Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Swarm (talk | contribs) at 21:24, 2 August 2020 (→‎children's rights: closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Admin on mission...

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page

Is this wording at the top of the ANI page sufficient, or do we want to change this to, "you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page in a new section", or "...at the bottom of their Talk page", or similar?

I recently checked a User's talk page to see if they had been appropriately notified of a case raised about them, and not seeing one, I posted this informal heads-up (diff) to let them know of the pending case (diff). Turns out, they already knew, due to a comment included further up on their long talk page by the initiator of the ANI case, in the form of a reply to an earlier discussion. This reply meets the letter of the ANI must requirement, but not the spirit of it, imho. In particular, I had not found the notice, after going to the User's talk page specifically to look for it. I think it's plausible that the page owner might not have seen it, had they not been checking that earlier discussion for other reasons. In any case, under current wording, an ANI-case initiator could game the system by burying a notification on purpose.

How about this for new wording: "... you must leave a notice prominently displayed on the editor's talk page." This adds just two words, and leaves it more open to case-by-case interpretation as far as where to put it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your hypothetical situation is problematic and should probably be dealt with as it occurs. Your proposed change is likely unnecessary bureaucracy. Your example case, however, falls under the "exception to the rule" that happens for just about any rule; it is perfectly reasonable for a user holding a discussion with another user to mention an ANI in a thread about the same issue. Forcing that notification to happen in its own bolded section seems unnecessary. It's likely that 80% of the time a proper notice will be left, 19% of the time no notice will be given, and 0.8% of the time your example use will happen. I don't think we need to mandate the use of {{ANI-notice}} just to catch that 0.2% of "left a buried notice hidden on the page." Keep in mind also that user talk notices pop up as a new message, so even if it is buried somewhere, the intended recipient will still receive (and receive notice of) the note. It's "nice" for a patrolling admin/user to be able to quickly determine if a notice has been left, but the notification is primarily for the parties involved, not the minders. Primefac (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that in the case that you describe the notice had its intended effect: that the user in question knew that the discussion was happening. The fact that you, who were not under discussion, couldn't see it immediately is irrelevant. As noted by Primefac the person receiving the message gets a notification saying it has been left. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These responses make sense. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring request

