Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →‎Re: Colors of Closures: these don't work quite right unless they're on separate lines
Line 111: Line 111:
{{abot}}
{{abot}}
{{abot}}
{{abot}}

== Reporting harassment ==

I will report [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] and [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] for sabotaging my work on [[Lindha Kallerdahl]] and [[Olli Soikkeli]], and for accusing me of close paraphrasing and plagiarism without leaving me any chance to defend myself, and if necessary the opportunity to correct the problem. I will also report [[User:DoRD|DoRD]] for sanctioning me without leaving me a chance to meet the attacks on my work. I appreciate criticism of my work, if I get the chance to meet the criticism. I am afraid there is a huge democratic problem on Wikipedia that ought to be handeled. [[User:Knuand|Knuand]] ([[User talk:Knuand|talk]]) 14:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:59, 28 February 2019


Unofficial anagram of ANI
1st runner-up

ANI Archive with 1,000 or more listed archives

Prediction...

I think that there'll be threads in archive 1000 by the end of 2018... 216.25.187.3 (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the incident board, right? Also, this is not the place to talk about this. SemiHypercube ✎ 13:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While at first it seems like NOTFORUM applies, I think this topic is worth discussing. We should verify that the archive bots, templates, etc are fine with 4-digit archive numbers, seeing as (at least I think) no other page has ever reached that milestone. Further, this page is a fine place to talk about it, seeing as how WT:ANI redirects here. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... A professional software development effort would already have easily-found published results of various edge case tests, and those tests would include pages with large numbers of archives. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We could have a problem when the ANI archive rolls over from 999 to 1000. When I tested, one-click archiver seemed to send threads to 999 despite 1000 existing. I think this tool uses the same logic as the bots do. The bot template allows for a number of leading zeroes, so I suppose we could move the pages:

  • 1–9 to 00001–00009
  • 10–99 to 00010–00099
  • 100–999 to 00100–00999
  • 1000 etc. to 01000 etc.

Then set the template to expect 2 leading zeroes while we're on 999, knocking it down to 1 when we move onto archive 1000. AGK ■ 13:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one thought Wikipedia would last this long? EEng 23:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Err, or we could actually get the bugs fixed... TheDragonFire (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We've rolled over to 1,000 archives, and everything seems fine. I should have renamed this section Y2KA1K… AGK ■ 13:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI archive will past 1000

I think ANI archive has 999 archives and it's soon get 1000. Do you think we should do? 14.232.160.139 (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does something need to be done? 331dot (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only effect will be that the index box will show fewer archives, eventually falling to 16 from the current 20—an extremely minor problem. Or, it will continue to show 20 and become one line longer, another extremely minor problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's at 1002 now. But are we prepared for the day when it exceeds 4,294,967,296? Better get moving on that one, eh? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User: Tornado chaser

This user has removed multiple times my very basic factual and evidence-based decent edits on Global Compact for Migration based on his post-modern globalist liberal-leftist bias and has baselessly and misleadingly reported me on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page. I tried to reason and have discussion with Tornado chaser but, he continues to refuse that he has such bias. It is obvious that this user is incapable of recognizing his biases and should not be editing political articles. Pooyatavakkoli (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Natureium (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lol.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  02:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tornado chaser: Don't ya like "basic factual and evidence-based decent edits"?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mass revision history deletion.

