Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrators' noticeboard page. |
|
 |
|
 | To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, several subpages of Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard redirect here. |
 | This is not the page to report problems to administrators, or discuss administrative issues.
This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard page (and some of its subpages, including /Incidents).
|
 | This noticeboard has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Index
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Who is really here to help
[edit]Thank you to those that are actually trying to genuinely help me. We were all in experienced at one point. I started the draft article for the subject in 2016, being simply a fan of the subject. No personal connection. I returned almost 9 Years later, almost a decade and the climate on wikipedia towards new editors has not changed. Meanwhile I have been solicited in my email by individuals claiming they can help me with this for the right price. I'm not the subject so please stop. Thanks again for those offering constructive input that can help me grow, complete this article and move on from to other things on wikipedia. Edward Myer (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I doubt that the people sending the emails read this page. You seem to have decided not to pay, but anyone else who gets such emails please do not pay anything. If a subject is shown to be notable then they can get an article for nothing; if not they can't at any price. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- And for anyone who hasn't yet read WP:SCAM, I recommend it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Block evasion, likely abuse of multiple accounts from GabrielPenn4223
[edit]GameBoyColorPlayer3952, KmartFan65314, Johndy361316316 49.145.104.110 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Already globally locked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I see, thank you! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Archived without resolution
[edit]Hello, I wonder if this is a new normal on the project, to post diatribes such as this one, followed with this one, filled with casting aspersions, ad hominem and vile analogies, followed by making unsubstantiated 3RR, then followed with another diatribe in reply to filed ANI report in the same or worse tone, and as consequence get nothing from the project community, while the ANI report ends in archive, barely noticed. This is all happening within a scope which is under WP:ARBMAC / WP:ARBEE, and an editor violated most of the points described under WP:PERSONALATTACK policy (attack based on defamatory ad hominem with a goal of discrediting, attack on ideology/political affiliation, identity/ethnicity/nationality, infamous people analogies, using "terrorizing" in terms of "terrorizing" articles which editor deem "Croatian"). ౪ Santa ౪99° 20:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)