Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Useful protip that should be mentioned somewhere
While searching through the archives of this talk page, I discovered, by accident, that AN and AN/I archives actually have automatically created talk pages on them (example), and those talk pages contain a table with an index of all the discussions on the archive page, with indicators of length (bytes) for each section (including sub-sections). From a glance you can see how long or short a thread is, as well as if there are additional sub-topics within it, and you can read all the thread names much more quickly and easily than through the table of contents on the archive page.

How is this incredibly useful feature not mentioned anywhere on the banner or on info pages?!? — AP 499D25  (talk)  14:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add it if you find a good spot for it. – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit notice
The edit notice currently reads:

I think it would be more accurate to reword it:

The current wording gives the misleading impression of the purpose of this board (the title has a related issue; I believe it would be better titled WP:Administration noticeboard, but that's a different discussion). BilledMammal (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Every noticeboard deals with administration in some way. AN does wind up serving as a "catch all" noticeboard sometimes, but that's not really the intention. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The current message (and title) fits my understanding of this page better: it's a noticeboard for administrators. If it wasn't, we'd need one, because admins do a lot of work that are not relevant or interesting to other editors (though of course they are always welcome to follow and participate in discussions). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Tupac page
Tupac Page can now be edited by everyone; it wasn't like that before. Previously, only administrators and users with permission could edit it (like me). This rule needs to be reinstated, or it will be edited every day Pier1999 (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's kind of the point. Is it being vandalized? If so, ask at WP:RFPP, this isn't the right place.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It was also vandalized by a guy who keeps editing without consent. An administrator told him to stop editing, but he continues. You can go to the talk page to understand everything. I will tag you there. Pier1999 (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you might be part of the problem.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We have already clarified everything with the administrator. The page was non-editable for a few days, and he told me to follow the rules. Everything is fine, but then this guy returned to the page and edited everything again without any reason. Pier1999 (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The administrator told both me and the other guy who can edit the page that if he returned to start an edit war, we should turn to you. Pier1999 (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * He told HumansRightsIsCool to refer to this section of Wikipedia if he returned to edit again. I am writing to this section because the situation has become unbearable. This user continues to edit without consent even, also even after the administrator told him not to do it. I can't tag the other user, but he and I, after advice from the admin, are following the rules. Instead, that user is back to vandalizing. Pier1999 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Swatjester explained a lot more than that to you. I don't have time to take action on this, but there are significant editor conduct problems, that do not involve vandalism, and you're part of that problem.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, but as far as getting the protected page back, is that a quick thing? I wrote in that section of Wikipedia Pier1999 (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not usually no, and in any case you should not expect an administrator to 'pick a side' by protecting the version you prefer. This is a content dispute, not a case of vandalism. MrOllie (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not the version I prefer, the administrator has already written that the sources used on the page are fine and he wrote to the other user not to edit those parts of the page anymore because if not he might be blocked from editing. That's not the part I prefer, everyone on the page agreed that the sources are fine, including the administrator. Pier1999 (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I report what the administrator wrote: Pier1999 (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Whole lot of issues here.
 * @ActionHeroesAreReal: -- do not continue to vandalize the article by making undiscussed removals of sourced content without consensus. Your claims of "original research" are inappropriate given the reliable sourcing of the content you're removing. Do not edit war further on this article.
 * @Pier1999: --your academic credentials are irrelevant here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and they need no titles, qualifications, or expertise to do so. Your behavior above is a gross display of ownership over an article -- you do not have any authority to tell someone that they may not edit a page without your consent, nor are you entitled to use your personal credentials as a bludgeon in an argument. Additionally, your spamming of several comments in a row is aggressive and unhelpful. Knock it off Pier1999 (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Administrators don't adjudicate content. Take it to WP:DR, and stop using the article to argue about it.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And he wrote to both of them to follow the rules when the page would be editable again. In fact, I am no longer holding that behavior, while the user continues to edit those parts of the page without meaning to. Pier1999 (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The administrator and all the editors of the page have already made it clear that the page is fine, there is no longer a dispute, it is vandalism. I, following the administrator's suggestions, have finished acting that way. While the user continues to edit that part that the administrator said not to edit. This is the fact, the administrator told us that if this happened, we should address this section of Wikipedia Pier1999 (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Administrators acting as administrators do not get to decide questions of content. Administrators are also editors, and so can edit articles and take positions on the content of articles, but cannot use their admin tools to control content. Administrators can, however, take action to deal with problem behavior, such as vandalism, edit-warring, etc (but note that problem behaviours are described in various policies and guidelines, and may not be what you think they are). You need to work out differences about content with other editors. preferably on the article talk page. Do not expect admins to help you prevail in a content dispute. Donald Albury 16:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Swatjester wrote:"do not continue to vandalize the article by making undiscussed removals of sourced content without consensus. Your claims of "original research" are inappropriate given the reliable sourcing of the content you're removing. Do not edit war further on this article." He wrote this to that guy who always edits the page. Pier1999 (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Should talk pages of header subpages be redirected here?
I found it surprising that redirects to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, but  and  don't.

Should these talk pages of header subpages for AN and ANI be redirected to WT:AN? There are no talk page archives there, which makes creating these redirects easier. The older discussions could there be archived to archive pages here. The latest one is Archive 17, but time-wise more appropriate earlier archives could be found. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)