Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

NOINDEX tag on page

The NOINDEX tag has recently been added to this page [1]. However, I think there's actually a point in Google indexing the page - in particular a user may want to search for the page by typing "Administrators noticeboard" on Google (as I often do for other pages), so I think the NOINDEX tag should be removed. Laurent (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this page already is on the local robots.txt, so there's not much of a point in using the NOINDEX tag. AN (and ANI) were added to the list since both noticeboards regularly discuss issues that really shouldn't be found by google. --Conti|✉ 12:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Wrong place to have the argument, all of AN and its subpages / archives are blocked out of Google by Mediawiki:Robots.txt. The NOINDEX is superfluous. For the record though, I tend to agree that Google would be useful here, and have never really bought the argument that AN, in particular, was so mired in personally identifiable crap that it needed such global protection. Dragons flight (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the redundant NOINDEX. Dragons flight (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that the internal search engine works correctly (try the search box at the top of the page), the drawbacks of allowing Google external search engines to index these pages is bigger than the benefits IMO. -- Luk ^talk 06:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Should WP:DRAMA redirect to ANI?

Arguments for yes:

• WP:DRAMA has redirected to ANI since 2006, until the most recent RfD in March 2009.
• Two previous RfDs (in 2007 and 2008) reaffirmed that WP:DRAMA should point to ANI.
• The most recent RfD did not have wide participation, and Jimbo says that you cannot claim consensus of just who happens to show up.
• It was inappropriate to keep listing WP:DRAMA at RfD to get the desired result.

Arguments for no:

• Consensus in the most recent RfD was to retarget to WP:Drama.
• Consensus can change.
• Though the 2008 RfD had more participation than the 2009 one, it is quite a stretch to say that the 2008 discussion represents community consensus while the 2009 one does not.
• No one listed WP:DRAMA for deletion more than once.

The "yes" arguments are being given by User:Promethean who has reverted the retargeting from the most recent RfD several times. The "no" arguments are mine (I have reverted back each time). Wider community input would be appreciated. Link to the most recent RfD is here. The earlier RfDs are linked from there. Mike R (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. To those who might complain that this is the wrong place to post this: Where would be better? Start a new RfD? This is a high-traffic page that should attract enough comments to determine consensus. Mike R (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Struck since no longer on ANI

I have moved this thread here from the project page. Discussions about ANI belong here. Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that since the most recent form of consensus (RfD '09) says that it shouldn't point here, it shouldn't point here. Just saying, "Consensus shouldn't be based on who turns up," could be used to undermine any community decision, it's not a constructive way of going forward. I am going to point it back to the Drama project; if you want to form a consensus to have it directed here (and yes, consensus can change) then edit-warring is not the way to do that. Nominate it again. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Pointing it here would be sarcastic and funny. However, the other page is a serious essay that should probably get priority for this choice redirect. There's nothing wrong with a little fun and mischief, but not at the expense of serious endeavors. Jehochman ^Talk 14:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The redirect in question had pointed to ANI for a long time, one must take that into consideration before changing it. I don't think it was in this case...   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

<< There was extensive discussion at the RfD about how to deal with the change of existing links. There is a hatnote at the top of the page to which it is currently targetted. And the points that I made above still stand ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "This looks like a job for ... Super-man Super-"dab" — Ched :  ?  15:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A constructive essay is superior to a snarky redirect any day. There are enough alienating injokes as it is.--Tznkai (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that "snarky" clarifies "redirect", but just in case: I hope you didn't take my comment as snarky Tznkai, it certainly was not meant that way. I'm only entertaining that possibility due to WP:INDENT as I understand it. It (my comment) was just my attempt at a light-hearted suggestion; that I think that there are many areas, essays, and boards which people could consider to be "Drama". It's in that respect that I believe the best use of WP:DRAMA would serve the community as a dab page. — Ched :  ?  17:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to WP:DRAMA redirecting to ANI as a snarky in joke, and the Wikipedia:drama essay to be constructive.--Tznkai (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record this is really lame, and people should know better than to edit war over a redirect.--23:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Zzz. Is this really even worth discussing? bibliomaniac15 23:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the redirect. Anyone who feels it should be re-targeted it can take it to WP:RFD.--Aervanath (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

constant deletion

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Constant deletion — Gavia immer (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Protected?

This noticeboard is protected, so how can I report things? 70.29.210.174 (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Cubs197

User:Cubs197 is refusing to talk to me and is giving me vandalism warnings in return for trying to discuss issues with him. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is going on?--Cubs197 (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted my warnings, I'm sorry.--Cubs197 (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think your access to automated tools should be suspended. Why did you issue your vandal messages? 70.29.210.174 (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, it is my first day doing this, and probably got tunnel vision. It will NOT happen again, we don't try to make people feel bad, absolutely not, we try to welcome them to Wikipedia. Once again I'm very sorry, and I have removed the vandal messages.--Cubs197 (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Mischievious behaviour

Dear Friends, This is to bring to your kind notice that editors on WP:Goa and WP:India are themselves creating vandalism on wikipedia. The objections raised on articles (in discussion pages) are just not being considered and are being deleted without notice and reasons. Is this how Wikipedia works? We are very enraged due to this. Please sort out the matter at your earliest convenience. [2] [3] [4]--Gaunkars of Goa (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)