Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

AI-related threads and reducing bloat

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 specific Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

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

I do not think the existence of Wikipedia 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 to Wikipedia: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)

To clarify, this noticeboard was created to deal with many existing reports being filed at Wikipedia 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. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

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. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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 of WP:WPAIC and to a more generic Wikipedia: space board (similar to the likes of WP:COIN) where AI-related issues in general can be processed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

I would suggest against WP:ANAI as an acronym based on the immediate reading. CoconutOctopus talk 17:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

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 ^talk 17:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

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. CoconutOctopus talk 17:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header

I was wondering; should the other parameters of Template:ANI-notice and Template: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)

Block in violation of site's rules

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Blocking My rights as an editor were violated by User:Cullen328 as did not put a warning before block as the rules. Cladeal832 (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

You were blocked for excessive edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Definitely Not a violation of site rules, as you (Cladeal832) were Edit Warring which was excessive. Untamed1910 (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

At this point I’d support a site-wide block as you do not appear capable of editing in a collaborative manner. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OCLC error in an ANI archive

Hello, all.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1205#Pattern of LLM edits on contentious topics contains an actual citation template with a relevant OCLC error. This is causing the archive to populate into Category:CS1 errors: OCLC, which is configured to ignore "/Archive#" subpages but not "/IncidentArchive#." Is there a way to stub out the category, so that we don't perpetually have a OCLC error floating around in the category? ~ Matthewrb ^{Get in touch · Breadcrumbs} 07:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Fixing archives to remove errors is ok (if there really is a benefit). I fixed that in diff. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I figured so, I just wasn't sure the best way to go about it. I realize that a <nowiki> would make the most sense...

Thank you for taking care of it! ~ Matthewrb ^{Get in touch · Breadcrumbs} 07:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)