Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.40.202.18 (talk) at 10:01, 8 December 2020 (→‎{{ping|tegel}} globally block me! ~~~~: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Admin on mission...
Unofficial anagram of ANI

User: Solavirum

It's been a week (04.10.2020-11.10.2020) that the user Solavirum has been demonstrating acts of misconduct and disintegrity. Acts such as, but not limited to: reference misuse and misquote, repetition, coming to own conclusions and using them in main article with no apparent proof, not checking the content of reference articles and relying on their titles only, advising other editors and behaving the opposite after modifying (even removing) their edits, disrespectful attitude towards fellow editors such as in the revision description here ("what the hell are you talking about"), and more. Those points are a clear violation of Wikipedia's code of conduct and guidelines.
It is worth noting that in the past other editors have tried to pay user Solavirum's attention to Wikipedia's guidelines. Claiming "victory" in an ongoing war where the word itself is not explicitly mentioned in the reference is a personal conclusion. Perhaps because, as the user expressed himself/herself "I didn't want to paraphrase it, because as a user from a combatant country, I might be slightly biased at least." as shown here.
Based on all the above and the detailed points, I ask the admins Ymblanter Johncdraper Rosguill Dvtch to review this case and ban the aforementioned user from editing this article. Sincerely, --Alex662607004 (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is not the page where you appeal, but anyways. Most of the statements here are of no value to their selves. WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH first. Also, you always have the opportunity to WP:BOLD stuff you think that are wrong. And about the disrespectful stuff, I've received much worse statements towards me, so no big deal actually. As for the victory thing, it can be discussed, as the reference stated that the operation was a 'success', which means victory in most cases, in any case, check WP:NOTPERFECT. And for the last statement, of course I can't claim being fully unbiased, I'm from Azerbaijan editing an article about Azerbaijan. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. All Azerbaijani's are unbiased when editing about Azerbaijan. Everyone knows that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page size

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is far too large. How can we go about splitting it? Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can archive anything that is finalized, but you really can't just split it. It gets way large sometimes, and splitting it has been discussed before, but there isn't a way to logically split it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • TBH, it's already split into WP:AIV, WP:RfPP, WP:UAA, etc. This is the board for everything else. Individualizing threads, as is done at WP:AfD has been discussed and rejected. At least this way, there is a centralized venue where we can find that which interests us. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this context it should be mentioned that a discussion below contains the suggestion to increase the archive period, which would further increase the page size. ◅ Sebastian 18:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC) (Ping: Onetwothreeip, Dennis Brown, Deepfriedokra) [reply]
  • Actually, this was implemented, not just discussed. ◅ Sebastian 18:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A {{section sizes}} template was added to the page header during this discussion; it was producing an error message. I fixed it by adding the page name: {{section sizes|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}}. If instead it was meant to calculate the section sizes for this talk page, simply change it to {{section sizes|Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard}}. How has it taken this long for me to notice that AN and AN/I share a talk page? All the discussion in one place instead of two or more? That's almost unWikipedian. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ECP and ARBPIA

