Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard
Latest comment: 3 days ago by Asilvering in topic What happened to "Editor calling other editors who reject a source as racists and claiming religious discrimination"?
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Administrators' noticeboard page. |
|
 |
|
 | To help centralise 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. |
Request for Guidance on Vaibhav Palhade Draft Article
editUser:Monbot
editI hate to be the bearer of bad news, but someone needs to note in the section User:Monbot that the user’s username is inappropriate for use on Wikipedia because it is misleading (wikipedia:MISLEADNAME). This is not a bot account, it’s a person, and the name needs to reflect that. (Apologies for posting this here, I’m locked out of the primary page for reasons I can not discern but assume to be due to either trolling or lta related vandalism control.) 2600:1011:B324:1E02:B940:65B6:E5B4:9665 (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- The account in question was soft blocked back in March 2021 for username violation, I don't think there is much to do here. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is also the wrong board, but... shrugs. Agree with the above, they're already blocked so there's not much for us to do. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Primefac: I believe the IP is referring to this thread , where Monbot67's actions are being discussed.-- Ponyobons mots 16:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is also the wrong board, but... shrugs. Agree with the above, they're already blocked so there's not much for us to do. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Clerk formatting request
editIn just under 24 hours, this discussion on ABRPIA collected 50 comments and counting. Some of the replies are indented on the same level and difficult to read. It is mostly a linear discussion. Can someone uninvolved indent the replies when two people are indented on the same level? It would make it easier for everyone to read. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've been following the discussion and I haven't noticed any obvious threading problems or easy fixes. One trick that I like is to add a subheading every once in awhile to keep any one section from getting too big, and to help label the topic of that area of conversation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- In eight cases indenting and replies to those linked Diffs would help for clarity. The fixes are a matter of adding colons correctly to the comments (including whether it's a new paragraph or sub-indented reply). But I will live either way. The length of it, might make it worthwhile to ease reading for future closer
- Indenting (my comment)
- Indenting SFR
- Levivich and 3 replies underneath
- SelfStudier and 3 replies underneath
- BilledMammal and 2 replies underneath (along with Nableezy's non-indented reply in same thread)
- Nableezy and 3 replies
- Tamzin's longer reply to an above 1 line comment
- Tamzin's longer reply to an above 1 line comment
- QED ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- In eight cases indenting and replies to those linked Diffs would help for clarity. The fixes are a matter of adding colons correctly to the comments (including whether it's a new paragraph or sub-indented reply). But I will live either way. The length of it, might make it worthwhile to ease reading for future closer
What happened to "Editor calling other editors who reject a source as racists and claiming religious discrimination"?
editThe "Editor calling other editors who reject a source as racists and claiming religious discrimination" thread (for example here) appears to have vanished. At the time I saw it last, there was evident consensus that a long-time problem editor should receive a TBAN. I received no notice about it closing. What happened here? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's archived here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1166. -- asilvering (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- So, it was automatically archived without action? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, looks like. Unless I'm missing someone, the only administrator who responded was Liz, and she explained why it was difficult for the topic to be actioned. -- asilvering (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- So, it was automatically archived without action? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)