If we told anyone who asked why something was revision deleted or suppressed it would would defeat the purpose of having done so. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for my information, what was the reason behind the massive revdel edits over at WP:ANI? Here is a link to its history page, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&offset=&limit=500&action=history . I have no problem of the massive revdel happening if it was a case of vandalism. But it can leavw an impact on the users that were not involved at all with any vandalism or anything that was the reason for the massive revdel. Take my contribution page for example (as of currently when I have posted this new section), just look at the way the revdel edits show. There should be someway to do such massive revdel to not affect uninvolved users. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold - All that can be said about it is that edit(s) were made to the page containing content that required redaction and suppression under the Oversight policy. Since the content that required suppression was added more than a week prior and not properly and fully redacted and removed until just earlier today, each revision of the page between the addition and the removal requires suppression from view. I unfortunately cannot go into any further detail, because it would be a violation of the oversight policy, Wikimedia's privacy policy, the access to nonpublic personal data policy, and my formal agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation stating that I would obey and comply with the access to nonpublic personal data policy and not violate it. In order words, I'd be in deep shit. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: You also not allowed to tell me which number in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight#Policy was involved? I don't need to know anything else, all I want is a broad term like "vandalism" or "Request From WP staff" Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is this your business? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It ruined my contrib history. Bad contrib history = less chances of ever becoming admin in the future. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Getting topic banned from ANI would probably be a bigger obstacle. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true at all! Before I became an admin, I primarily patrolled recent changes, reverted disruption, tagged page creation vandalism for deletion, and responded to messages that wound up being redacted all the time. Your contributions are not ruined or destroyed, and the fact that some of them are suppressed is not instantly viewed as a "black mark" on your record and your service to the project - there are much better logs that one could fill up that would. ;-) Redactions and suppressions often have to involve edits and revisions made by other users and for reasons beyond their control; it would be ridiculous if we held that against you in the future... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be an administrator, you will need to make some practical contributions to the project. Here's a good place to start: Special:RandomInCategory/All articles lacking sources. Natureium (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is somewhat the point of suppression. If you have concerns over its use, the Arbitration Committee is responsible for audit of oversighters, but suppression is a tool of first resort per the oversight policy, which means oversighters are encouraged to suppress content first and then seek peer review. It is handled in this way because the material is specifically not supposed to be available for the community or other administrators to review, so basically asking for that here is very unlikely to happen. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold - Unfortunately, I cannot. I'll refer to that list of policies I gave in my first response here - I'd be violating four policies and my legally-binding agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation if I disclosed any details or information. Not only would I completely ruin my 12 years of service to Wikipedia and be stripped completely naked of every single user right that I have, I could be in much more trouble with the foundation. Aside from all that, though... It's just not the right thing to do. I'm sorry that the suppression has left you feeling frustrated, but it does not impact your overall contribution and service to the project and your participation on the noticeboard; they're still on your contribution history and the community still knows that you made them. Redaction and suppression simply makes it so that those revisions can't be viewed individually. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a new reason I hadn't thought of before that would support my perennial proposal to make each new AN/ANI report into a separate subpage, like AFD. Then only the history of that one subpage would need scrubbing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, AWSHC, that affects your contrib history a lot because you post to ANI a lot. That sure is a high ratio of ANI posts to other posts. Might want to scale back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The suppression is appropriate. I know what it’s about. I like the idea of making a subpage for each thread and transcluding them into a single page. This would be much more manageable. Jehochman Talk 00:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There would be thousands of pages and people wouldn't see the changes unless they watch each individual page. I'm not in favor of this idea. Natureium (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ANI and AN would have a page called WP:ANI and WP:AN like now however, the those pages will have links to pages containing the actuall content of the discussions. Next to the page link would state the Username of the editor that made the most recent edit on that page. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then you'd need a bot to perform each transclusion to the "main page" automatically, things might not transclude and caches update right away for urgent matters, users would frequently make mistakes and mess it up, I can think of many reasons why (while this sounds like a silver bullet solution on paper) this would make matters more complicated, not less. And we're talking about resolving one issue, which is the situation where redaction or suppression is needed and visibility changes have to occasionally spill into other contributions. How often does this really happen and at this magnitude? Rarely. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling up redacted diffs

  • Question Sorry for bringing this up, but I am new to the WP:Oversight business. If for any reason, there is a dispute between the edits in that dif, would we be able to ask an Oversight user for help? Or is it a thing we just are not allowed to talk about that diff period. There is nothing in the Meta:Oversight policy that addresses this unlikely scenario, but I suppose it is because it did not account for a situation when an entire week's edits needed to be suppressed on such an active page. Thank you. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 18:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it depends on why you want the removed content from that diff. If I say "User:Example is Jane Doe, and her address is...", there's no reason to give anyone that information after it's been removed. If you're talking about a situation where "I edited in the span of time between when User:Example added redacted content and it was removed, and now I want the contents of that diff", well, your content wouldn't have been likely to been removed, so use the best permalink and just link to the section. If you really need the content of a specific diff that is now unavailable because it took so long that perhaps it got archived (which again, you could just link to the archive) then yes, an OSer should be able to help. Primefac (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Colors of Closures

Also also, if there are overlapping archives, the real issue is either in the participants or the closer, not the template color ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Also, the option already exists but nobody does it 'cause it looks bad (in a vaguely 60s kind of way) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

No apetite to pursue this ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I saw this, and I have to wonder if we should not standardize the colors of closures insides closures. Does this bother ANYONE else besides me? I will drop this discussion forever if no one else thinks that using {{atop}} on top of {{atop}} looks absurdly bad. Thank you all! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 03:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MattLongCT: See also this triple closure --DannyS712 (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DannyS712, oh my gosh that is just so... pls no. That is exactly what I am talking about. We really should not be doing that. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 16:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You think using multiple colors would look better? This is not a childrens' book. Let's just stick with one. Natureium (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reporting harassment

I will report Diannaa and Reaper Eternal for sabotaging my work on Lindha Kallerdahl and Olli Soikkeli, and for accusing me of close paraphrasing and plagiarism without leaving me any chance to defend myself, and if necessary the opportunity to correct the problem. I will also report DoRD for sanctioning me without leaving me a chance to meet the attacks on my work. I appreciate criticism of my work, if I get the chance to meet the criticism. I am afraid there is a huge democratic problem on Wikipedia that ought to be handeled. Knuand (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=885517960"