Hello. May I have an administrator help me with any posts I make or may make, in future, on British or Irish political article talkpages? Just someone who can point out to me if I shouldn't have posted at a place or if my posts are worded in an unhelpful way at said discussions. If a designated administrator sees 'nothing wrong' with such a post(s)? then all the better. Just need a monitor to give me advice if/when needed. Someone, I can turn to. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you under sanctions? Primefac (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)[reply]
No. Haven't been for years. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any volunteers? TBH, I'm feeling intimated by this sandbox's notes, which is why I've slowed down my editing production. GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator and I've no interest in mentoring anybody, particularly one with over 24x the edits I have. That said, I'm offering this as an informal WP:3O. I looked at the previous Arbcom case and the list of "notes" Snowded is compiling and I have to say: this isn't a good look, Snowded. The Arbcom case was eight years ago, it involved serious misjudgments on GD's part, there have been no enforcement blocks since then, and there is nothing apparent in edits since June that would indicate that GD is infringing their restrictions. I also note that the restrictions on GD were on diacritics, with which none of the diffs compiled are concerned. No readily apparent reason to suspect GD is repeating their previous negative behavior seems to exist. It looks, in fact, very like assembling a list of grievances and cherry-picking some very minor comments for some unrelated end. I will explicitly refrain from speculating on what that end may be or any possible motivations for it. I would suggest that Snowded either 1) explain what they feel requires compiling this or 2) take a case to AE if they feel that there is a case to be made or 3) remove these notes which come close to WP:ASPERSIONS. There appears to be no need for bad feelings on any editor's part. I hope this helps defuse things. Admins, please feel free to move my comment to another venue if that appears appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eggishorn, not sure if you intentionally did not ping Snowded (so I will not either) but they (as far as I am aware) have not been pinged or notified of this discussion. I mention this only because the first half of your post sounds like you are addressing them. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)[reply]
Primefac, I actually did intend to ping Snowded and yes, I did intend them to see this. Trying again (and apologies in advance to Snowded if this generates a double ping): @Snowded: Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to check your history this is not about diacritics, before the Arbcom case GoodDay was topic banned from all BI articles for inserting comments on talk pages without proposing changes and generally creating conflict on issues which had been resolved. Its been a background level of sniping for years on issues like the use of Constituent Country but of late the behaviour seems to be increasing. For example the Derry/Londonderry compromise has kept the peace on wikipedia for years and GoodDay is well aware of that. On the basis that a case might have to be made to reinstate the topic ban I started to record instances in case it continues, in a sandbox. Happy to delete that and keep notes off Wiki but I prefer to do things in plain sight, and I would prefer not to have to do this in the first place. Like several editors I am a veteran of the massive disruption that took place on BI articles and I and others put in a lot of work to stabilise the situation - and the peace had held for years now. No one wants to go back there -----Snowded TALK 19:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eggishorn:, I recommend that you review the said discussion at Derry & note the timing of the posts, as well as all participants. IMHO, that discussion had already petered out (before Snowded posted there), with nobody taking the suggestion of opening an RFC. Note: I've struck out my post concerning the topic (and my response to Snowded's johnny-come-lately post), due to a chill feeling. PS: I'm still curious as to who the old Unionist editors are, that Snowded refers to in his sandbox & suggestions they are looking for trouble. I'm sure they'd like to know that they've been mentiond, there. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, is there a moratorium on any of these articles for limiting discussions or outright banning discussion, for any length of time on certain content topics? I may have missed such moratoriums & would be grateful, if someone would point them out. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, that went over like a lead balloon. I did, in fact, look at the Derry talk page and GD's talk page and the other diffs. If those constitute evidence of a battleground attitude that infringes the previous topic restrictions, some-one's sensitivity scale is miscalibrated. Maybe its mine. I'll stop sticking my nose in where its obviously not wanted and apologize to both of you that the was not, in fact, helpful. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've nothing to apologise for. Though I don't think it really necessary. I'm considering seeking mentorship. If I'm going to be followed around for my posts at British & Irish articles (which are few & far between), then it should be by a designated editor. Either I'm in the wrong, or Snowded is. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one is following you GoodDay, if anything it is the other way round - how many obscure Welsh Prince articles are on your watch list :-) I'm more than happy to remove the material if that is the consensus position but as I said I prefer to do things in plain sight. You might remember that I was one of the editors who argued actively for your reinstatement on the basis that your normal editing focus is highly productive. -----Snowded TALK 19:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Welsh Prince article. Is that what your beef is, what's gotten you so riled up? Well then, I believe I will indeed seeking mentorship. BTW: Note that I posted at the Welsh Prince article, after you pestered me at the Derry discussion. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Snowded: Just so you are aware, "evidence collection" pages that are not quickly used in one of our dispute resolution mechanisms have been deleted as attack pages before and their owners have been trouted (or worse). (There is also a reasonable view that they are harassing even if they are not blatant attack pages.) I am not claiming that will happen in this case, but I would suggest you find somewhere else to keep your notes of any concerns you might have. --Izno (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fully aware of the "not quickly used" criteria and its a working page which is normal when building a case. It is interesting to note that after following me to the Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr talk page to make a fairly typical comment (which he did regret to be fair), he had posted about this on an Arbcom member's talk page within three hours of my creating said sandbox. The next bit of work I was planning to do was to gather other examples of where he was clearly following myself or others to BI related articles. If I can't complete that this week, due to work committments or if I feel differently after sleeping on it (its late at night here) or GoodDay gets a mentor (which I think is a good idea) then I'll delete it. Strike that I'm not going to have time this week anyway and it is wasting people's time here. I've taken the material off line and if GoodDay wants a copy of my watchlist I'll happily supply one for the record :-) -----Snowded TALK 21:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who follows me around. Exactly how many of those article do you have on your watchlist, btw? Anyways, it's amazing that I haven't counter-punched more often. All you've been doing, is making my Wikipedia experience miserable. Why don't you just leave me alone & go do something else. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need clarification of wikiprofessionals close

