Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2014[edit]

Please could smeone add this into the "Vandalism by IP" section near the bottom? I obviously noticesd Asgardian with his brusque removal of my edit, but looking at the sum total of his FF entries all he seems to do it remove good work submitteed by other people. He does not contribute, merely destroys. None of his edits that I have seen add value. (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of wasting the administrators' time, how about going back to the relevant Talk page and discussing as was originally requested? I and another editor (actually an admin) have been working on trying to bring these articles up to speed with sources, and so far so good. However, personal attacks (since removed by an admin), blanket reversions with no explanations and using mulitple IP's to evade a block by an admin don't help your cause. Work with us, rather than against, please.Asgardian (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. - Arjayay (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

shut down an/i[edit]

What the fuck is an "incident" anyway? betafive 04:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Your occurrence is an incident slowly unfolding. Chillum 05:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm serious. What purpose does WP:AN/I serve that isn't better addressed by a different noticeboard? betafive 05:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
An incident is just an event or occurrence. We have a lot of them, this is for such incidences that require admin attention. I was just making a joke above as occurrence is a synonym of incident. Chillum 05:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Be that as it may, WP:AN/I appears unhealthily obsessed with porn, cunts and fags at the moment. Maybe it shouldn't be? betafive 05:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
If you have a cure for stupid then I am listening. I don't know how to stop people from acting like fools. Shutting down ANI is not the solution. Chillum 05:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't, but maybe ANI enables them. Is "editors acting foolishly" really an incident? Isn't that better handled at WP:DRR? betafive 05:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to point people in that direction when an incident does not require admin attention. Chillum 18:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't tell if I'm being unclear or if you're being evasive, :-). Excluding incidents better suited for AIV, RFPP, AN3, SPI and DR, what's left for ANI to handle? betafive 23:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's just say that WP:DRR is the most aptly abbreviated project page since WP:FU. They have multiple noticeboards that literally no person has ever used. --erachima talk 23:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to ANI, which literally everyone uses for literally any reason at all. I was thinking about making some pointy redirects to it, but WP:Cunt Police or WP:Trolls Gone Wild would probably earn me a block. betafive 00:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
As one of the more regularly reported people at ANI, I've got a sneaking "like" about scrapping it. It would save me a lot of time. But the reality is that, for all the drama, it does do things that cannot/are not done elsewhere and, for example, I've been hauled before some of the others boards mentioned at WP:DRR only for the complainant to be told to take it to ANI. Some things just can't be easily compartmentalised, for example. I've used it myself recently (rather than been reported to it) and there are genuine reasons for going there. Periodically, people try to blitz the inappropriate reports but they tend to resurface; more frequently, people who file inappropriate reports get told where to go, politely and with a link. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Is there a policy somewhere about what sort of incident is appropriate to bring to ANI? All I can find is a list of things that should be taken elsewhere. betafive 04:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
For example, WP:AN says "If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. [...] Evasion of blocks, abuse of admin tools, or other incidents → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI)." But WP:ANI says disputes go to WP:DR, WP:EVASION says "See also: WP:Sock Puppetry" wherein WP:HSOCK says block evasion should be handled at WP:SPI, and WP:Requests for review of administrative actions is a redirect to WP:AN, not ANI. Meanwhile, WP:Admin abuse suggests WP:DR or WP:RFC/ADMIN, leading me to wonder: is there any type of incident requiring administrative involvement not better handled someplace other than ANI? betafive 04:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The more specific processes are a bunch of ineffective overly-bureaucratic understaffed fiefdoms that have proven themselves perpetually incapable of providing the necessary remedy to most incidents. Which is, of course, for "dad" to promptly yell at the editors to shape up and stop being jackasses.
So, yes: nearly all of them are not "better handled" somewhere other than ANI. --erachima talk 05:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Point taken, let me rephrase: is there any type of incident requiring administrative involvement not more appropriately handled someplace other than ANI? betafive 22:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The question you appear to be fishing for, the one that has the same form but is answerable "No.", would be "Is there any type of incident requiring administrative involvement that someone, somewhere, at some point has not attempted to spin off into its own process?" And that speaks not to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of AN/I but to the irresistible allure of process creep. --erachima talk 23:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Rough estimate: I could legitimately shut down 60-75% of incidents reported to ANI with {{NOTHERE}}. If those other processes should not be used, they should be discontinued. If they should be used, then people bringing such incidents to ANI should be sent to the right place. Process creep reduces the effectiveness of both ANI and the processes that overlap with subsets of ANI's purview. betafive 16:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
If 60%-75% of all incidents reported to ANI should be closed, then that implies that 25%-40% of all incidents reported there should be reported there. Without discussing the estimated percent metrics, that appears to establish that WP:ANI serves a purpose. It is abused as often as it is used, but I don't see an obvious alternative. If you want to propose an alternative, then I suggest an RFC at Village Pump, rather than a discussion here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a quick way to make ANI disappear. Remove it from one's watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't work; any conflict that goes on long enough inevitably ends up on ANI, often multiple times. betafive 20:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Request Closure[edit]

I suggest that this thread be closed. I would close it, but I am involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not leave it open? Others might have something to add, or it might just run dry on its own. Either way, I see no harm in leaving it alone. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What happened?[edit]

How did almost 19 hours of discussion history end up suppressed from WP:ANI? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Same reason it always happens, I imagine: something happened in one of those edits that wasn't removed until many edits later, and to suppress the operative edit, the rest had to be suppressed too. I haven't looked at this particular case, but usually when this happens, the intervening content hasn't been removed from the page; you just can't diff it (because if you could, you'd be able to see what content had been suppressed based on what wasn't in the newer edit). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
See User talk:DoRD#AN/I moluɐɯ 13:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The only reason I can think of for redacting that much would be if someone's identity or safety was in danger. Chillum 18:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Such are most examples of legitimate use of oversight or suppression. And some uses of revdel are only acceptable if the material in question would fit the same criteria. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It didn't. The wiki interface for suppression is really bad. A very small amount of content was removed. If editors could diff any of the intervening edits, then they could see what was removed. For example, Floquenbeam's comment at xx:34 on August 11 can been seen at the bottom of the page after suppression [1], and iin one of the striked out entries in the history [2]. (Hour displayed depends on your time zone and prefs). NE Ent 02:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 August 2014[edit]

{{edit protected}} Hello, I would like to rename "Vivian Beaumont Theater" to "Lincoln Center Theater" and am having trouble doing so. Can you please help? LincolnCenterTheater (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for administrator notices. Please see the help desk and fellow editors would be more than happy to assist you. Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)