better than others. It seems unlikely that the current ANI header is perfect, so probably there are ways we could somewhat increase its effectiveness. I don't know that the proposed header is obviously better than what we have, and I doubt that the fundamentally pretty minimal changes made here will make enough difference either way to be worth the effort of debating whether to adopt them, but it doesn't seem at all implausible that a better header could exist. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

    Hard agree on this tbh. Btw, Caeciliusinhorto-public, in your view, what would be a perfect ANI header? CactiStaccingCrane 12:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Please don't collapse the header, it's really annoying. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

TO sum it up: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Quasi-support Except for the collapsed header and the unbolding of some of the last few bullet points, I like it! ~ HAL333 06:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Good on CactiStaccingCrane for trying to make things better. What I would do is swap the order of the box listing noticeboards and the main box being discussed here. At the moment, to get to the box that contains the stuff you need to know about ANI, you first have to get through a box of incredibly tiny print that lists, with not the faintest explanation, every possible noticeboard in the known universe. It just turns the top of ANI into a splodge of small print that no one who's upset enough to venture into ANI will actually read. Elemimele (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The most important information should be placed above less important information (not implying that other noticeboards aren't important, though). XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• I also appreciate the work put into this by CSC. Now allow me to criticize it: "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents" and "ANI should only be used as a last resort for disputes (here's why)" are contradictory. I don't think ANI should only be used as a last resort (nor that any essays should be linked in the header). Other than the addition of that line, I'm not really perceiving any changes. A "perfect header" in my view would, for starters, be half as long (uncollapsed). Somewhere in these talk page archives is an iconographic header I proposed some years ago that had much less text. Nobody really liked it. :-) But in my view, the header would not contain any more than like 10 sentences/bullet points/instructions (5 would be better), which this draft is pretty close to. I agree with moving the noticeboard links down below the header. One other thing I never liked about the header is all the mixed formatting: large font to start, then bullet points, then an italicized section, then a yellow box... it all makes my eyes glaze over, too "busy". Levivich (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Notifying editors on ANI

APologies if this isn't the right place to ask this, however I notice that whenever someone forgets to notify a user on ANI, another user will notify the user for the poster. However there seems to be no consequence in forgetting to notify someone as someone else will always notify them for you (not saying you should forget to notify someone because of this). Is there supposed to be some sort of consequence or is this simply just a formality? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that what's really at issue is the practical effect--that is, making the editor aware the conversation exists. So, in my experience, no consequence (nor do I think there should be one). I, personally though, think there is value in making the person who opens the thread do it themselves, so when I see this, I will say so, but I don't do it myself. As ever, just one opinion! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I certainly don't think there should be a consequence, unless there's reason to believe it's deliberate or a repeat occurrence. Some people might genuinely forget, others might not read through all of the info at the top of the page. It's not a big deal, as long the subject is eventually notified. Dare I say the "consequence" is that people might not take the report as seriously. — Czello 14:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Manual archiving at ANI

Hello everyone,

NebY and I have had a discussion on my talk page about my manual archiving of closed ANI discussions, which we agree I may have been performing in an untimely fashion. NebY suggested I carry on the discussion here. My main concern is the notice about manual archiving added to the header in June 2018. In my opinion it may be worthwhile establishing what type of discussions fall into the category of "routine matters", and how much more time is implied by the term "longer", and adding these specifications to the notice, which in its present form reads as so. Linguist111 (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

You definitely need to slow down. I was involved in an ANI discussion and went back to see how it was going and then had to hunt around and waste time working out what happened. I saw that you archived a bunch of ANI discussions including the one I needed. That was way under 24 hours and I guess you archived it because it was marked as closed withing a few hours. I suppose that annoying me is not a big deal but the problem in that case was that the newbie in that discussion would probably never have found it, and they would not have received the feedback of seeing the comments made by other editors. If needed, a bot could archive closed discussions. Don't do it. Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm startled to see that Linguist111 has put "Retired" on their talk page and set a Wikibreak Enforcer on their account up to 2099. I guess there's now no immediate need to review the specifications on the header notice. NebY (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

ANI for EC only

The above discussion is focused more on behavioral, so putting these thoughts under a new header.

Assumptions

• A new editor either has potential to improve the encyclopedia or not
• Significant number of new users reported to ANI are really socks/evaders
• The hostile environment of ANI is more likely to drive a new editor away than an experienced editor especially new editor operating in good faith, but on wrong side of policy.

Proposal

• Create Administrator Intervention Board
• Any editor not extended-confirmed is reported there in format similar, but simpler than AE
• Any admin may act unilaterally on a report or move it to ANI for community discussion.
• On-board discussion would be limited/non-existent as Admin can take it to the user's talk page

Goal

• Retain new editors by not having their first experience be the dramaboards

Extreme version

• All reports start at Intervention and are only sent to ANI by an Admin.

Slywriter (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I have an issue with the name. It could easily be confused for WP:AIV as this would be WP:AIB. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

If the name is the worst part of this proposal, I'll take it. :) I don't love it either, just needed something there Slywriter (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Archiving at WP:AN

The page is not long; is a 48-hour archival time necessary or can it be extended ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell recently shortened the archival time from six days to three. Personally I prefer a longer period since sometimes there are discussions awaiting formal closure for multiple days (plus the wait arguably makes AN a bit less frantic than ANI), but there are pros and cons to both approaches, I guess. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I thought the idea at AN was that the urgency was removed and we could allow time for feedback; with a three-day archival, we reinstate the crazy-frantic seen at ANI. With only ten threads on the page, why so short? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It's currently 72 hours, which seems reasonable to me. But that's 72 hours from the most recent comment, not 72 hours from the start of the thread. If a thread has had no comments at all for three whole days (plus however long it takes until the bot next checks), it's not really active. I'm not sure what the advantage is of leaving a thread lingering for six days after anyone has commented, but I'll defer to consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell the problem with The Banner thread is that several of us specifically said we wanted to allow a chance for them to respond, since they hadn't edited ... those statements would then discourage others from responding. Maybe instead I should go ahead and start a proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

If 72 hours generally works, and there is just one thread where you'd like to make an exception, you can use the {{donotarchiveuntil}} template to prevent it from archiving. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah ha ! Thx, HJ, what do you think in this case ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Editors adding retired, db-u1 templates etc to this page

Over the last year or two there's been a lot of accounts adding {{retired}} or {{db-u1}} to the administrative noticeboards, here's an example from yesterday. I assume they're doing this because of this https://www.wikihow.com/Delete-Your-Wikipedia-Account wikihow article, which (if you were skim reading it) seems to suggest coming to the administrative noticeboard and adding those templates. Does anyone have any suggestions to address this? Perhaps an edit filter (though it might not be worth it for one or two edits a week)? Does anyone know anything about wikihow's guidelines? Perhaps it would be possible to revise the guide to make it less confusing or nominate it for deletion, having a "Delete your wikipedia account" guide seems misleading given it isn't actually possible to delete them. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

With regard to your final point, the first line of the link in question says You cannot delete a Wikipedia account due to restrictions on the MediaWiki software, so that's not really an issue. It also does not tell people to go to AN except to "check that their account is in good standing" (which, to be honest, is stupid advice). People do weird things (I'm constantly reverting people who put new drafts in places they shouldn't, or adding random things to redirects, etc) and we can't stop them from doing them. Primefac (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I could see how someone with limited English proficiency could be confused into placing templates on AN by that page. There's also a good chance that similar advice has been repeated elsewhere, possibly in machine translated form. However this doesn't look like it occurs often enough on AN where a filter is needed, especially as we're edging closer to the condition limit. And we could also potentially use namespace detection to prevent them from rendering outside of user or user talk space if needed. However it's harder to tell if userpage creations consisting only of {{db-u1}} are frequent enough to be worth filtering without tediously going through the deletion log.

