Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Block evasion, likely abuse of multiple accounts from GabrielPenn4223

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

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)

Archived without resolution

Hello, I wonder if have missed something or is this 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 ౪^99° 20:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Santasa99: It looks like you posted this accidentally on the talkpage instead of on WP:ANI. Did you notify the editor you are talking about? See the top of WP:ANI for instructions. Polygnotus (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Santasa99, sorry your issue got archived, I know that's really frustrating. It's easy for the complicated cases to slide off ANI without anyone noticing. Since this related to a WP:CTOP you may want to try WP:AE instead. Posts stay on that noticeboard for longer and the admins who patrol it are expecting to see complicated cases there. It looks like neither of you have edited much since then, so there's nothing for anyone to do now, but if you have the same problems again when you return, AE might get a more satisfactory result. -- asilvering (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Santasa99, the editor had never been warned for a CTOP before, which may have been why even though three admins did participate in that discussion, it ended up archiving unactioned. As asilvering advises, if a case is appropriate for it (is about behavior at a CTOP), AE is usually going to be a better choice. I was ready to log a formal warning for battleground behavior at a CTOP, but when I went to Talk:Hrvatinić noble family I saw that it had never been bannered as a CTOP (nor for any WikiProjects), so I've fixed that, which is something you can check for at other articles. The more people who are aware an article exists, the more likely someone will notice when it needs attention. Valereee (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Create notice saying "THIS IS FOR ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA ONLY"

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)

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)

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)

@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)

This is not worth the effort for the few instances where the misplaced reports occur. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

...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)