Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header)
Latest comment: 7 days ago by Stwalkerster in topic 339 revisions deleted a few minutes ago?
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrators' noticeboard page. |
|
 |
|
 | 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).
|
 | This noticeboard has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Index
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 4. |
Word limits on ANI threads?
editThe recent capitalization debate shows that we might need word limits to some extent – to be able to follow the discussion, and, on a more technical level, to be able to even load the page at a reasonable speed. Has this already proposed for ANI, and would it be feasible? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- I really don't think it would be feasible. ANI needs to be able to talk things out, where other forums like ARB/AE have more structured designs. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- What we have done a few times in the past is spin off a very lenghty discussion into a subpage of ANI, with a link on ANI for as long as the discussion continued. This would solve the load issue for ANI. Archiving long-dead subsections may also in some cases be a feasible solution. A word limit is not a good idea in my opinion. Fram (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's not a good thing when User talk:EEng is shorter. With that said, subpages might work better, as Fram said. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 16:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've noticed in the last few days that scrolling has become a bit difficult without losing the discussion. I think we should be a little more aggressive about imposing Fram's ideas. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- I almost removed the third long thread, but I wasn't sure it was dead for long enough. I think I'll do it again just because of how dire the situation is. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 16:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- I did just remove the CAPS thread, as it was closed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- I almost removed the third long thread, but I wasn't sure it was dead for long enough. I think I'll do it again just because of how dire the situation is. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 16:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've noticed in the last few days that scrolling has become a bit difficult without losing the discussion. I think we should be a little more aggressive about imposing Fram's ideas. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Longest block ever?
edit
Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboardI've got a question for you. What is the longest block that has ever been applied, but was not indefinite? My guess is an IP that was blocked for 10 years! I've never ever been blocked on any Wikimedia wiki. (But I have been warned, everyone makes mistakes).
Cheers, Starfall2015 let's talk profile 15:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- I've seen blocks that were in the millenias, so functionally indefinite. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 16:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure why this is at AN, but there's this: WP:RECORDS#Blocks. 88.97.192.42 (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Per the anon^^^ I moved it.I guess the longest block is also the shortest: indefinite. Can either be a lifetime or the space of minutes. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Ivanvector has explained his reasoning; it maybe unusual but it's certainly logical. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- The shortest block might be -41 years long. Damn, being blocked until the 70s must be a really long while. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- SQL's
Special:Block/Flux capacitormust be a thing after all. :) —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- SQL's
- The shortest block might be -41 years long. Damn, being blocked until the 70s must be a really long while. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- That records page doesn't seem accurate, and I'd hope any block 'in the millenias' would be amended. Wikipedia:Database reports/Unusually long user blocks gives one account block at 75 years. I expect that to be amended. Wikipedia:Database reports/Unusually long IP blocks seems to currently say about 15 years. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- I once threatened a particularly odious troll with being blocked until one minute past noon on the day after the Second Coming. Unfortunately, before I could finish my calculations another admin indeffed them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- The longest block is probably some stray April Fools joke affected by phab:T10554. What an anticlimax. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- I now see primary and secondary schools blocked for 10+ years which is a big improvement over the informal maximum of one year when I was an admin in the 2010 timeframe. I analyzed several dozen of these schools’ IP edits, looking at every single edit. >>95% of each school’s edits were vandalism. It didn’t make any difference whether the schools were elite boarding schools or inner city schools. Likewise, ___location meant nothing - USA, Canada, UK, India, etc. Anonymous kids will be kids anywhere, anytime.
- (We’ve had great registered editors that were kids.)
- I love these kids - they’re just doing their job as kids (being a pain in the butt). In turn, grownups have their job to do - protecting our content, setting boundaries and being mild pains for the kids.
- I encourage admins to block primary and secondary schools for more than 10 years. Maybe for the blocking admin’s expected lifespan so somebody else will have to deal with them! —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if the recommendation here is meant to be a joke, but I don't like the idea of schools being painted with the same brush over one student's vandalism. My approach to school blocks is to block for only long enough to cover what I expect to be the length of the current term, usually 3 or 6 months. School networks have very high user turnover (most students don't keep using the school's network after they graduate) and so very long blocks of school IPs prevent new students from editing before they've even had an opportunity to edit. That's not great for new editor recruitment and retention. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 03:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, I spent many hours going through these IP's edits over multiple years. Edit-by-edit: I looked at hundreds of edits. There was never a new school year that produced useful stuff. 2006-2007 looked like 2007-2008 looked like 2008-2009, etc., etc. Some schools had 100 or more bad edits and had racked up 20+ warnings. I was prepared to see a school that wasn't a long-term vandalism problem -- I never did except for one school in Florida that had a few good months. Here's a snapshot of my work on this in 2012. Some might have found this depressing but it wasn't for me -- I saw the situation for what it was -- just kids being kids. I never felt punitive about my blocks or angry about the vandalism. I was just locking our doors. At the same time, we had a steady stream of kids registering and becoming conscientious, productive editors.
- I'm sure some of our 2006 vandals are by now doctors, physicists and probably even religious leaders.
- The vandalism problem was so much worse 10 - 20 years ago. Edit filtering was just starting up and missing vandalism. Schools were unblocked most of the time in naive hopes kids would reform. Admins were tied up repetitively blocking children. There was a lot of undetected vandalism that lingered. I did not feel empowered to block more than a few months.