Fastily you're one of the heavy hitters for CSD, from your experience is that a big enough issue to be worth moving this over to EFR? 74.73.224.126 (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that you would even need to be limited by English proficiency to get confused by those instructions, simply not knowing how wikipedia works is going to be enough. The first instruction is "go to AN", the second instruction is "add retired to your user page by clicking "edit" and pasting this code". I don't think it's that unreasonable for someone to end up pasting the template on AN. It might be best to remove instruction 1 from wikihow, it doesn't really add anything useful to the instructions anyway. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd point out that we have a general filter for this page. It falls into the category of 'LTA no-nonsense' filters, so might not be appropriate - although it already picks up and prevents people trying to replace the page with the retired template, as sometimes happens. You'd want a custom dedicated filter explaining the specific problem and solutions. I don't think that's particularly worth it. We have a lot of people here who are also at Wikihow who may have some ideas. IMO what we should be doing is employing our SEO advantage and create a dedicated page for the topic. We do have Wikipedia:Deleting an account, but that's severely lacking when it comes to SEO. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I actually considered editing the article at WikiHow myself, but the big issue is the images which may be the only thing someone with limited English proficiency uses as a guide, and I presently don't have the time to try and create a new sequence. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Are old ANI threads looked at?

Question is in the title.

I would like some attention to be drawn towards this thread again, as one of the users has restored their edits for the 4th time, without any discussion beforehand. Meanwhile the other user looks like they are happily willing to discuss content issues with them. See my "Update" comments that I have left on the thread. AP 499D25 (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you review other people's edits

The mw:Editing team is working on a new (pre-publication) reminder for editors to add citations to their content. If you like scrolling through Special:RecentChanges, or if you keep up with your watchlist, please consider putting this page on your watchlist: Wikipedia:Edit check and helping them out. They're going to have a few questions in the coming weeks/months, and I think they would benefit from hearing from people who patrol edits.

Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Template:Skip to top and bottom

@ElKevbo: So, why did you revert my addition of that template? I only did it on behalf of another editor and have no real opinion on the underlying issue, but you also didn't provide any reason for reverting, and IMO you should have a good one if you want to prevent the addition of a navigational tool that someone else finds useful. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I've left them a message at their talk page letting them know of a way to hide the icons from their personal view. As for the template, I would support re-adding it as a navigational tool that some might find useful, especially since it can be hidden if you don't want to use/see the icons. SkyWarrior 15:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it's not helpful to force all readers of this page to either accept these new icons that block content or install some CSS solely to block these icons. It's not an unreasonable objection nor is it unreasonable to ask that there be discussion before this edit is made to such a highly trafficked page. ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

If the templates are so desirable, there should be a central RfC proposing that a software update should incorporate them. Please don't pick off pages one at a time adding more bling. Johnuniq (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Skip to TOC?

Moved from WP:AN

This page still has an in page link skip-to-TOC in the right hand top corner. That link is now a broken link as no TOC is generated. Uwappa (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It still works in Vector 2010 but not Vector 2022 (tbh I don't know why there was no attempt to make it so these would work in V22 before it was made default) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Uwappa through many layers of transclusions, that is loaded I think in Template:Noticeboard links. Many people do have TOC's, depends on their skin. You could propose some improvements to it on the template talk. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Question reposted at Template_talk:Noticeboard_links#skip_to_TOC Uwappa (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Kudmali Language

Sorry for that. I tried changing from Kurmali to Kudmali. But it was mistakenly changed to the Wikipedia project page. However, how can I do it right now? Help me plz. Thank You. চিথারাই মাহাতো (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This page is for issues requiring the attention of administrators. Please repost your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages, where it will receive more attention. Donald Albury 12:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

ANI thread "Alpinegora"

Hi, could we get some administrator attention on this ANI thread (named "Alpinegora") again? The user has continued the disruption today. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvement: thread parameter

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Template talk:You should notify any user that you discuss#Suggestion for improvement: thread parameter, Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Header#Suggestion for improvement: thread parameter and Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header#Suggestion for improvement: thread parameter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

What to do when a section gets archived without a response from admins?

What's the proper action? Revive, repost, wait until the next incident? Issues clearly don't just disappear whenever such sections get archived. Talking about WP:ANI in this case. –Vipz (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin response) This is difficult, because it requires judgment of what others are thinking.

It's rare for threads to die without action, or at least without there being input giving suggestions for other venues or solutions. But it does happen, and then you have to decide why it happened.

• Sometimes the thread dies because nobody is available to deal with it – even our admins have other lives and jobs and just stuff going on even when they're active elsewhere on the 'pedia – in which case the correct thing to do is to unarchive it.
• Sometimes the thread dies because nobody wants to deal with it. The problem would require so much time and effort for little benefit to the admin or the encyclopedia. In those cases the correct thing to do is to let it go, knowing that it will come back when it becomes urgent.
• Sometimes the thread dies because there simply isn't a solution. Rare, but it happens. Eventually, the problem will spill over into other areas or pass bright-line rules. That's when a new thread needs to be started, with a clear link to the previous one (which should remain archived).

Communication-by-typing, non-instantaneous communication, means these things happen and have been happening since September 1993. They appear to be a function of the internet and there's little to be done.

It sometimes worth unarchiving a thread if you think it was simply overlooked, but you'll need to bite down hard on the annoyance when the thread is immediately re-archived because you were wrong.

Before that, if the bot-archiving clock is ticking and you're not sure which one of the above it is, {{Do not archive until}} is a useful template. That's easily abused, so the shorter the length specified (perhaps 2 days? Others may want more or less and they're not wrong either way) the better, but it keeps a thread 'active' for a bit longer in case it's just been overlooked or needs an admin who is an expert in the behaviour of alpacas in Llamas for Deletion discussions to come online and notice it.

There's no fault in using your best judgment as to which option to take – you'll get criticised either way because this is TeH Interwebz, let it run off your back – and seeing how that goes. The worst that can happen is that you'll be reverted. — Trey Maturin™ 16:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I am also having this issue, in regard to [1]. Two questions -- how does one one de-archive? And how does one wikilink to that? Adoring nanny (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

You can just undo the archiving edit, or if it was a bot archive with multiple sections simultaneously, then just cut-paste from the archive page and then put "unarchiving (section name)" in the edit summary. No need to get fancy. I think doing this a lot could be considered BLUDGEON, but if you firmly believe more discussion will occur and get closer to a consensus, and everyone sort of agrees with you (or at least there isn't a consensus to archive), I don't think it will be an issue. (I probably wouldn't do this twice, for example) You will likely get some pushback, but that's true of most things on this site. And I would definitely NOT edit war to keep anything unarchived. That's a one-way ticket to block-town. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea if we will get closer to a consensus or not. What I do know is that the closer gave us further evidence of lack of neutrality. I definitely agree that WP:EW over the archived status is a bad idea, and I'm a bit concerned because I was a major participant in the discussion. But it sounds like doing it once is OK. Thanks. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s one of those Wp:BOLD situations. Someone else could immediately undo it just as much as you can do it. And then you’d have to come back here to form a consensus on it. That’s my reading anyway. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Handling involved contributions to close reviews, and the possibility of a unified close review forum

@Valereee, Courcelles, and ScottishFinnishRadish: Continued from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Close review for Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Olympian microstubs, to keep that discussion on topic.

