Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrators' noticeboard page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Section sizes in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Section size for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (44 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	988	988
Open tasks	222	222
Unban request for Wikiuser1314	12,057	12,057
Closure request for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN appeal	12,953	12,953
Seeking opinions: protection of the help desk and teahouse	16,624	20,628
Proposal: Ask the WMF to evaluate legal remedies	4,004	4,004
Need an RFC closed	1,439	1,439
Unban/unblock request for Albertpda	11,998	11,998
Deacon of Pndapetzim	35,810	35,810
Appeal for Lifting Topic Ban	11,582	11,582
Most active administrators	14,103	14,103
Request to Review and Remove "Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS"	2,582	2,582
Thanks!	1,418	1,418
User:AnubisIbizu requesting an unblock	4,084	4,084
WickedFanAccount "outing" and digging through my social media	10,614	10,614
Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: Enable the mergehistory permission for importers	773	773
Cut-and-paste move and draftification; unclear how to proceed	1,587	1,587
Is WP:RECALL a policy?	34,796	34,796
Notification of a request for transwiki importer rights	380	380
User:ReflexSpray violating General sanctions	1,462	1,462
Wikizilla	7,299	7,299
MissionWar123	1,166	1,166
History merge	878	878
Edit request for protected page	155	155
See also	97	97
See also	838	838
Self-reporting rollback	641	641
Block/unblock review scifaxEditor	7,351	7,351
Disclaimer	4,941	4,941
Block request	887	887
Unnamed anon Topic Ban appeal	4,053	22,178
Comments by uninvolved editors	2,551	2,551
Comments by involved editors	15,574	15,574
New seemingly-related group of good-faith but deleterious West African copyeditors	20,080	26,076
Mainspace block for Nnamdi Kinghenry	5,996	5,996
PIA shizzle	1,247	1,247
Moderator Tools newsletter - Issue #2	322	5,083
Automoderator	1,670	1,670
Nuke extension ('Mass delete')	1,142	1,142
Recent Changes	610	610
Task prioritization	1,339	1,339
Unban appeal of User:Baqiyah	4,287	4,287
Issue with reverting major vandalism	3,263	3,263
Determining consensus	852	852
Total	266,715	266,715

Section sizes in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Section size for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (35 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	740	740
Repeated WP:PA Violations by IP 47.69.66.57 (and prior IP addresses)	7,633	7,633
SheriffIsInTown POV pushing editing pattern	65,376	71,150
Sanctions	5,071	5,071
Multiple individuals involved in dispute blocked for sockpuppetry/private evidence	703	703
Nigerian name project	10,660	10,660
Ram112313 promoting Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha	7,821	7,821
Violating the five pillars of Wikipedia	11,528	17,062
Propose one-way Interaction Ban between זור987 and Dorian Gray Wild	5,534	5,534
Creation of (apparent) hoaxes about Indian politics	6,405	6,405
Ethiopian Epic Refusal to Discuss Edits	11,376	16,048
Tinynanorobots hostile behavior and problems	4,672	4,672
Category:Requests for unblock under sustained attack by MidAtlanticBaby	23,388	23,388
User:Fakolyabuoz's persistent unreferenced edits	2,300	2,300
Disruptive editing by GyoergyGajdos on Feynman sprinkler	7,309	7,309
User:Insomniac187	2,026	2,026
MPN 1994 disruptive behaviour (2)	2,505	2,505
Request TBAN for CIR editor	20,502	20,502
User: Bomber1234, repeatedly vandalizing pages.	1,624	1,624
Disruptive editing and attacks by IP 2.98.156.135	1,488	1,488
User:Whatif222 unblock	4,355	4,355
ShawarmaFan07 - Repeated disruptive edits	2,754	2,754
Tres Cañon	1,115	1,115
Iphone5Sgold	1,940	1,940
Legal threat	1,259	1,259
Odd situation	4,104	4,104
Complaint Against User:L5boat for Misrepresenting Historical Facts on the Kannappa	35,431	35,431
Uncivil behaviour by DarthRad	5,213	5,213
User:Zhenghecaris	4,116	4,116
Brusquedandelion's disruptive behaviour at the recent Talk:Australia RfC	20,434	20,434
"This project page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page where the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion or blanked the page in good faith. The following explanation was offered: Accidentally created a duplicate AfD.. See CSD G7." over at Wikipedia:XfD today and other pages	1,484	1,484
User:Dantai Amakiir using personal attacks to restart contentious arguments	4,130	4,130
WP:FORUM and WP:NPA actions by IP	1,442	1,442
Request for Review of Bias, Page Vandalism and Edit-Warring on the Hamis Kiggundu Page	6,876	6,876
United States Man's WP:BOLD edits and redirects	8,681	8,681
Total	301,995	301,995

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, several subpages of Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard redirect here.

This is not the page to report problems to administrators, or discuss administrative issues.

This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard page (and some of its subpages, including /Incidents).

Report incidents such as block evasion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Report violations of the three-revert rule at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
Discuss general issues at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
Report posting of personal information by following instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
Request discussions need to be closed at Wikipedia:Closure requests.

