Section sizes in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard Section size forWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (28 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 949 949 0 0 Open tasks 230 230 1 1 An administrator recall petition has been initiated for UtherSRG 1,654 1,654 98 98 Appeal block 2,410 2,410 100 100 Re-open discussion 892 892 41 41 Temporary checkuser privileges for 2025 Arbitration Committee election scrutineers 970 970 44 44 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people closed 2,611 2,611 38 38 Accidentally moved user talk page to draft space 1,432 1,432 32 32 I ask you to remove my block. Thank you. 587 587 24 24 Arbitration Committee seeking new clerks 2,190 2,190 207 207 Strange long-term pattern at Kosem Sultan 2,334 2,334 374 374 Notice of RfC on aligning community CTOPs with ArbCom CTOPs 571 571 36 36 Statement from SFR on the incident at WCNA 6,618 6,618 1,036 1,036 ECP being applied in mandatory-ECR areas 7,599 7,599 226 226 Please close a bad RM 717 717 31 31 Another bad RM closure request 4,400 4,400 96 96 Mathmensch, move to WP:CBAN 9,137 9,137 83 83 Disruptive RfD listings 3,972 3,972 52 52 Vandalism and gaming from probable sockpuppet 4,050 4,050 61 61 Unblock from filespace 2,593 2,593 242 242 Proposed temporary adminning restriction on UtherSRG 20,376 20,376 470 470 Unfair Range Blocks 3,302 3,302 31 31 Vanished accounts holding user rights as of 25-10-2025 1,207 1,207 13 13 ANI report, going nowhere 825 825 16 16 Appeal block 2,247 2,247 188 188 User Slodkiszczur keeps on vandalizing civic coalition (party) page and removing warnings from his own talk page. 3,990 3,990 61 61 More multiple RMs 2,747 2,747 21 21 Amendments toPalestine-Israel articles 4 2,203 2,203 21 21 Total 92,813 92,813 3,643 3,643

Section sizes in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Section size forWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (61 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 614 614 0 0 Persistent bad faith assumption and personal attacks by User:Aciram 23,874 51,046 134 384 Interaction ban proposal 7,200 27,172 47 250 Discussion 19,972 19,972 203 203 Ban-evading proxy IP causing disruptions across typhoon articles 19,528 59,378 258 817 WT:WEATHER WP:BADRFC? 1,704 1,704 40 40 Blocked for applying Datevar 13,371 13,371 97 97 Proposal: Community CT for Tropical Cyclones 3,555 3,555 199 199 What to do now with what's going on around the articles on Matmo, Halong, Ragasa, Hato, etc. 2,310 2,310 117 117 Proposed general warning to WikiProjects Weather and Tropical Cyclones 14,909 14,909 51 51 Separate claim 4,001 4,001 55 55 Uncivil provocative and edit-warring behaviour by User:Freedoxm 20,818 22,201 717 803 SigillumVert and Citobun 1,383 1,383 86 86 User:杜の街, possible AI edits, and almost definitely AI stonewalling when pointed out 37,100 37,100 361 361 User:Arlandria_Ff disrupting consensus 13,546 13,546 116 116 Dronebogus still arbitrarily reverting IP comments 