First issue is how to handle involved editors opening close reviews. Options proposed include:

1. Status quo
2. Forbidding involved editors from opening close reviews
3. Forbidding involved editors from opening close reviews unless endorsed by an involved editor who took a different position
4. Forbidding involved editors from opening close reviews unless endorsed by an uninvolved editor

Second issue is how to handle involved editors contributing to close reviews. Options proposed include:

1. Status quo
2. Forbidding involved editors from contributing
3. Separating the discussion into "uninvolved" and "involved" sections
4. Permitting involved editors to join the discussion, but forbidding them from making bold !votes

A separate topic was the question of forum, with the possibility of creating a unified forum where all closes could be reviewed (closes of RM's, closes of AfD's, closes of RfC's, etc), which would also simplify the application of a unified set of rules on how to handle close reviews, including the participation of involved editors. BilledMammal (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• On both matters, status quo. Just don't expect satisfaction if most people disagree with your challenge. --Jayron32 15:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• The one thing I will add is that people who assess the review discussion should discount or give no weight to comments that relitigate the particulars of the original argument in the review. The only purpose of a review is to see if the closer reasonably summarized the discussion, and should not be an opportunity to argue that one side or the other had better arguments; the time to claim that any particular argument is better is in the discussion itself, not in the review, which should be narrowly focused on whether the close was reasonable, not that it was "right" (where "right" means "agreed with my vote"). Of course you can't stop people from making such arguments, but those arguments need to be ignored by anyone assessing the review. --Jayron32 15:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• First issue, I'd be happy with either 3 or 4. We could combine the two somehow, even. Second issue, I don't have as much of a concern. Valereee (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to think that status quo is best here, although options 3 and 4 on question two seem fine if a little bureaucratic. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• For question one, status quo, for question two, I like option three. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Status quo on both, although I have no problem with option 3 on question 2. There is no reason why an involved editor should not be able to allowed to open a close review. Forbidding involved editors from opening close reviews would essentially eliminate close reviews, since those who where not interested in being involved are unlikely to be interested in opening a close review. And the other options are overly bureaucratic. Rlendog (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Status quo on both. This is an area where we need to trust admins to use their good judgement and filter out !votes that relitigate the initial question or are otherwise inappropriate. I appreciate the intent to reduce drama, but I think this is an area where conflict is unavoidable and folks would still find ways to game these requirements. We could easily end up with editors intentionally not !voting so that they can challenge the outcome, or arguing over the definition of "different position". –dlthewave ☎ 01:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• I'm very sceptical about bundling MRV or DRV in this. They are both long-running, well-functioning processes with their own set of procedures and conventions. I can't see any benefit in merging them that would outweigh the disruption it would cause. But a dedicated board for other types of close review sounds like an excellent idea. In general I support anything that move the administrators' noticeboard(s) back to being an administrators' noticeboard—i.e., a place primarily used by administrators to coordinate administrative tasks—and away from its current state as a catch-all dramaboard. – Joe (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  The benefit I see from bundling MRV and DRV in is that they are relatively insular areas; by moving them to a common forum I believe we would increase the diversity of participation.

  However, even if we excluded them I still think a single forum for all other close reviews would be a good idea. BilledMammal (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see much demonstrating there is a problem that needs to be fixed here. Closers as a whole acknowledge these things and weight them appropriately in my experience. Closure reviews are already quite rare. I think both processes are working well at present. Status quo imo. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Slight Vagueness of notification requirement

Regarding everyone's favorite red box on Wikipedia:

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

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

Is there a policy page describing this? Or rather is there any page that prescribes what a notice in this context constitutes? Since this notification is such a bright-line requirement, it feels as though we should have a bright-line definition for such a notification. The box states that a ping or notification is not enough, and that one may use {{subst:AN-notice}} , so obviously the template is the easiest way to accomplish this, but also is definitely not presented as necessary. So when viewing how a user has notified another, what's to say whether it is sufficient or not? The discussion linked in the box seems to have contradicting positions on this as well, although it isn't mentioned. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I always assumed it was a requirement (in practice at least) to notify reported users of the fact that they've been reported, and at which noticeboard they've been reported at. I suppose its safe to use any notice format so long as they accomplish this. Nythar (💬-🍀) 18:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

My view is that a notice, no matter how you do it, should be placed on a user's talk page, should be neutral in tone, and should include a link to the discussion. Notifications are easy to lose and a lot of people don't realize that editing a comment to try to ping a user (instead of making a new comment) doesn't actually send a user a notification. It also allows others to see that the user has been notified. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

What really drives me bonkers, is that most of the time, if they use the template to notify the user, they don't include the section link, so it just links to the massive noticeboard and the user has no idea where on that page they are being discussed. I don't think it's at all clear to many, many users (especially newer ones) how templates work or what they are, or that there are additional parameters like "thread=" that they should fill in. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

There was a discussion that died out... somewhere... that suggested changing the template code to include the section name as an example, and/or make the section link mandatory. Worth revisiting I suppose. Primefac (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that was me... my post is now archived to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 17#Suggestion for improvement: thread parameter, see the links in that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

We are our own worst enemies here. During peak editing times, you have about a minute between filing an AN or ANI and notifying the person you're talking about. After that time is up, someone will appear and note VERY LOUDLY that you haven't notified the editor concerned. We soon learn to use tabbed browsing and have the AN(I) posting open in one and the notification in another and to save them sequentially and quickly.

That's a burden, but, like, fine, that's what people want. However, if you're a newer editor, or technically incompetent (hi!), or not fucking superhuman, then it takes a bit longer.

If we add an extra step – one that requires that you add |section= and allow for how weird the software can be with section headers containing {{userlinks}} or the even sometimes just links to user pages in headings especially if your browser escapes non-latin characters and you're new or technically incompetent (hi!) then... wow, this is quite a burden to impose. A bite-y burden on new users, too.