This noticeboard has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Andrew Orlowski (September 25, 2013). "Revolting peasants force Wikipedia to cut'n'paste Visual Editor into the bin". The Register.
Noam Cohen (7 April 2019). "Want to Know How to Build a Better Democracy? Ask Wikipedia". Wired. Retrieved 8 April 2019.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

It would have been preferable for this to be closed rather than archived by a bot. Heartfox (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to un-archive it, but please make sure the archived copy is removed so there are not duplicates. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request an advice

Can I open a case at ANI based on Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Really? regarding reviewers not fulfilling their duties and pretending to be busy? As a result, my nominations were closed due to timeout without any fault of my own. These closed cases have undermined my efforts and hard work. I'm asking here because I'm not sure if my case is eligible for the ANI process. Thanks Hteiktinhein (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. We are all volunteers here, which means that if people are busy, then they're busy. We don't submit timesheets for our work on Wikipedia, and no editor is ever required to make an edit if they don't want to. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So why Dyk is stand for? Hteiktinhein (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are only editing to get recognition at DYK then you are not here to build an encyclopedia. DYK is incidental to our work here: it is not the main point of it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, yes, you could open a thread asking for there to be consequnces for other users not doing what you want them to do, but the most likely result of such a thread would be a WP:BOOMERANG for you, so you probably shouldn't do that. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely not. This is absurd. Wikipedia is a volunteer project. We can stop editors from breaking policies, but we can't actively make any editors actively do any tasks. What would intervention even do? Do you think warnings, blocks or topic bans are going to help increase DYK participation? Sergecross73 msg me 12:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that there appeared to be significant problems with the nomination, which is a BLP. Black Kite (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think generally more difficult cases get passed over, particularly with the reciprocal nature of DYK. People are naturally going to want to approve an easy one. Secretlondon (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are ANI notices necessary when requesting to revoke TPA?

A few times I've come to ANI to request TPA be revoked for blocked users. I have served such users with ANI notices because the instructions say to do so. But I am wondering if that is necessary. First since the user cannot comment at ANI, and second because I only do so in cases of obvious promotion, vandalism, or other bad-faith edits. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This can be useful for talk page watchers (and sometimes if an admin watches the talk page, and the request is reasonable, they can revoke a TPA), but of course the general efficiency is low, as of pretty much everything which happens on Wikipedia. Ymblanter (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy archive AN(I) topics about LTA MAB?

I think we should archive topics discussing the LTA MidAtlanticBaby very early when we are done talking about them. Maybe a 1 day (or 1.5 day) archival time would suit?

At the moment, those threads are nothing but a magnet for that LTA, as it seems the discussions have run their course. Perhaps it would hurt a lot less to archive early than to block off all IP and new editors for literally the entirety of the time that those threads linger on the noticeboards for? — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. WP:RBI. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Assuming he doesn't edit-war to readd them. I wouldn't put it past them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkably consistent ChatGPT report templates

Lately AN/I seems to have been inundated with incident reports that are obviously the products of an LLM. What I find kind of confusing though is the consistency of the report templates combined with their inappropriateness for adjudicating incidents of the type this page is designed to address.

Is there any way we can just have a blanket operating procedure to immediately close any incidents created using these templates? It'd probably save a lot of people a lot of time. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some recent examples? Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the most recent. They keep popping up.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Duh. I was looking at AN. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) It's pretty obvious which reports they are, but I won't go into details because people will just tell their favourite LLM to format things differently and they will be harder to spot. WP:BEANS may be relevant. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGPT sure has a strange idea of what an effective ANI request looks like. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, right? It's like the bot produces something remarkably formal, rigid and entirely lacking relevant information. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like we may as well just close any of these immediately as they arise. -- asilvering (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

n.b. I ended up blocking the filing editor for sockpuppetry as this was a clear behavioral match to the sockfarm that has been plaguing Hamis Kiggundu _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "entirely lacking relevant information", good description. It also describes unblock requests generated by ChatGPT and the like, of which we get a lot. Note there are the templates, Template:uw-ai1 through Template:uw-ai4, which may be helpful. I endorse just closing any such report, as per asilvering. --Yamla (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I decided to have a LLM chatbot summarize this conversation and propose solutions:

Artificially intelligent analysis — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The conversation highlights an issue with incident reports on the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents (AN/I) that are suspected to be generated by ChatGPT or similar large language models (LLMs). These reports follow a rigid, formal template but often lack the contextual or specific information necessary for effective adjudication.

Key Points Raised:

Template Consistency:
The reports are strikingly similar in structure, making them easy to identify as potentially LLM-generated.
Lack of Relevance:
Despite their formal appearance, these reports fail to include critical details relevant to the incidents, making them unhelpful.
Proposed Action:
Several editors, including Simonm223, suggest a blanket policy to close such reports immediately upon identification, as handling them wastes time and resources.
Sockpuppetry Connection:
In at least one instance, the editor filing a report was found to be a sockpuppet, raising concerns about misuse of LLMs for evading scrutiny or advancing disruptive agendas.
Existing Tools:
The mention of templates (e.g., Template:uw-ai1 through Template:uw-ai4) suggests resources are already in place to address AI-generated contributions, but the community may need more proactive measures.
Broader Context:
Similar issues arise with unblock requests generated by LLMs, indicating this is not limited to AN/I reports but part of a larger challenge in managing AI-generated content on the platform.

Suggested Solutions

Policy Development: Establish clear guidelines for handling suspected AI-generated content.
Automation: Explore tools or bots to flag and review such contributions before they reach AN/I.
Awareness and Training: Educate editors and administrators on identifying and addressing LLM-generated content effectively.

This issue underscores the need for a balance between leveraging AI's utility and mitigating its misuse in collaborative platforms like Wikipedia.

^[FBDB]

But on a more serious note, yes; I have seen this sort of formatting. It's somewhat obvious, since nobody naturally writes complaints at ANI in the way that ChatGPT does. The problem is that the AI detection algorithms really do get quite a lot of false positives (they misclassify a good number of pieces of text as AI when they aren't); at best, we're left to our hunches. And I really can't block someone on a mere hunch.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No algo needed to observe and identify this kind of thing. Your own eyes and brain work fine. -- asilvering (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]