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions explicitly forbids IPs and non-ECP editors from participating in "internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." Maybe this needs to be mentioned at the top of the page? Doug Weller talk 08:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Is it April 1 or are you hacked? You can't seriously ECP-protect every noticeboard under Israel-Palestine discretionary sanctions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 08:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this is definitely not a conventional interpretation.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and I was an idiot. But we need to add this to the headers. Doug Weller talk 08:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...for the area of conflict is the salient part of the sanction itself. If an AFD, WikiProject, RFC, etc isn't in that area, then ARBPIA is completely irrelevant. Concur with Ymblanter that this is a rather extreme interpretation of that ruling. Primefac (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a horrid over extension. Net calamity. Hope it's reversed soon. Wondered what was los. Terrible! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gah. Totally serious not being mean. Someone needs to be COVID-19 screened soon. It does not just affect the lungs. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • So... I guess no one can read today? :-p Primefac (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was wondering why a million noticeboards were ECP'd for arbitration enforcement. Really don't think they should be. I think a notice should be fine. InvalidOStalk 14:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only 2. What we need is a version of {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement|relatedcontent=yes}} which of course would include an explanation. We could add that to the major noticeboards. @Ymblanter and Primefac: I have never suggested that an AfD, WikiProject, RfC isn't in the area should have ECP. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I must have misinterpreted your statement with the quote you provided, then. Apologies. Primefac (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am coming back from four hours teaching, and there are too many negations above for me, but what I think is that if there is a discussion on a general noticeboard or at AfC or wherever and new users are disrupting it they should be prevented from further participations, for example by blocks and protections. Concerning the motice at this talk page, I am not so sure. There are definitely many types of disruptive behavior which is discouraged or even explicitly prohibited by policies / ArbCom / community. I am not sure we need to list all of it on the general purpose talk pages, otherwise they would soon have kilometers of notices on the top. I will gladly listen to the opposing arguments though.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally confused, why was AN/ANI/BLPN protected as arbitration enforcement, and why would they have {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement|relatedcontent=yes}}? If there's a PIA discussion happening, admins can just remove non-ECP messages if they really want, but the question is really is such content disruptive, or is the enforcement more disruptive? I would assume the latter... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again the protection was due to a brain fart on my part and I undid it shortly there after. @ProcrastinatingReader: are you suggesting ignoring the Arbitration decision? Because it's pretty explicit. For instance, why should editors who can't edit articles be able to !vote to delete them? There was a clarification case on this and I don't think we can toss it out on this talk page.Doug Weller talk 19:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      They shouldn't, so I'm not questioning your protection of the AfD. I'm questioning tagging major noticeboards (which you said after unprotection) with that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to be clear why I think that's a bad idea, refer to WP:ARBPIA4 for the restrictions in "related content" areas, and the requirements to do so. First, per #ARBPIA_General_Sanctions: discretionary sanctions and 1RR would be enacted on major noticeboards. Then refer to #General_sanctions_upon_related_content. {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} would have to be placed at the top, and {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} would have to be added to the editnotice. It does not make sense to add that giant scary notice to these very high visibility noticeboards that deal with disparate issues of which PIA content is a tiny fraction. Every notice someone adds, the less chance anyone will read any of them. Luckily, ArbCom gives an out: Editors should apply the ARBPIA General Sanctions templates to related content only when disruption creates a need for additional administrative tools.
      Also per this I think this is a very poor idea for BLPN: non-ECP editors have valid concerns of BLP violations on articles in the scope of PIA4 should be free to raise their concerns at BLPN. Even if these BLPN discussions are technical violations of PIA4, or rare, it's a clear net negative to prohibit them from happening. Every other ARCA I've filed people like Newyorkbrad have stated sanctions should be enforced with common sense; I cannot imagine arbs pictured main noticeboards splattered with notices and arbitration enforcement when they drafted PIA4. All this seems like a solution looking for a problem. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree, we have enough difficulty convincing people to not report WP:OUTING here, and to notify reported users. Are we really going to also say "and also make sure your edit doesn't concern Palestine-Israel" also? Because, hypothetically, that might be what they are doing? Banner blindness is enough of a problem already. We should stick to the important stuff. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I never even considered 1RR, that's ridiculous and not allowed. And not appropriate to ARBPIA articles normally, ECP is enough. Just as 1RR isn't standard for AP, etc. And since the amendment specifically mentions noticeboards, I presume they meant it for noticeboards. Doug Weller talk 06:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm surprised you are not aware that PIA is not AP2, and has topic-wide restrictions. Also that you only picked out 3 letters of my 2 paragraph response. In any case, ARBPIA4 was passed one year ago. I imagine since then all 15 arbs have visited AN/ANI/BLPN at least once. Do you not think they might've said "oh, there's no arbitration enforcement plastered on this noticeboard, our decision isn't being followed! let's bring this up" if your interpretation is actually what they meant? I encourage you to test your theory out at ARCA, but in the meantime, since there is unanimous consensus on multiple noticeboards against what you are trying to do, I presume you will not do anything. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving only closed threads on ANI

