If an ANI discussion has not been closed (being pedantic for technical purposes) but has been archived by a bot, then continuing the discussion in the archive will do no good. If there is a good reason to continue the discussion, it should be un-archived: cut it from the archive and paste into a new section. Be sure to include a new statement and signature so that the bot doesn't turn around and re-archive it. Primefac (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary to notify users for TPA removal requests?[edit]
What I've said in the title.
It precisely says, "When starting a discussion about a user, you must notify ...", and I don't see a TPA removal request as an actual discussion, rather, just a simple task to be answered yes or no by an admin.
I am quite not sure what the point of doing it is, as the blocked user is blocked from editing AN/I and so won't be able to jump in and respond anyway.
If you are discussing the potential removal of TPA for a blocked user, it is a discussion and therefore they must be notified. Must means must; if someone's name is showing up at AN or ANI, they should be notified. Just because they cannot respond here does not mean they cannot respond at all. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Useful protip that should be mentioned somewhere[edit]
While searching through the archives of this talk page, I discovered, by accident, that AN and AN/I archives actually have automatically created talk pages on them (example), and those talk pages contain a table with an index of all the discussions on the archive page, with indicators of length (bytes) for each section (including sub-sections). From a glance you can see how long or short a thread is, as well as if there are additional sub-topics within it, and you can read all the thread names much more quickly and easily than through the table of contents on the archive page.
This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest.
If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you.
I think it would be more accurate to reword it:
This noticeboard is for general administrative issues – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administration interest.
If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you.
Every noticeboard deals with administration in some way. AN does wind up serving as a "catch all" noticeboard sometimes, but that's not really the intention. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg14:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current message (and title) fits my understanding of this page better: it's a noticeboard for administrators. If it wasn't, we'd need one, because admins do a lot of work that are not relevant or interesting to other editors (though of course they are always welcome to follow and participate in discussions). – Joe (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is fully protected, go work out your content problems with other editors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tupac Page can now be edited by everyone; it wasn't like that before. Previously, only administrators and users with permission could edit it (like me). This rule needs to be reinstated, or it will be edited every day Pier1999 (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was also vandalized by a guy who keeps editing without consent. An administrator told him to stop editing, but he continues. You can go to the talk page to understand everything. I will tag you there. Pier1999 (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have already clarified everything with the administrator. The page was non-editable for a few days, and he told me to follow the rules. Everything is fine, but then this guy returned to the page and edited everything again without any reason. Pier1999 (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The administrator told both me and the other guy who can edit the page that if he returned to start an edit war, we should turn to you. Pier1999 (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He told HumansRightsIsCool to refer to this section of Wikipedia if he returned to edit again. I am writing to this section because the situation has become unbearable. This user continues to edit without consent even, also even after the administrator told him not to do it. I can't tag the other user, but he and I, after advice from the admin, are following the rules. Instead, that user is back to vandalizing. Pier1999 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swatjester explained a lot more than that to you. I don't have time to take action on this, but there are significant editor conduct problems, that do not involve vandalism, and you're part of that problem. Acroterion(talk)14:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not usually no, and in any case you should not expect an administrator to 'pick a side' by protecting the version you prefer. This is a content dispute, not a case of vandalism. MrOllie (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the version I prefer, the administrator has already written that the sources used on the page are fine and he wrote to the other user not to edit those parts of the page anymore because if not he might be blocked from editing. That's not the part I prefer, everyone on the page agreed that the sources are fine, including the administrator. Pier1999 (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ActionHeroesAreReal: -- do not continue to vandalize the article by making undiscussed removals of sourced content without consensus. Your claims of "original research" are inappropriate given the reliable sourcing of the content you're removing. Do not edit war further on this article.
@Pier1999: --your academic credentials are irrelevant here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and they need no titles, qualifications, or expertise to do so. Your behavior above is a gross display of ownership over an article -- you do not have any authority to tell someone that they may not edit a page without your consent, nor are you entitled to use your personal credentials as a bludgeon in an argument. Additionally, your spamming of several comments in a row is aggressive and unhelpful. Knock it off Pier1999 (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And he wrote to both of them to follow the rules when the page would be editable again. In fact, I am no longer holding that behavior, while the user continues to edit those parts of the page without meaning to. Pier1999 (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The administrator and all the editors of the page have already made it clear that the page is fine, there is no longer a dispute, it is vandalism. I, following the administrator's suggestions, have finished acting that way. While the user continues to edit that part that the administrator said not to edit. This is the fact, the administrator told us that if this happened, we should address this section of Wikipedia Pier1999 (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators acting as administrators do not get to decide questions of content. Administrators are also editors, and so can edit articles and take positions on the content of articles, but cannot use their admin tools to control content. Administrators can, however, take action to deal with problem behavior, such as vandalism, edit-warring, etc (but note that problem behaviours are described in various policies and guidelines, and may not be what you think they are). You need to work out differences about content with other editors. preferably on the article talk page. Do not expect admins to help you prevail in a content dispute. Donald Albury16:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Swatjester wrote:"do not continue to vandalize the article by making undiscussed removals of sourced content without consensus. Your claims of "original research" are inappropriate given the reliable sourcing of the content you're removing. Do not edit war further on this article." He wrote this to that guy who always edits the page. Pier1999 (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
