Wikipedia talk:ANI advice

"Topic bans, interaction bans, etc should be proposed at WP:AN." Is this correct? My understanding is that WP:AN is for general announcements for admins that's based around content or policy changes, while WP:ANI is to do with user behaviour and conduct. I'd only expect to see bans announced on WP:AN if they were 1RR restrictions or general non-user specific sanctions on contentious issues. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   12:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The difference between the boards is that ANI is for "incidents" that require more immediate attention while AN is for general matters. Issues that should be discussed in more detail are better suited for AN.--v/r - TP 15:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Point #1
While I understand why this reads "Don't. Just don't" there are times one must resort WP:ANI. I think the point here would be better expressed as: "Taking a dispute to ANI is like going to war. War has no victors, only survivors." Unfortunately, there are times when all other alternatives have been exhausted, & one must go to war to protect something. Far too often, an issue is brought to ANI before all other alternatives have been exhausted. -- llywrch (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the rest of the essay kinda sorta admits prima facie that it's sometimes necessary. But, I like your comments in quotes, you should add that afterward.  Of course, I gave this essay to the project the minute I hit submit so if you feel strongly about it being your way, I'm not going to object too sternly.--v/r - TP 18:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A user opening a thread on ANI against an admin is like the Palestinians launching rockets at Israel. Israel will use it as justification for a disproportionate counterattack, because they have the resources to win that war, and you just gave them an excuse to wage it.


 * On the other hand, a user opening a thread on ANI against another user is like a kid tattling to the teacher about another kid. If the tattler is a kid whom the teacher likes, maybe some action will in fact get taken, but if not, the tattler is just making an annoyance of himself. St. claires fire (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Bullying
"Don't make accusations of bullying. This is an adult project. While folks under the age of 18 are not disallowed, everyone is expected to behave like an adult. Adults receive criticism as a natural daily occurrence. If you've been drawn to the internet because you cannot take criticism from the real world, Wikipedia is not for you. The goal of this project is the encyclopedia, not your feelings. You will be criticized if your editing is harmful. It is not bullying to correct your behavior if it is harmful. You will be treated like we would treat any mature adult – act like one. If there is cyber-bullying or harassment that isn't connected to your edits, of course feel free to bring someone's attention to it."

I'm not sure where to start with how wrong this section is.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC).


 * Have you ever been accused of bullying while doing no such thing? There are victims of bullying and there are victims of accusations of it.  No one should be a victim of either.  The section is inspired by User:Blackgaia02 who has repeatedly accused others of being bullies for asking him to comply with basic content policies such as WP:V.  If you don't like it - rephrase it or remove it.  I don't personally care what happens to the essay, I just put common WP:BOOMERANG issues into one list.  Accusations of bullying often get boomeranged.  Blackgaia02 is just one example, but seeing it on ANI is very common.  This list isn't things that irk me.--v/r - TP 23:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. I've had a go at improving this paragraph and the previous one, and added encyclopaedic links to correct definitions of the terms used. Hope this helps. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never "been accused of bullying while doing no such thing". Does that happen a lot? St. claires fire (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

What is ANI?
Not only does the first line in this section not make sense, it is incomprehensible. If it was comprehensible, it could be edited to make sense. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Makes perfect sense to me, and I didn't write it. "(If you would like to find a place that is prone to personal attacks) - (caused by the confusion between (criticizing behaviors) and (attacking people)) - (then look no futher than ANI)."--v/r - TP 23:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Quick to personal attacks" is not proper English. "Prone" is correct.  I am not used to having to divine what I read, I don't have that skill.  --P123ct1 (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (shrug) Not everyone is an English major. It's a world-wide project.  That paragraph was copy/pasted from a talk page.--v/r - TP 23:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this essay is not in the slight bit helpful, nor is it amusing like some wiki essays. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To each his own. If you want to be totally fucked at ANI and not have a clue why, then just ignore everything here.--v/r - TP 22:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with P123ct1, very poorly written to the point of being at best barely comprehensible. And I agree with Xcuref1endx to the extent the "What is ANI" section is not helpful, and the essay in general is not sucessfull at being humorous, it sounds like a bitter rant by someone who had a bad experience at ANI, which is usually due to ones' own behavior, (cv WP:BOOMERANG). What's more, accusing people there of "mindreading", etc, and statements like "It's simply crawling with the most angry, judgmental and thoroughly hypocritical people to be found anywhere" are all violations of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:C, so I have removed the entire section. The general advice about opening a dispute section, however, does contain some potentially helpful advice, so that should be kept.However, I removed the first bullet - "Don't. Just don't". There are many times when it is necessary to take a problematic editor to ANI, and when I have done it, I've almost always had a satisfactory experience. The kind of people who complain about ANI are the ones who lack self-awareness of their own disruptiveness so act like a petulant schoolchild when they get reported there, and/or get hoist on their own petard when they report someone else without realizing their own behavior was a problem. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 7 years later and I finally see this comment. Looks like you retired ages ago a mere days after posting this because of an ANI dispute that you opened.  Guess you should've taken my advice.  Ironic.--v/r - TP 12:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)