Newimpartial rescued some open threads from Lowercase sigmabot III, which raises the question: Why don't we set up archiving such that only closed threads are archived? Not sure if Lowercase sigmabot III can do that, but there's gotta be some bot up to the task. ◅ Sebastian 16:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Most threads aren't formally closed; the bot (correctly) archives threads where there have been no recent updates. If the bot is archiving threads too quickly, the answer is to increase the archive period; insisting that all threads be closed would be purest bureaucracy-for-bureaucracy's sake as well as an open invitation to edit-wars and bad feeling. ‑ Iridescent 16:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who talks about all of Wikipedia? This discussion is about this one particular page, which already works differently from the rest of Wikipedia in many ways. It's clear that your thermostat solution doesn't work: The bot is working too quickly in the case above, but at the same time too slowly per #Page size above. Yes, many threads aren't formally closed; but we can change that. It's easy. ◅ Sebastian 17:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be exact, I only meant ANI. I'm adjusting the headline accordingly. At this time, I have no opinion on doing the same for other AN pages. ◅ Sebastian 18:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We've previously discussed having the bots react to e.g. {{resolved}}. Several editors preferred to have the discussion available on the main page for a few days and then have it archived; the problem is that the bots more or less immediately react rather than react in few days. As for having the bot react only to closed threads, that would require increasing the archive time significantly as I am fairly certain the bots do not work like that today (which means you would need to ask the operators to modify their bots). I agree with Iridescent that the system works reasonably well as it is that we shouldn't bother the bot ops, but if you are interested in doing that regardless, I'm sure you can find the relevant user talk pages. --Izno (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the background information, Izno. It sounds like you know what you're talking about when you say there are no bots that work today, so I can save myself the trouble of a wild goose chase. And if I'm, as it seems now, the only one in favor of that solution then it's certainly not worth bothering any bot operator to modify their bot. One question: You mention previous discussion/s – would you have a link or anything that makes it easier to find that or them, such as approximate date or some rare words one can search the archive for? ◅ Sebastian 11:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no. I have some vague inkling it may have been on this page or WT:ANI, so check the archives here. --Izno (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found one topic from 2007: Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 5#ANI is a high traffic noticeboard. Is that the one you remember? Some people saw some problems, but they all were overcome with good ideas, and eventually there was unanimous support of the suggestion. The reason why it didn't get implemented seems to be that people were not happy with the bot whose operator volunteered to implement the change. Also, that bot operator stopped contributing in the years since. Still, this seems overall encouraging. ◅ Sebastian 17:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A bot that only archives resolved threads at a certain noticeboard seems technically doable. Seems like a good idea, too. If needed we could create a special {ANI-resolved} template for the purpose. Now that I think about it, it strikes me as kind of surprising that we have bots that archive based on last time stamp but not based on the thread being closed. The former seems a lot more difficult to code than the latter. It's also possible for us to do tea house-style "your thread has been archived" notifications, if we wanted to do that. Lev¡vich 18:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support. Two more thoughts in the same direction:
  1. The way it currently is implemented is counterproductive: When we add an “Archive ...” template to a thread, it prolongs the time it will take till it actually gets archived.
  2. Even without the previous point, it is already a contradiction (or a hack) to assign archiving to a bot which is clueless about the “Archive ...” template.
◅ Sebastian 18:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re #1: yup. Because closing them just delays archiving with no benefit, I think it's better to archive short/straightforward threads that are concluded without closing them first.
For this reason, I disagree with the "rescuing" of these two threads, and with the extension of the autoarchiving from 3 days to 4 (neither are a big deal, but while we're on the subject...). The two threads that were rescued [1] are pretty good examples of why I think autoarchiving unclosed threads, while manually closing and archiving threads that need to be closed, is a good system.
In the first thread, which was an interpersonal dispute between two editors, neither the filer nor the reported user edited since the thread had been filed. It's not "urgent" or "chronic" if neither of them care about it; giving them three days to engage, and then moving the thread to the archives, was the best thing to do. "Forget it ever happened," as it were. Instead, it was unarchived, and then what happened: one admin commented on it, and then a second admin closed it with a comment; in 24hrs it'll be sent back to the archives. The filer and reported editor still haven't edited. That totally was not worth the time of two admins to read and comment on, and it's questionable whether their comments will ever be read by the two editors involved. Should have left it in the archives.
The second thread that was archived received no further comments; I closed it with a summary that didn't really need to be written; and now it's back in the archives. Again, it's more edits and more editor time than was necessary.
I think we should close threads when a closing statement is useful; archive threads that are concluded or dead after 24hrs regardless of whether they have {{atop}} or not; and focus our energies much more on triaging incoming threads and trying to make it so disputes are resolved more quickly, and editors feel like their requests for help are being answered.
In my view, "archiving too soon" is not a problem; "not resolved and archived soon enough" is the problem. Lev¡vich 20:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tegel: globally block me! 92.40.202.18 (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tegel: globally block me! 92.40.202.18 (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=993015356"