If this is truly a problem, is there not some sort of filter or bot or something that would allow someone to save the AN(I) post and then click a single button to fill out the suddenly more complicated {{an-notice}} template for them? Or some way of making linking to section headers, especially if they contain templates or links or non-latin characters... I dunno... easier? And no, "just install foobar.js in User/WeirdAndDangerousArea/Barfoo and enable the widget in the doodad and then clear the cache in your thingy by using CTRL+SHIFT+F19 whilst holding down SELFDESTRUCT and pressing your BUMLORD key" is not an alternative. — Trey Maturin™ 23:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Previous discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 16#Can everyone please stop yelling at people for forgetting to notify?. I don't think it had much of an effect. People are reading ANI the way they do Twitter; they're looking for something to get outraged about, and this is low-hanging fruit. If we make the thread parameter mandatory, then we'll give them even more fruit: "As the big red pink notice clearly states, you MUST link to the thread when reporting any user to ANI. Please fix the template." Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow ANI is basically Wikipedia's social media. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd call AN/I closer to Wikipedia's collective game of Mafia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 20:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Requesting hatting/closure of 9kb discussion about me

Requesting the uncomfortably long 9kb essay about me on Incidents move towards archival or at least be hatted. It is absolutely way too long and distracting from other discussions on the page including the modestly worded IBAN request below it. Also requesting guidance on if I have followed the correct procedure for my IBAN request in the second sub-section or if it needs to be redone (it has not attracted enough attention as a subsection).--NØ 14:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Possibly excessive revdel

Someone has revdel'd the page from 22:36, 4 July 2023‎ to 10:57, 9 July 2023‎; approximately 700 revisions. Looking at the log I cannot work out who did it but I suspect it was an accident; if it was can someone fix it? BilledMammal (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Not revdel, but suppression (oversight). Looks like a deliberate action, probably by Primefac, and of the minimal size it needed to be to get rid of the offending bit. —Kusma (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Correct on both counts. Primefac (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a question

Hi. I haven't been involved in ANI for several years now, but I seem to recall it used to referred to by some kind of a nickname that I have been trying to remember for a while now. I know they call it the "drama boards", but this name was something more like the "peanut gallery" I think? Anyway, if anyone has any information on it, then please ping me since I don't want the drama board on my watchlist. Thanks! Huggums537 (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Huggums537: here is a link that shows the redirects less links and transclusions: [2]

This doesn't show stuff that got deleted in RFD, though. WP:POPCORN may be what you had in mind. Jip Orlando (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

CESSPOOL AND CESSPIT are on that redirect list. Not exactly those but some sewage-related cognate was quite commonly used a few years I seem to recall. I can't exactly remember what though. Btw, can't believe WP:Wretched hive of scum and villainy hasn't shown up at RfD!! DeCausa (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Shhh! Loose lips sink ships :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone. Given the idea to do some research on it, I found the article Peanut gallery and essay Wikipedia:PEANUT so I'm now certain it was "peanut gallery" I overheard, but it appears this isn't the typical usage of the term here. Thanks for the feedback! Huggums537 (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

From the redirects, we have:

• Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
• User:Zppix/enwikihell
• WP:AIRINGOFGRIEVANCES
• WP:ALOTOFDRAMA
• WP:AN?I
• WP:ANNIE
• WP:Annie
• WP:CESSPIT
• WP:Cesspit
• WP:CESSPOOL
• WP:Complaints Department
• WP:Drama board
• WP:Dramaboard
• WP:DRAMABOARD
• WP:Great Dismal Swamp
• WP:Happy Place
• WP:HAPPYPLACE
• WP:INCIDENT
• WP:LITTLEORPHAN
• WP:POPCORN
• WP:Room101
• WP:Slough of Despond
• WP:Users for deletion
• WP:Wretched hive of scum and villainy

jp×g 20:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Incidents noticeboard: information for new users

Hello! I've just posted to the incidents noticeboard for the first time, and something I noticed is that there's no obvious explanation of how the noticeboard functions — its processes, who may respond, what the outcomes may be, that sort of thing. Would it be possible to add this? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that would be possible. WP:ANI is a noticeboard for things that don't belong on any more specific noticeboard, so necessarily has become a bit of a free-for-all. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that. What about something basic, such as:

The incident will be assessed by Wikipedia administrators, who will follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines to help reach a solution. They may take actions including protecting articles, changing user permissions, and blocking users.

I'm sure there are issues with the above, as I'm not sure of the exact nature of the noticeboard, but I'm sure you get the idea. It would help explain what the noticeboard is, and also what it isn't. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That sounds exactly like what ANI should be. Unfortunately, it isn't. Users old and new are probably better advised to avoid it. – Joe (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:POPCORN" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:POPCORN has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 10 § Wikipedia:POPCORN until a consensus is reached. -- 'zin^{[is short for Tamzin]} (she|they|xe) 20:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Inquiry by LairdCamelot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@A.D.Hope Hi there, I am unable to find officially how to report bullying but here goes: I am trying to edit a page to correct a falsehood, and this admin/moderator/user is abusing his/her power through intimidation and threats of blocking me. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a cesspit for trolls and bullies, but my experience is so far an appalling one. They know full well what they're doing, and refuse to acknowledge a gaping mistake in an article to the extent of personal attack to get their own way - at the cost of truth and honesty. Please help, thanks LairdCamelot (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

LairdCamelot, I assume you're referring to this discussion, which was opened a scant 24 hours ago. Given that there are over 800 people who have watchlisted that page, I suggest waiting a day or two for other opinions to be presented. If no one replies, you are welcome of course to request for a third opinion at WP:3O. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac No I'm not. I'm referring to a threat that was made to block me for no reason. LairdCamelot (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that the "you're asking to get blocked" part of Special:Diff/1164761342 was because you have been edit-warring on the page, which is not allowed. Primefac (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac this is appalling cyber bullying LairdCamelot (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This is FAR from cyber bullying. This is a warning to say "Hey, you're edit warring. You need to stop, or you can be blocked." Again, please read over WP:EW. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I've come across this with, er, people younger than me, quite often on various fora in the last couple of years. I believe they're teaching kids in school about cyberbullying these days (a very good thing) but are not teaching them that being told "no" to behaviour that isn't acceptable on the forum in question is not bullying (a very bad thing).

There are a lot of, er, people younger than me, who have never been told "no" directly by anybody ever because they're so very very precious and wonderful. And then they dip a toe into an encyclopedia like ours and are SHOCKED AND APPALLED that we have rules and those rules apply to their perfect asses and other people are prepared gently warn them, as EEng did, that "no" is a perfectly good answer.

This isn't going to get any better or easier for us as time goes on, alas. — Trey Maturin™ 18:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Using insulting, patronising language like that - suggesting I'm a child - is exactly why you folk have a bad reputation.

Culture wars, frowning on younger generations - this is part of the problem with Wikipedia. It is stuck behind the times.

I was accused of believing in a "deep state" because I suggested transparency of funding for scientific research. I suggested changes to an article, and was threatened to be blocked because my opinion was different from others. I respected the TalkPage, and presented opinions on limitations, and suggested improvements. Other users, who are highly conservative, didn't agree with my changes - and one in particular threatened to have me blocked. Instead of getting a mature, grown-up response, the administrators preceded to throw insults at me. This IS cyber-bullying. LairdCamelot (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of continuing good faith, a few points:

I was accused of believing in a "deep state" - nowhere here, nor at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald, nor on your talk page, did anyone make this claim.

threatened to be blocked because my opinion was different from others - no, you were told that you would be blocked if you continued to edit war.

Other users, who are highly conservative, didn't agree with my changes - first off, calling EEng "conservative" is rather amusing to me, but yes, editors do disagree with each other. All the time.

the administrators preceded to throw insults at me - other than Trey's comments, which I will admit are a bit over the top (though I wouldn't call them "insults"... and they're not even an admin), who has insulted you?