29,652 60,830 324 545 Proposal : Site ban 21,639 21,639 156 156 Proposal: block and IBAN 3,235 3,235 0 0 Proposal: TBAN against removing any other editor or IP's comment on a discussion page (talk, user talk, Wikipedia talk, etc.) 6,304 6,304 65 65 Gaming the system to achieve extended confirmed status 40,434 47,466 164 275 Comment on mentoring progress 7,032 7,032 111 111 Significant usage of hallucinated URLs and possibly AI generated texts by Sablc4747 20,662 27,405 26 136 Possible gaming for ECR 4,754 4,754 92 92 Proposal: WP:ROPE, no WP:XC 1,989 1,989 18 18 Persian Lad and questionable use of Further reading sections 7,565 7,565 87 87 Disruptive editing in Baltic biographies 27,250 28,703 188 215 Concurrent RFC? 1,453 1,453 27 27 Pattern of LLM edits on contentious topics 14,328 16,301 216 216 Proposal : Gengeros is Banned from Using Large Language Models 1,973 1,973 0 0 Block evasion and long-term abuse by IP-hopping sock 67.40.202.59 1,402 1,402 59 59 Probable WP:COMPETENCY issue 20,511 20,511 62 62 Repeated past removals of sourced content by User:Arcrev1 3,381 3,381 96 96 COI editing 3,084 3,084 46 46 Edit warring, misrepresentation of sources, and MEAT at International Police Organization 4,343 4,343 504 504 Massive inappropriate closure of TFD/AFD/RFD 9,557 9,557 73 73 User:Erdemozcantr disruptive editing on contentious topics 1,263 22,318 113 254 User:Barseghian_Lilia – Misrepresentation and personal targeting on Dolma article 21,055 21,055 141 141 Ongoing disruptive edits by User:Notanobleman 7,681 7,681 112 112 User:Haydi123 5,934 5,934 26 26 CarterSchmelz61 - religious POV pushing 4,764 4,764 167 167 IPs disruptively editing for era markers 4,789 4,789 74 74 Para ANI: Usuario anónimo vandaliza biografía de Guillermo Bermejo 1,323 1,323 70 70 User:Ronz72 1,182 1,182 18 18 user:Trainsandotherthings and user: Pi.1415926535 4,799 21,479 412 823 Reviving #user:Trainsandotherthings and user: Pi.1415926535 16,680 16,680 411 411 Incivility by 121.46.87.246 2,452 2,452 39 39 Multiple WP:NOTBROKEN violations by IP range 1,532 1,532 85 85 Vlodiker Chimok / AI 2,544 2,544 141 141 User talk:CFA/sandbox 2,058 2,058 15 15 User:Fdom5997's factually incorrect edits, edit wars, and article ownership 2,962 2,962 201 201 Vandal 1,320 1,320 26 26 WP:COMPETENCY issue (redux) 28,746 28,746 187 187 Massive dump of unhelpful redirects 9,224 9,224 90 90 Idzubamithra 7,871 7,871 79 79 Persistent addition of unsourced content by 2600:6C60:37F0:34E0:0:0:0:0/64 1,053 1,053 61 61 I request help in disambiguating unconstructive from disruptive 2,354 2,354 153 153 User:Gordon Maximo and bludgeoning at Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules#RfC: A simple clarification to IAR 8,121 8,121 126 126 Continued disruption following a rangeblock that wasn't 2,563 2,563 250 250 Disruptive editing by User RaviKiran1319 686 686 87 87 Personal insult and edit war 4,423 4,423 264 264 Persistent genre-warring from IP user 1,164 1,164 47 47 Total 562,976 562,976 8,190 8,190