- It's so much better now, thanks largely to much longer school blocks by others imposed while I was inactive for 10 years. I'm glad the current admin corps is proactive. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- I was much more conservative about other IP blocks - hours or days, maybe weeks since the IP assignments turned over.--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if the recommendation here is meant to be a joke, but I don't like the idea of schools being painted with the same brush over one student's vandalism. My approach to school blocks is to block for only long enough to cover what I expect to be the length of the current term, usually 3 or 6 months. School networks have very high user turnover (most students don't keep using the school's network after they graduate) and so very long blocks of school IPs prevent new students from editing before they've even had an opportunity to edit. That's not great for new editor recruitment and retention. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 03:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- According to my newb attempt at writing a Quarry query, Special:Contributions/Isa123ga currently holds the record with a block lasting 7 decades and 5 years! — DVRTed (Talk) 04:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Brighton is being mislabelled on Wikipedia
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Brighton is being mislabelled on Wikipedia — and it needs correcting. I’m trying to edit and am adding reliable sources but they get removed for no legitimate reason other than “ohnoitsjamie” choosing to ignore the sources. The current Wikipedia page for Brighton is misleading. It describes Brighton as merely a place within Brighton & Hove — which misrepresents both its legal status and how the city is commonly understood. In reality, Brighton is not just a place inside Brighton & Hove — it is “Brighton” & Hove. The full name of the city is “Brighton” & Hove. Brighton is not a subordinate area; it is the city. https://www.kingseducation.com/kings-life/10-fun-facts-about-brighton While the full name of the city is “Brighton and Hove,” this entry shows that even in Parliament, “Brighton” is used as to refer to the city — “The Millenium competition in 2000, which awarded city status to Brighton, Inverness and Wolverhampton.” https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/what-makes-a-city/ Brighton and Brighton & Hove refer to the same city — geographically, legally, and administratively. So the description should say something more accurate, like: “Brighton, officially of the city of Brighton & Hove, is a seaside city on the south coast of England.” Or even better. “Brighton, known as Brighton & Hove, is a seaside city on the south coast of England.” Major institutions — like the city council , the University of Sussex, and the University of Brighton also refer to the city as Brighton. https://www.visitbrighton.com (https://www.visitbrighton.com/)https://www.sussex.ac.uk/study/student-life/brightonhttps://www.brighton.ac.uk/studying-here/choose-brighton/our-city.aspx 92.29.183.135 (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- This is not the right place for a content dispute. The best place to put this would be on Talk:Brighton. As above so below 07:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- I did place this on there, but it got removed by ohnoitsjamie 92.29.183.135 (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- This page is for discussion about the operation of the administrators noticeboard, and is not the noticeboard itself, which is at WP:AN. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- This appears to be the same user who left this insulting message on @Ohnoitsjamie's talk page yesterday. Possibly also relevant: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Greenfrog23/Archive REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- This page is for discussion about the operation of the administrators noticeboard, and is not the noticeboard itself, which is at WP:AN. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- I did place this on there, but it got removed by ohnoitsjamie 92.29.183.135 (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
339 revisions deleted a few minutes ago?
editIt looks like 339 revisions were deleted -- every edit between 19:20, 13 August 2025 (UTC) and 00:58, 15 August 2025. What's up with that? --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- The edit history shows these deletions but the page still shows the text. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Correction: the edit history shows these edits were supposedly overnighted, not deleted.--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- They removed the Discord chat logs because I assume that's considered WP:OUTING. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- These edits include every edit during that period and they span a number of sections. My edits didn't include any Discord chat logs. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Well, that's how it works. Each revision has a copy of the whole page wikitext, so if you simply remove the offending revision that added it, you can still retrieve the content using intermediate revisions. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but they existed elsewhere on the page, so every revision between their addition and their removal needs to be deleted, basically. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- WP:Revision deletion#Limitations and issues, second bullet point, might be clearer; oversight works the same way. —Cryptic 02:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Times like this are when I wish we could rebase edits. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Eh, I don't know if I agree with this. Even if we used Git for Wikipedia, what you are really looking for is not just the ability to rebase edits, but also the ability to
git push --force(i.e. override the upstream revision history with your version of the history), which is pretty universally forbidden or frowned upon even in the software world for collaborative projects. Mz7 (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC) - It's not quite a git force-push either, though, as much of the reason why force-pushing is bad is that it breaks everyone's local copy of the repo and causes commit hashes to no longer match. What I'm proposing, on the other hand, unlike a git force-push, would not change the revision ID number (or in git parlance the hash) of any edits other than the ones that are inaccessible anyway. The git model has no real analog to either what we call revision deletion or what we call Special:MergeHistory - in fact the very design where each commit has a hash of its predecessor makes the latter technically impossible, so I don't think saying
git push --forceis often considered wrong really refutes my argument. Now suppose some content were somehow posted to the mainline of a git repository that later needed to be fully hidden from view for some reason. (This doesn't usually happen because almost all git repos require a trusted user to review each PR before merging, but it could) Would there be any way of doing that other than usinggit filter-branch(or its successorgit-filter-repo) to rewrite the history of all commits? Although I'm diving very deep into WP:Reference desk/Computing and/or broader policy discussions where are kind of off-topic here, so I'll stop now. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)- While I disagree with rebasing edits as you describe it, a different option would be for the software to store the diff of each revision either instead of or in addition to the content itself - such that unrelated diffs could still be accessible even if the overall page content is not.Ultimately though, the faster this stuff is reported and actioned the fewer revisions have to be removed. stwalkerster (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Question for Pppery - when you said "5th step", did you mean the reimport mentioned in the 4th step? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I've fixed the essay. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Eh, I don't know if I agree with this. Even if we used Git for Wikipedia, what you are really looking for is not just the ability to rebase edits, but also the ability to
- Times like this are when I wish we could rebase edits. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- These edits include every edit during that period and they span a number of sections. My edits didn't include any Discord chat logs. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- They removed the Discord chat logs because I assume that's considered WP:OUTING. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 02:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Correction: the edit history shows these edits were supposedly overnighted, not deleted.--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)