I would highly suggest at this point taking a step back and thinking about your priorities on this site. Do you really need to die on this particular hill? Or can you carry on a civil conversation at the article's talk page and maybe even convince some people to see your point of view? You might not "win" that discussion, but such is life, and if you remain unblocked at the end of it I would argue that's better for everyone. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a direct quote from that talkpage: "Is photogrammetry somehow a deep-state plot? It's yet another example of the conspiracy crowd refusing to address evidence." LairdCamelot (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not see the hatted section on the page contained said quote. I think that was more hyperbole than making any claims about you specifically, though to be honest... it's not really the end of the world if someone thinks you think that. Let them have their opinions, regardless of whether they are accurate. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

EEng isn't an administrator, and that's not a threat, it's a warning,. EEng can't block anybody, but they can refer issues with editor conduct to administrators for evaluation and action. Bluster is not an appropriate response to such a warning, or a substitute for appropriate talkpage demeanor. In your case, I think a reading of WP:BLUDGEON may be in order, based on your voluminous postings to Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald. I closed one of those threads after it veered into lengthy tangential discussion that had strayed from specific actionable discussion of article improvement. Acroterion (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I blocked LairdCamelot 31h for continued aspersions and similar edits subsequent to this thread's closure and several warnings on their talkpage. DMacks (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Giant oversight

Over 250 revisions just got oversighted. What happened? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

When this happens, it's usually because someone posted something they really shouldn't have posted. No reason to think it's anything different here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

But, why would it wipe out others' input? GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Every revision containing the bad information also needs to be deleted, because it also contains the bad information. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Same reason revdel does. Lets say you have a page with 30 revisions in the history, and someone posted something they shouldn't have in revision 10. If that edit doesn't get removed until revision 29, all of the revisions between 10 (the first edit where it appeared) and 29 (the first where it was removed) have to be removed otherwise the content would still appear if you looked at revision 21. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"WP:CESSPIT" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WP:CESSPIT to the page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 21 § Wikipedia:CESSPIT until a consensus is reached. —Cryptic 17:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I want to report harassment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I want to file a report on a user (Kshatriya Yoddha), who apparently called me a racial slur on his talkpage. Apparently I was in an edit war with the user before, but today was the day where they took the situation very far.

This is the comment the user made to me: "Cope harder sub-narmada pajeet... and sulk when you see a tall, fair, handsome north-Indian munda flex his muscles infront of mallu and tulu chicks... should i send u a fair&lovely... will help u :)"

This is the link to the user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kshatriya_Yoddha

The link to the comment is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kshatriya_Yoddha&diff=prev&oldid=1169306784 and I believe this is the current version of their talkpage. In case they made have edited it, this link will provide the evidence.

If this issue doesn't concern you, I would like to know who may it concern so I can proceed with my report. No2WesternImperialism (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This page is for discussion about the Administrators Noticeboard, it is not the noticeboard itself. Please post to the main noticeboard. (WP:AN). 331dot (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks No2WesternImperialism (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removed diffs?

Hello. I am newish to this page. Why are diffs removed from the noticeboard page history? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Diffs may be removed from any page's history, if they meet certain criteria. See Criteria for redaction in Wikipedia:Revision_deletion. Donald Albury 01:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I see that diffs were removed from 22:24, 21 August 2023 to 05:32, 23 August 2023, including my edit. How can I see the reason for the removal? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Something in that range needed to be suppressed (see Wikipedia:Oversight). If you aren't in the oversight group you don't get to view the log or know the precise reason. It'll be one or more of the types of things mentioned on the oversight policy page. MrOllie (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't sound a very transparent practice. I mean at least there should be some sort of mention to a relevant policy as the reason why the edits were struck. And I wonder why mine was struck as well. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not supposed to be transparent. It covers situations where being transparent would make the problem worse. MrOllie (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Transparent in this context would be providing a proper reason so as to show it was not a mistake, an inappropriate, or an arbitrary removal. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

There are checks and balances built into the Oversight process, but they happen behind the scenes for obvious reasons. The people who do such redactions are highly trusted users. If you have reason to believe that a mistake was made, you can email the OS team and ask for a review. But a request to know what was in the first redacted edit will be declined, nor will a reason for redaction be given if your request is mere curiosity.

All of us who have ever edited on one of the drama boards have had edits redacted as part of cleaning up after mistakes/malfeasance by other editors. Their presence (or absence, as it were) in our contributions log will never be held against us and never has been anywhere. — Trey Maturin™ 04:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

including my edit. Your edit was just caught in the crossfire for technical reasons. The technical reason being that every revision between when something was added and something was removed contains the something. So they all have to be oversighted. And that something is usually serious, such as information that doxes an editor. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I hope that the large number of removals (covering 5 days) is unusual. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not common to be honest. Generally, edits that need to be revdel'd or suppressed are caught relatively quickly, so the time frame is rather short. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Very. That's why it attracts attention. These things happen all the time, but 98% of those times it's one or two edits and nobody notices.

The text on the page itself always survives (except for the original diff that was manually redacted before the revdels took place) so nobody is being silenced or having their views repressed. Quite the reverse: this process preserves our input very effectively whilst just removing a (convenient, I admit) link to it within our systems.

WP:AGF is easily abused as a policy, but the Oversight system is very very heavily policed internally. If it went wrong, we'd very very soon know about it everywhere. — Trey Maturin™ 21:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Consensuses and gaming the system

I've been talking to an administrator with the username Cullen328 and other users about an issue over an ethnic terminology and they accused me of presenting argumentative and disruptive editing, even though I simply asked them questions over whether my arguments really constituted tendentious editing, especially when I told them that other users were tone policing my arguments. None of my arguments were intended to be polemic. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the operation of the administrators noticeboard, and is not the board itself, please go directly to WP:AN. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Archiving

Hello, the Bot archived a section I had created and that had received no input from any administrator. I personally do not think the issue has been addressed. Is there anything that can be done now? Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Revert the archival and make another comment to see if there is more interest? Primefac (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks.@Primefac -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Lowercase sigmabot III did it again. Is it considered acceptable practice to "relist" a discussion that has attracted no attention, for a third round? Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

You can if you want, but I don't recommend it. If it's been on ANI twice and no one has seen fit to respond, then the community doesn't seem to have much appetite to deal with it, probably because it is a WP:Content dispute with no major conduct infractions. I assume you are talking about Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1138#RFC consensus ignored by User:Popcornfud (reverting archiving). I see that there's a June RFC on the issue of your content dispute, Talk:Creep (Radiohead song)#Request for comment on In Films Section. I would suggest starting a new talk page section if you and the other editor are still disagreeing over the interpretation of that RFC. Perhaps some additional editors will weigh in and help to clarify things. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much@Novem Linguae, yes, that was the one. You're obviously right. I will follow your advice. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Ownership Approach on the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Page

User Adachi1939 seems to be pursuing an ownership approach on the Defense of Sihang Warehouse page.

Nearly all edits I've made have been undone by him on the grounds of "false citations," (including spelling and sentence reformatting), usually accompanied by ad hominem attacks and insults in the talk page or edit history. The fact that Adachi usually undoes my edits only hours after they're made after suggests a very possessive attitude, and the heavy presence of original research and lack of neutrality in his edits makes that a chronic issue.

This isn't the first he's this done this, as he has edit-warred for four continuous months over the article's content to the point of two blocks. He also has shown quite a lack of courtesy towards those that disagree with him, which you can find on the article talk page and his personal talk page.