To helpcentralize 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 theWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard page (and some of its subpages, including/Incidents). Report incidents such as block evasion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Report violations of thethree-revert rule atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Discuss general issues atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Report posting of personal information by following instructions atWikipedia:Requests for oversight. Request discussions need to be closed atWikipedia:Closure requests.

This noticeboard has beenmentioned 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. Retrieved8 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 Archive 18

This page has archives. Sections older than8 days may be auto-archived byClueBot III if there are more than 4.

Unsure what the easiest way to undo this is, but inthis edit the sigmabot archivedthis discussion, which should probably have had an admin close it before it was removed.Nil🥝01:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All comments or corrections are welcome.☣︎ Hiobazard ☣︎21:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that when closing, the closing template needs to go under the section header. If it goes above, the section header won't work properly. I fixed it for you, but I just wanted to make sure you were aware of this for future closes. Thanks,QuicoleJR (talk)21:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Hope you're doing well. I accidentally made 4 edits in a row including revertshere. I did it by struggling to revert my relist action, as per mentioned in my user talk page. If I really violates then I am ready to bear block or any kinds of sanctions. Thank You!Fade258 (talk)16:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fade258: I don't think this is the page you intended (this is for discussions about the administrator's noticeboard as a noticeboard), but no, you did not violate 3RR, since 1) your reverts were all consecutive with no intervening edits by anyone else, 2) you were only reverting yourself, and 3) most importantly, even if those things were not the case, you had no intent to edit war, and intent matters. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)16:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tamzin. Thanks for your clarification. Can you tell me from next time where should I post this type of issues that I occur? I request you to check that AfD and please revert my relist action for why please see my user talk page. If you could. Thank You!Fade258 (talk)16:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fade258: You don't need to self-report anywhere for reverting yourself. That's a normal part of editing. If you're having trouble self-reverting the relist, maybe ask atWT:AFD. An experienced AfD admin should know what to do. --Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}(they|xe|🤷)16:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin. Thank You for your guidance.Fade258 (talk)16:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As we are getting quite a lot of AI-related reports at ANI, and the noticeboard is becoming quite bloated, are there any objections to moving future threads on that topic to the more specificWikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard?ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)10:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikiproject should not be in control of an encyclopaedia-wide noticeboard. If reports are to be moved, the noticeboard itself should be removed from the project's domain. You might also want to consider asking the community whether it wants such a noticeboard or not.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎10:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is located there based on precedents such asWikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam (which serves as the spam report noticeboard), although I have no objections to moving it to a separate location.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)11:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia wide board to report obvious spammers isWP:AIV; the WikiProject board is something for those interested in that project(I think).331dot (talk)11:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the existence ofWikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam is a very good precedent for this enterprise. I would suggest that you make a proposal to the community at the village pump. If adopted, your prototype page can be moved toWikipedia:AI noticeboard, or whatever other name you decide to propose. I oppose the spontaneous creation of new community noticeboards without explicit authorisation, as they tend to result in a balkanisation of reporting methods, a reduction in eyes on any given report, and an increase in red tape.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎11:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this noticeboard was created to deal with many existing reports being filed atWikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup (the project's talk page) and making actual project discussions harder to find. There was local consensus there to move the reports to a separate page, and, given the current bloat at ANI, I don't think it would be helpful to move even more reports there.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)11:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that your project has the right to impose a new noticeboard on the wider encyclopaedia without consensus. If you want to have your own internal clean-up enterprise in the Wikiproject space, that's fine, but to suggest that uninvolved editors must go to a Wikiproject-governed page to request administrative assistance with AI-related matters is very strange. If this board is going to take on some responsibility on behalf of the community, it must first be authorised to do, and then be removed from the project's domain.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎11:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that explanation makes sense. I might workshop a RfC to move it to a separate noticeboard beyond the scope of the project, I did not plan to move it against consensus.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)11:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, the WikiProject board is to report less obvious spam issues, such as UPE cases or new domain names to add to the blacklist.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)11:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UPE cases have a Wikipedia-wide board,WP:COIN(or, if off wiki evidence is involved,WP:REPORTPAID). I must concur with RGloucester; it's one thing to have a space for those interested in a particular project to coordinate its efforts, but that can't be imposed on the wider community.331dot (talk)11:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I didn't want to impose it on the wider community. I opened this thread to see if there was consensus for centralizing reports there, and wasn't going to do anything otherwise.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)11:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments but you seem to be drawing a distinction that I'm not seeing.331dot (talk)11:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I'm not sure too sure which distinction you are talking about. Per my reply above to RGloucester, I don't want to impose this as a global noticeboard without consensus – I would be happy to start a RfC on whether to move the board outside of the jurisdiction ofWP:WPAIC and to a more generic Wikipedia: space board (similar to the likes ofWP:COIN) where AI-related issues in general can be processed.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)12:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, the need for such a board is only likely to increase.Selfstudier (talk)13:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The takeaway here seems to be that 1) such a board would probably be useful and 2) a Wikiproject is not an appropriate home for that; it should be proposed as being located at a normal location (e.g. for instance WP:ANAI or something, similar to how WP:ANEW works for edit warring).⇒SWATJester^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!}17:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest against WP:ANAI as an acronym based on the immediate reading.CoconutOctopustalk17:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think an AE/ANEW style board with a clear format for presenting and addressing evidence would be a huge help for addressing cases of AI._signed,Rosguill^talk17:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This needs to stay under WP:AN, at least for the moment. We don't have clear policies and practices around AI as yet. We're certainly not at a point yet where cleanup is an obvious process, and the appropriate responses to particular conditions have become a simple matter of standard practice. We might usefully subsection to something below WP:AN or WP:ANI, just to make things clearer, but that's not the same as making it a simple cleanup project.

There's also the (very real) problem when projects (i.e. self-selected cliques) get to control policy on 'cleanup' of some aspect, without broad visibility and control. We've done that a couple of times and it goes badly.Andy Dingley (talk)17:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think from my reading of the above, the proposal is that if there is a specific administrative noticeboard for AI related issues it would not be under the purview of WPAIC (the board linked is currently an WPAIC board but ChaoticEnby has agreed that they'd support it being moved away from that and to a specific Wikipedia: space board), so it would have broad control. The proposal is also more about centralising the very many AI-related complaints recieved at AN and ANI to reduce bloat, not about any specific form of cleanup or standard responses.CoconutOctopustalk17:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering; should the other parameters ofTemplate:ANI-notice andTemplate:AN-notice be pointed out in the header? Specifically the|thread= parameter might be useful to make it more obvious to editors what the thread they are being notified of is called.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)23:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia pages referenced by the press