@Seraphimblade: could you clarify what While not everyone supported deletion of the UPE articles, enough editors did to achieve a consensus behind this as well means? I interpret this as effectively amending WP:G5 to include, Any page created by a Wikiprofessionals editor, regardless of whether it was created before or after the date the company was site banned. Is that the intent? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. Hypothetically, anything we know to be UPE would be a G5 in any case, since the editor was essentially forbidden to create it. That said, in this case the clear consensus was that the known Wikiprofessionals articles should be deleted en masse. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade, Maybe you want to create a new WP:XCSD to cover that, so it's easy to identify them in logs, etc? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a half bad idea, especially given that I suspect more of these will be turning up. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal

I have made a new proposal regarding WP:ANI at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Make_future_WP:ANI_threads_individual_pages,_like_WP:AFD Ed6767 talk! 01:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like that. It was rejected before. Maybe now is the time. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

children's rights

We're not humoring this. See my comment below. ~Swarm~ {sting} 21:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello I am an Iranian lawyer sending you a letter. Unfortunately, in the Persian Wikipedia, the pages related to suicide and suicide methods for children do not contain any warnings. After talking about this with the administrators of Farsi Wikipedia, they accused me of supporting censorship. I had a question for you. How to put an age limit mark on a box of movies, animations and computer games for children. But are suicide pages, suicide methods, and sex pages easily accessible to young children without the slightest warning?  Isn't this a gross violation of children's rights on the Internet? I urge the Wikimedia Foundation to investigate this to prevent harm to infants and children.

 thank you for your attention

Ali Naderi  An Iranian lawyer  Behrouz.lawyer (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)Behrouz.lawyer, Wikipedia isn't censored. Are these articles breaching any of Wikipedia's policies? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)      [reply]
(Non-administrator comment)Behrouz.lawyer, we have a similar policy here. See WP:NODISCLAIMERS. This has been debated many times which has resulted in the linked policy, and common parental control suites already block explicit Wikipedia articles. It is mainly the parent's responsibility to moderate their childs activities, not ours. We can't help with anything on the Persian Wikipedia here on the English Wikipedia, you'll have to bring it up at their appropriate noticeboards there. Ed6767 talk! 20:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what reason do you emphasize that you are a lawyer? 331dot (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A TLDR of the fawiki discussion boils down to this (with machine translation):
  • User said "one of my friends in the Attorney General's Office, in response to my questions [on whether Wikipedia is censored or not?]"
  • Then basically made legal threats saying "Call the Attorney General's Office. They say that action has been taken." (due to the graphic material)
  • Then was then blocked for 1 month

Looks like an interwiki issue to me, fawiki denied to take action in the face of legal threats and blocked, so moved on to enwiki. Ed6767 talk! 20:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to complain about issues on fa.wiki, but it does sound like that has already been resolved. It's worth stating that we do not respond well to legal threats. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the fa thread, run the bottom section through Google Translate. The OP appears to be claiming that Wikipedia is going to be censored by the Iranian state if users don't remove sexual content from the project. Unbelieveable, rightly blocked for a month over there, so now he's come running over here trying to figure out how to censor them. You want a disclaimer? See WP:Content disclaimer. We host objectionable and offensive content that may be illegal in other countries. Wikipedia is not subject to Iranian law, nor is it subject to offended users' sense of morality. WP:NOTCENSORED. End of discussion. ~Swarm~ {sting} 21:24, 2 August 2020 (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=970865044"