While I've muted him at this point, I suspect this behavior won't stop with me, given he has acted this way with other users who have disagreed with him on the page before.

I just figured I should give a heads up about this situation, and request some admin assistance or attention on this issue. I don't want any other prospective editors to be spurned by Adachi's surveillance and attitude towards the article's content KresyRise (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

KresyRise. Hey there. Noticeboard talk pages aren't usually the right place for reports. In this case, you'll probably want to repost this at WP:ANI. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It does, thanks. KresyRise (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk page of Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention

WP:RFAA is a page in itself (as opposed to being a redirect), but its corresponding talk page (Wikipedia talk:Requests for administrator attention) is currently a redirect to WP:AN.

I see in 2006, the existing talk page was turned into a redirect by B (in Special:Diff/95463610), with the reasoning that users have been leaving notices at this talk page but it is unmonitored ... this will send them somewhere useful.

While I understand that reasoning, it just seems a bit of a different-to-usual circumstance to have a redirect (1) from the talk page of a non-redirect, and (2) from a talk page to a non-talk page. This also has the unintended consequence of there not being a designated page for discussing changes to the text at WP:RFAA. To me (with the important qualifier that I am still fairly new here), it seems like it may make more sense for Wikipedia talk:Requests for administrator attention to either be a page in itself, or to be a redirect to another talk page (eg. WT:AN).

I was just wondering what other editors’ thoughts were on this, as it seems like a bit of an unusual redirect. (To be clear, I’m not saying that to put anything against it - rather, because it seems like it’s a bit of an atypical redirect situation, I’m more interested in hearing others’ views on the matter.)

All the best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 19:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

We have edit notices now (something that didn't exist in 2006) and could potentially try setting up an edit notice to see if that discourages asking for help there. (Something like this notice). --B (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@B: that sounds like a good idea that could be tried. ^user:A smart kitten_meow 11:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

*tumbleweed*

I've never seen WP:AN empty before. Is it just me or has the bot gotten a little too aggressive about archiving things? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Well it looks like it's because, according to the history, surprisingly nobody has posted to the page since 22 september which does seem unusual. The bot parameter is 3 days old and min 1 thread. Has that been changed? DeCausa (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, it is only WP:AN. Notices and very little urgency. It's an English country village on a Sunday afternoon; /Incidents is Times Square on a Friday night. So really it's clearing out AN/I where the statues are  :) SN54129 17:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@MJL I had a query I wanted to post the other day but couldn’t figure out how to word well, and seeing this prompted me to figure it out and post it. So thank you for the prompt and apologies for breaking the AN silence :) ^user:A smart kitten_meow 17:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Archiving

AN currently only has 3 headings (plus the open tasks heading). Is this normal? Or did someone change the minthreadsleft archive settings and it went unnoticed? Personally I wouldn't mind setting minthreadsleft to like 10, 15, or 20, since I am used to AN having a lot of headings. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Possible civility issues

Hello administrators. If someone could give a look at the thread Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Question about RfC sections it would be great. I haven't filed a report because tbh I don't know if it's considered a serious issue or not. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

this is not the right place for this message, IMHO. Andre🚐 18:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I was hoping not to elevate it to the noticeboard level but keeping it a notch below. Soliciting opinions in relevant talk pages is standard practice if Im not mistaken. I tried using the {{adminhelp}} template as well and was turned down also. Why so much inflexible bureaucracy? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Filing a report is much better and less time consuming than forum shopping, so please go ahead a file one so that I can respond properly. M.Bitton (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Thinker78 (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I can't expand the headings at AN on mobile.

I'm using Firefox on Android. Anyone have a clue what this might be? It works fine for other pages! jp×g🗯️ 03:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

JPxG, Village pump (technical) is a great place for questions like this. Someone else may have encountered the problem and posted about it. Developers are there, too, and if this turns out to be a MediaWiki bug, it can be added to Phabricator and might be fixed. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW close - clearly not happening. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

---

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User conduct

– Incidents is a vague and unspecific term, causing confusion for newcomers. User conduct is more specific on what the purpose of the page is. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose and propose snow close. I don't believe this has any chance to pass, even though it makes sense. Perhaps the intended title is fine as a redirect. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the logic of "disagree because others might disagree" is good for consensus-building. Someone proficient with WP:AWB can replace all mentions of /Incidents to /User conduct in a short amount of time. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, yeah, fair enough. Personally, I disagree with change for the sake of change. There's a reason that, for instance, I've turned off auto updates everywhere I can: because if it ain't broke, then it shouldn't be fixed. Ditto for the name of ANI. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. User conduct is what it's used for, yes, but it's not actually its intended purpose, which was to bring urgent incidents to the attention of administrators (before you changed it, at least). I'd much rather encourage users to use it for that purpose and take conduct disputes to more suitable venues such as WP:DRN, WP:XRV, and WP:ARBCOM. – Joe (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  As an aside, I did a bit of edit history archaeology on how the stated scope of ANI in the header has evolved over time:

  • April 2005: it was originally for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks. The instructions specifically stated that this page isn't the place to bring disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors.
  • September 2006: a notice was added explicitly stating that ANI is not part of dispute resolution, and shouldn't be used for complaints about users – later summed up as this is not the Wikipedia complaints department
  • January 2007: the notice was revised to say that complaints about admins were allowed
  • November 2008: Jehochman reluctantly acknowledges that ANI in fact is the Wikipedia complaints department and revises the text to allow discussions of user conduct. This page is not part of our dispute resolution process is changed to This page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues.
  • December 2011: NE Ent changes require the intervention of administrators to require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors
  • March 2012: restructuring of the header in which the not part of our dispute resolution process is lost
  • June 2018: in amongst major revisions, EEng changes incidents to urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems[3] and then removes ...that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.[4]
  • November 2023: Ca removes urgent incidents (I've just reverted this)

  So to begin with "user conduct" was explicitly outside ANI's scope; then reluctantly allowed c. 2008; then promoted to equal status with the main focus on "incidents" c. 2018; then made the sole concern c. 2023. Obviously this is just the header, it doesn't necessarily reflect how people actually used the board, but I think it's interesting that ANI was reluctantly dragged into the dispute resolution process, rather than being part of it by design. – Joe (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per @Joe Roe _→AzaToth 07:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Can anyone elaborate on the history of AN/I? Personally as a newcomer I was more thrown by the "Administrators' noticeboard" part than the "Incidents" part, I edited for a while under the impression that non-admins were only allowed to participate on "speak when spoken to" grounds... Boy was I wrong, it's basically our water cooler. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bug-ish

I can't see why, but it seems that the collapsed section currently at the bottom at the ANI-page is also collapsing a thread below it shouldn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This appears to have been fixed by Schazjmd. Looks to have been the result of someone incorrectly indenting the {{cot}} and {{cob}} templates; using the reply tool will cause this if people forget to remove the indentation (which is automatic when using the tool) when adding the templates. SkyWarrior 15:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Purpose of ANI

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Purpose of ANI. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"Involved/Uninvolved" for RfC Close Appeals

I'm opening this here to avoid focusing too much on the current appeal, although the question is prompted by it; what definition of "involved" are we using?

WP:INVOLVED would suggest they an editor should be considered involved if they have participated in the broader dispute even if they skipped the RfC in question, but based on the position of !votes in the current appeal we are saying editors are only involved if they participated in the specific RfC.

