Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Topic ban appeal archived

[edit]

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 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.

Archives/search bar

[edit]

On WP:AN, please move the archives and search bar outside the section titled "Open tasks". If necessary, make a new section for them. On a mobile device, it isn't clear where the search bar will be because it's hidden in "Open tasks".

I would also recommend auto-collapsing the "Noticeboards" navbox so mobile users don't need to do so much scrolling to get down to either the archives/search bar, or the actual discussions. TagUser (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really an "all or nothing" situation regarding admin analysis & input?

[edit]

Is this (WP:ani and wp:an) really an "all or nothing" situation regarding admin analysis & input? Is it really just 0% or 100%; with only these two scenarios:

  1. 100% An admin looks at the report and (and maybe some comments) and simply decides what to do.
  2. 0% Usually when there is a proposal and a bunch of comments, the admin is a mere closer, like an RFC, and none of their own analysis is allowed to influence that; such would be considered to be a dis-allowed supervote. And per a normal RFC, they can't close it if they posted in the discussion.

And if the only choice on #2 is 0%, should that be changed? North8000 (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what the reason for your question is. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s pretty common to see discussions at AN and ANI tread a middle ground, with various admins participating and offering input as experienced, uninvolved observers, whose opinions will typically be treated as more decisive than those of involved participants. YMMV on whether these comments are given any more gravity than those of experienced, uninvolved community members also weighing in. signed, Rosguill talk 16:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a hard and fast bright line, but I have definitely felt that once threads reach an undefined critical mass of commenters, I don't feel comfortable acting on my own anymore. Whereas if there are only a couple of commenters, I do. I think this is more a social norm than a policy? Floquenbeam (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Floq. Many times, it's a fairly obvious asked-and-answered situation. Part of being an experienced user, admin or not, is recognizing when it's not one of those situations. Mackensen (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the above question, the "reason" for my question is simply for the good of Wikipedia and because it is interesting for me. Some particular situations led to my question, with one of them a discussion with the closer provided an unusually clear crystallization of the question. But I waited until they were all old before asking here to reinforce that this is not getting input for any particular situation. It was an ani that became very lengthy with lots of discussion; so lenghty and messy (but non acrimonious) that it couldn't get a close. I don't think that there were any admins involved in the discussion except for one who suggested just letting it age out but one individual prevented it from doing that. In the end it was closed and in a subsequent discussion the closer (who I consider to be of highest caliber) in essence (my words) said "I think the result was wrong but I just summarized the consensus which is what I was supposed to do."

My own opinion is that if an admin is experienced, wiki-knowlegable, intelligent, does a thorough review, fair/impartial, not emotional, I would trust and value their decision more than any other in Wikipedia. And far below that would be lots of comments by people who mostly just looked at the conversation and didn't do a thorough review of the situation which is more groupthink and psychology than full analysis. North8000 (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]