Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:AN)


A question

[edit]

There might be cases where diffs are not enough, bcs the behaviour is spread out over multiple edits- in those cases, are we supposed to provide multiple diffs for every discussion, or can we just provide the discussions? It's for any future cases, not asking for the present one I have brought to ani. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the question, but if an editor wishes to argue something along the lines of "Editor X engaged in behavior Y on multiple occasions", then I think it strengthens their case to provide individual diffs as well as making it easier for editors to review the specific edits of concern. Similar to how at WP:3RN one shouldn't simply point to the history for the page being reverted but link to each specific revert. DonIago (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for stating it confusingly. No, more like "editor says one thing here" and "another thing here", and so on, and as a combination, it shows how their behaviour to contrary to the policies. And if such a disussion happens like half a dozen times, then do we have to show like 6*3-4=~20 diffs, or just a link to half a dozen discussions is fine? Bcs in case of long discussions, there will be a lot of diffs, and I don't want accusations of cherry-picking or something- this would not be true for links to discussions, as an admin can see it and make up their own mind. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need to put yourself in the place of a reviewing editor/admin and ask the question, "what would I find most helpful here?", bearing in mind that that person has probably not seen any previous discussion. It is often said that time is our most precious resource, and it usually takes less of it for one person to offer everything up on a plate than for several people to spend time working out what the issue is. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jebk 45.177.178.141 (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that's an abbreviation for something, but I have no idea what. Can you expand? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just a test edit? Valereee (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create notice saying "THIS IS FOR ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA ONLY"

[edit]

This is in response to a user who made a grievance against Persian Wikipedia administrators. This happens often enough that it should be a notice. The notice should make a disclaimer that English Wikipedia administrators do not have overreach to other Wikipedias and that they should first take it up with the local administrators, if not they can report to Stewards at Meta wiki. DotesConks (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this is necessary. Such postings are annoying but not particularly frequent or problematic, whereas adding an additional notice would likely just make banner blindness even worse. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This happens from time to time, at a guess somewhere between weekly and monthly. It is unlikely that most of the people who post such messages read and understand the notices that are already there, so adding another won't make any difference. It's better to just tell them as we do now. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger We could maybe use an abuse filter to warn them if they type something like "Persian Wikipedia" or "French administrators" or even a bot that closes the discussion when certain words are in a sentence and notifies the user on their talk page. DotesConks (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not worth the effort for the few instances where the misplaced reports occur. -- Ponyobons mots 17:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...and I think that that would get too many false positives, particularly where someone has been abusing editing privileges on more than one language edition of Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think closing threads with something like "Sorry, we cannot assist with issues on other language Wikipedias" is the way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That's what we do now. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
* Concur with Phil this is not needed. Jeepday (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban appeal archived

[edit]
CLOSED
As you ask for a proper closure, here it is. The discussion had stalled without a clear consensus to lift the TBAN. The bot's action in archiving the appeal was a mechanical confirmation of that situation. A period of reflection before lodging a fresh request is advisable. Months, not days. Cabayi (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

My AP2 appeal was just archived without resolution. This was a pretty large threat with a lot of comments (although uninvolved editors are, from what I can tell, supposed to matter most?) - any way it can get a review/proper closure? Toa Nidhiki05 20:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edit request March 29 2025

[edit]
The block is meant to prevent this type of contributions. It's not a topic ban and it hasn't been circumvented, but it proves why I refused to remove the block so far. The closer of a discussion affected by bludegoning is usually experienced enough not to let it have an effect other than warning the bludegoning editor. There is no need for an ANI report about this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Transclude everything below onto the AN/I page. I can't edit the page myself. Do not add the "Title:" and "Comment:" parts, leave those out.

Title: User:Turtletennisfogwheat for WP:BLUDGEONING

Comment: This user has been bludgeoning on the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I've changed it now) talk page. He has responded to nearly every single Oppose comment in the RFC thread, including mines. Going through the RFC section alone, I can see he has made around 35 comments. This is a very severe case of bludgeoning and he was also blocked for 2 weeks previously. He should be blocked. DotesConks (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, you have made the same number of edits (4) and added about twice as many bytes to the page as they have in the last week. Can you point out to us where the bludgeoning is? Donald Albury 21:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Albury Just use google chrome search function and search up "Turtletennisfogwheat" on the talk page for RFK Jr. There you will see all of his replies to "Oppose" votes. You can also find it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Turtletennisfogwheat at his contributions. They are way more than 4. Also the 4 edits I made were responses to... his replies to my vote and that was before I knew he was bludgeoning the discussion. DotesConks (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the error, I meant the talk page for the Robert F. Kennedy Jr article, not the one I linked above. DotesConks (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to note that User:DotesConks is topic banned from Wikipedia space. In the past we've held that includes the talk pages for Wikipedia space. Not only are they posting here to try and circumvent that ban - they are doing so on a contentious topic, subject to editing restrictions - which as far as I can see are already being exceeded! Nfitz (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nfitz And how am I supposed to stop the bludgeoner then? I'd like the RFC that concluded that. DotesConks (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    DotesConks isn't topic banned from Wikipedia space, they are partially blocked. Also, ToBeFree (the blocking admin) said on DotesConks' talk page that I intentionally left Wikipedia Talk open, but I didn't think about it much. I thought there might be situations in which adding an edit request for a noticeboard may be something I shouldn't technically prevent.— Tenshi! (Talk page) 23:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 DotesConks (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1283081122"