I would lean towards using the WP:INVOLVED definition, if only to avoid the confusing situation where what "involved" means on Wikipedia varies based on the type of discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is about exactly, but it would be disastrous if someone involved in a dispute could close an RfC just because they didn't participate in the RfC. In fact I would interpret "involved" broadly, for example someone who regularly edits ARBPIA articles should not be closing RfCs (RMs, AfDs, etc) on ARBPIA issues. Zero^talk 01:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Although I see where you're coming from, I disagree rather strongly with the last sentence there, and I think WP:RFC disagrees, too. Voters in RFCs can close RFCs (under certain conditions, eg clear outcome), and according to WP:RFC (and I agree) this is not just permitted but preferable.

I think it would be disastrous if we said someone who edits in a topic area should not close RFCs in that topic area. I'd fear RfCs being closed only by people who have never before edited in the topic area of the RfC--there is a high risk the closer won't even understand the arguments being made in a discussion if they have zero subject matter knowledge. (In fact I think that has been the cause of many bad RfC closes in the past, in various topic areas.)

And I'm uncomfortable with telling an editor from, say, India that they can either edit Indian topics or close Indian RfCs but not both. This would cripple many smaller topic areas and create a two-class system of editors (voters and closers) in other topic areas (three classes if you count admins), which would give the "closer class" too much power and would bring a whole new level to tag teaming, canvassing, brigading, etc. (Every cabal would have its voters and closers, and cabals would trade voters and closers with each other in a system of each-hand-scratches-the-other corruption.)

I don't think it's good to apply WP:INVOLVED (which is about admins) to RfC "involved" (let's pick a new word!).

To the OP's question, it should be "participants/non-participants" rather than "involved/uninvolved" in RfC appeal section headers. I get that there are people involved in a broader dispute (not just the topic area) who don't vote in an RfC. I'd say it's easier to just let them vote in the appeal as non-participants rather than trying to come up with a definition of "involved-non-participant." Levivich (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• Agree with to Zero0000, closing discussions, especially those related to CTopics, should be handled by completely uninvolved editors. It is not hard to request an NPOV close from an uninvolved, there is no rush in closing a discussion, and there is no positive good that can come of anything other than a broad interpretation of WP:INVOLVED.  // Timothy :: talk  04:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think this is talking about discussions like Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closure_review_request_for_the_RfC_on_the_"Airlines_and_destinations"_tables_in_airport_articles, where you have people !voting in regards to overturning/endorsing a close. Galobtter (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yep; how you determine whether those people are involved. I think it's best to consider them on the same grounds as we would the closer, but I want to see what the broader community thinks. BilledMammal (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  I presume the these involved/uninvolved sections have come about as the result of a discussion. If so, could someone link to that discussion? If they mean something different from what is described at WP:INVOLVED then they should be called something different to avoid confusion. Anyway, the definition should be made clear so that everyone follows the same one. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: I think they might have come around after a comment by you? I'm not certain, though. BilledMammal (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

  People have included them in RfC reviews at various times. The current trend of doing it seems to start with me, yeah. It's analogous to AE appeals, which also can happen at AN, and where "uninvolved" is conventionally read as meaning "have not played a role in the dispute or the enforcement process", which isn't quite the same as WP:INVOLVED. I don't think ArbCom's ever explicitly said that, but I think if I were to !vote against overturning a TBAN I issued, I'd get in trouble for that, even though I wouldn't be WP:INVOLVED. There's lots of usages of "involved" that don't mean the same as WP:INVOLVED, such as... the way the word is used in WP:INVOLVED! Two of the exceptions to WP:INVOLVED are still described as the admin being little-i "involved".

  Anyways, if there's a need for clarification here, we could start saying something like "Involved in dispute (<name>)" and "Not involved in dispute (<name>)". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I would point to Vanamonde comments here especially "I find the arguments that the closer was capital-I-involved somewhat weak; our obscure guidance pages are not infrequently self-contradictory, and what matters is whether the closer has previously expressed personal views on the substance of the dispute." and "Sometimes the appearance of neutrality is as important as being uninvolved on paper." Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

We tend to apply a very strict interpretation of INVOLVED for closers, especially if it's a contentious topic. IMO we should not be so strict in separating involved from uninvolved comments about the closing statement. It just gets too messy to evaluate every person's history with not just the dispute itself but the page or broad topic area. I'd say someone should be considered involved if they participated at the RfC or if they were involved in discussions which immediately led to the RfC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• I tend to agree. As I understand it, involved / uninvolved labels on comments are strictly a voluntary convenience thing to make it easier for closers to see that context (since it's normal for people who took a particular position on an RFC to take the same position on an RFC over whether to overturn it, even if it's notionally not supposed to be a rehash of the original arguments.) We don't require people who weigh in on a normal RFC to state that they are "involved" in the WP:INVOLVED sense of the term, so to me it doesn't make much sense to require that for weighing in on an appeal - in that context the labels only mean "did they comment on the original RFC or not." Of course, the closer of the appeal must still be uninvolved in the stricter WP:INVOLVED sense of the term. --Aquillion (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
• The recent ARBCOM case on off-wiki canvassing emphasises that editors do form interest groups and coordinate their editing. I'm confident that only the tip of the iceberg was uncovered. What concerns me is how easy it is to subvert the RfC process in this way: editors A and B agree off-wiki that A will !vote in the RfC then B will close it. This doesn't even need to be an explicit agreement but just an implicit understanding. The more lax the rules are for who can close RfCs, the easier this gets and the more often it will happen. Zero^talk 01:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think anybody is talking about relaxing rules for closers. This subject is about commenting on closures. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• This isn't exactly the question, but I'd like to take this opportunity to state how much I like the involved / uninvolved distinction that we've started using for some close reviews here at AN. I'd like to see this become a standard practice. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think the idea works for better organizing discussion, but in order to avoid confusion with WP:INVOLVED it might be better to label them "Participants" and "Non-Participants" or something similar. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you and Levivich; I think "Participants" and "Non-Participants" is a good way to do it. I've WP:BOLDLY updated the current close appeal with that terminology. BilledMammal (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks for flagging this issue. I wasn't sure how to list myself when commenting in the airport destinations RfC. I didn't participate in the RfC but later discussed it with others and had a definite point of view. Was I "involved" or not? In the RfC, no; in the topic, yes. I ended up commenting in the "uninvolved" section but with an upfront disclosure of my involvement in subsequent discussions.

The distinction between RfC participant/non-participant is useful in sizing up the RfC. Who's rehashing their previous views vs. who's offering a newer comment. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

DenSportgladeSkåningen and I can't come to a consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am having a dispute with another editor. How should scores be written? Should the higher score always be written first or if a team loses do you write the losing team's score first. I had this issue earlier today with another editor not its with DenSportgladeSkåningen thank you for your time Mpdaly86900711 (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrators' noticeboard page. This isn't the place to talk about a content dispute. --Onorem (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An Observation About Boomerangs

I normally edit Wikipedia from my desktop computer or my laptop computer. When I view Wikipedia from my phone, I sometimes scan and scroll through WP:ANI, and sometimes I notice that the headings are threads about established editors, and then look at those threads, and sometimes I see that the filing editor has been indefinitely blocked. They threw a boomerang, and the established editor wasn't a kangaroo, and the boomerang came back and hit them. But it is rare to see four such matters at the same time, but it did happen just now. Well, here we are. If you are an established editor, you already know not to throw a boomerang at an invisible kangaroo. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Ironically, this is what makes WP:ANI an anti-vandalism tool unto itself. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. AN/I tends to be Wikipedia's most reliable honey pot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 20:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:AN templates list?

Wasn't there at some point a section somewhere on the WP:AN and WP:AN/I pages that contained a small list (or a link to a list) of the relevant templates commonly used on the page -- things like hatting, collapses, discussion closures, etc.? If not, and I'm just imagining this, is there any reason why we shouldn't make one for utility's sake? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry @Swatjester: that you haven't had a response in almost two months. I did a survey of the templates currently in use on the WP:AN page, which follows:

• In header material before "open tasks"
  • transclusion User:MiszaBot/config
  • {{short description}}
  • {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
  • transclusion User:Cluebot III/ArchiveThis
• in the "open tasks" section
  • {{Centralized discussion}}
  • {{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
  • {{Clear}}
  • {{Admin tasks}}
• in the "pages recently put under extended protection" section
  • {{collapse top}}
  • transclusion User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report
  • {{collapse bottom}}
• in ensuing discussion sections
  • {{tq}} ~ talk quote inline
  • {{u}} ~ user link
  • {{outdent}}
  • {{atop}} ~ archive top
  • {{abot}} ~ archive bottom
  • {{ping}}
  • {{diff}}
  • {{re}} ~ reply
  • {{replyto}}
  • {{reply}}
  • {{Userlinks}}
  • {{pb}} ~ paragraph break

I think you might be referring to preferred templates for use during discussions, which would be like the tq, u, atop, abot, diff, re, pb templates.

Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I took a look at WP:ANI and was able to review about half of the content before I encountered a problem. Following are additional body-related templates NOT found in WP:AN:

• {{stack begin}} & {{stack end}} in the page header
• transclusion User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil
• {{underline}}
• {{od}} ~ outdent
• {{RSP entry}} ~ Reliable Perennial Sources-related
• {{comment}}
• {{self-trout}} ~ emoji LOL
• {{strikethrough}}
• {{strike}} ~ strikethrough
• {{ill}} ~ Interlanguage link
• {{heart}} ~ Hearts, emoji
• {{highlight}}
• {{smiley}} ~ emoji
• {{mbox}} ~ Multi-namespace messagebox
• {{talkquote}}
• {{redacted}}
• {{redact}} ~ redacted
• {{xt}} ~ example text
• {{mdash}} ~ single character
• {{tq2}} ~ talk quote block
• {{Hat}} ~ Hidden archive top
• {{Hab}} ~ hidden archive bottom
• {{noping}} ~ links to a user page without triggering notifications
• {{diff2}}
• {{brown}}
• {{green}}
• {{cn}} ~ citation needed
• {{Connected contributor}}
• {{tpq}} ~ talk quote inline
• {{tqq}} ~ talk quote inline
• {{Personal attack removed}}
• {{slink}} ~ section link
• {{+1}}
• {{spa}} ~ Single-purpose account
• {{cn}} ~ citation needed
• {{clarify}}
• {{od}} ~ outdent
• {{npov}} ~ POV
• {{Talk quote block}}
• {{fake heading}}
• {{br}} ~ Break
• {{Dummy reference}}
• {{tqb}} ~ Talk quote block

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you might be referring to preferred templates for use during discussions, which would be like the tq, u, atop, abot, diff, re, pb templates. -- Correct, the most useful and commonly used ones. Thanks for pulling these together @Ceyockey: -- if I get some spare time I'm going to organize them by type (e.g. tags, collapses, closure templates, etc.) unless someone gets to it first. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

There is some advantage of standardizing on, for instance, one of the reply templates ... they all redirect to {{Reply to}}. Thanks for pulling together a list for editor reference. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Duplicated sections in AN archives

I don't know what's exactly happened, but the Administrators' Noticeboard archives (not AN/I) contain a whoooooole bunch of duplicated sections, such as:

• "Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Crash48" on Archive 359 (three times)
• "Promotional account" on Archive 359 (two times)
• "Can an uninvolved admin please step in over toxicity and BATTLEGROUND at darts-related pages?" on Archive 358 (two times)
• "Closure review for RFC at Talk:Lucy Letby" on Archive 358 (two times)

Please look into this. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

A. B. reverted the entire archive made by the bot, so when it came back around it duplicated all of the sections. The latest archive version is really the only one we need to keep. Primefac (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Asking whether someone will take the fore to do the useful cleaning. Any takers? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Go for it. Primefac (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Autonotification?

Isn't it high time we figured out a bot to notify parties about AN threads? Every third thread has at least a reminder (if not many reminders and a back-and-forth) about notifications. Wouldn't it be nice if that went away? How to do it? Maybe prepopulate new sections to have a template that a bot pays attention to? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. Often a new editor who is unfamiliar with such things wants a bit of help from admins and, instead if supplying the help, people say that the editor hasn't done things properly. Very bitey. At the very least people who know all of the ins and outs of policy should simply notify the target themselves rather than berate the OP for not knowing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

While this is a good idea, I kind of wonder how a bot could tell who a particular AN(I) thread is about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

A valid point; not everyone puts a {{userlinks}} template at the top of their complaint. I think the most useful thing to do would be to get the bitey people to be less bitey. Primefac (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

There are several possible technical interventions. We can prepopulate new sections to have a template that a bot pays attention to, we can make that template easy for anyone to add after the fact in case someone just clicks "edit" at the top instead of a button that preloads sections, we can use the same filtering we use when someone adds a blacklisted source to pop-up a reminder if someone tries to save without using that template, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Submission not responded to

My post here [5] has not been responded to. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason this is being ignored? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It is less a matter of ignoring as it is a person stepping forward to engage ... very different things. I've not read through the content of your post ... but ... could you summarize what you are seeking in terms of a response? That might be helpful to potentially interested parties. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me for not answering this sooner. The details are a bit compicated but in short I'm concerned with a user's editing/conduct in the Israel/Palestine topic area. Specifically, I'm concerned about their competence and temperament (WP:ICANTHEARYOU, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #4 and #5). I don't want to formally accuse them at AE but just want an administrator to review my concerns / our dispute. It shouldn't be this difficult to recieve administrative oversight in this contentious topic area. Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

From experience, AE is usually the best place to get this sort of thing addressed and I would note that in recent times, admins do seem to be keeping a closer eye on AI/IP. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, what I don't like about AE is the strict formatting requirements and that one has to formally accuse another editor of misconduct. I'd rather just present a neutrally phrased request for review as I did at this noticeboard. Do you think I should proceed to AE with this issue @Selfstudier? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I get that and it Can be a pain but the rules keep it short, sweet and on track and you are more or less accusing another editor of something, so if that something is continuing after a discussion, then why not raise it? Else, see if things improve, you can always do it later. Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. It should be easier rather than harder to recieve administrative oversight in this topic area compared to others and it's unfortunate that it is so difficult to get. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Users for deletion" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Users for deletion has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § Wikipedia:Users for deletion until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Wretched hive of scum and villainy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Wretched hive of scum and villainy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § Wikipedia:Wretched hive of scum and villainy until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)