Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Reply link not working

Why does the "reply" link often not work on this page? I expect it to open a text box where I can directly add a response to another comment. Instead, it does nothing: no box, on pop up with an error, no indication of what might be wrong. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, it just worked for this. Did you mean the main noticeboard page? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the sub-page. I was at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- mikeblas (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mikeblas, is it at all possible that you have previously opened a reply on the page anywhere else? It doesn't even have to be in this particular load of the page - if you started writing a reply before, and then navigated away from the page and returned, a cached version of your unfinished reply will open up, which prevents you from starting any other replies until you've found it and hit "cancel". -- asilvering (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. If another textbox is open, the "Reply" link changes from blue to white. When the link isn't working, it's blue. -- mikeblas (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I still find that the "reply" link is unreliable. -- mikeblas (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

what guidance is available?

I was named in a recent (current) ANI. I'm having trouble participating because I can't find any documentation or guidance about the process -- particularly from the defending party's side. As anyone can imagine, serious accusations are very troubling. What resources are available? -- mikeblas (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know of any guidance. However, the idea is pretty simple. People should engage with what others have written and should respond by directly addressing the points they raise. Try to be brief. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Is there a reason even this much context isn't provided in the page itself? Imagine landing here for the first time, unfamiliar with the loose process, accused of serious transgressions. It seems unfathmoable that there's not a more formal process, and negligent that there's such scant documentation for what happens here. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I am pretty cynical about ANI but in my experience engaging with what others have written leads to accusations of bludgeoning even if it is pointing out that that the "incivility" was giving a new editor a CT notification. It is also possible to be simultaneously accused of bludgeoning and refusing to communicate. Personally I think posts to ANI should be screened to at least eliminate the utterly bogus. I realize that someone will now start talking about a lack of admins, but mira: here we are losing an admin. Elinruby (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Issue archived without being resolved

An issue that accused me of certain behaviour was moved to the archive without closure. Looks like this happens a lot -- is it status quo? The accuser stopped responding after questions began mounting about the accuracy of their reports. What processes are meant to be followed here? Just ... none? It's a free-for-all? Throw rocks, run away, get away with it? -- mikeblas (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It's pretty common for threads to be archived without being conclusively resolved, but that's not a bad thing in this case. The issues are being worked on, presumably, offline (of this board) and since no sanction proposals or anything carried, that's probably a better outcome, in your case. I wouldn't worry about it, unless you have a nagging question or concern, but I suggest handling that with specific pages or users. Andre🚐 14:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

My "nagging question or concern" about the process has been stated several times: the person who opened this case wasn't completely accurate in the evidence they gave, bullied me, and I think that materially distorted the reactions in the thread. They ignored several requests to set the record straight. Is my takeaway to be that kind of behaviour is acceptable here?

My question about the outcome also has been stated several times: if the prescribed behaviour is the only acceptable way to handle the editing cases it [tries to] target, and the community feels so strongly about it, why isn't that behaviour codified? -- mikeblas (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

That kind of behavior, in general, certainly isn't acceptable; not commenting on the particulars at this time, but I'm sympathetic to your feelings and I do think you have some reasonable evidentiary basis for such a feeling, although I think maybe there was some kind of, perhaps not adequate but better than nothing, apology and reconciliation in that thread? But if you want to pursue that issue further you'd probably be better off either filing your own new thread (after suitably attempting to clarify with that user directly), or better yet open a report at WP:AE. Better not to unarchive the earlier thread, in my opinion, as that will probably muddy the waters further. Also, yeah, it's not too uncommon for pile-ons and mob mentality on boards like this, but obviously one would hope that reason and rational voices will prevail in the end.

About the substance, I do think if you basically keep doing what you're doing but use one of the different templates like {{better source needed}} or {{broken citation}}, nobody will have a leg to stand on to complain about it. Andre🚐 19:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought "reason and rational voices would prevail", too. But here we are, at the ill-defined end.

To make it clear: I demand that the uncivil treatment be addressed, and the bogus claims be addressed. When I was summoned here, I was told I had to comply or face castigation. The person accusing me has escaped without obligation at all. There is no policy that I violated, so this is just a matter of opinion or style. If there's new consensus about that behaviour, great. But nobody should be treated this way, ever. Ever never again. Ever.

This not-process is absolute horse [feathers], and it's beyond biased. To not hold an abuser to task is reprehensible. What efforts are underway to make sure that AN/I is equitable or productive? -- mikeblas (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Not disagreeing and don't want to invalidate your feelings! I can't, unfortunately, provide the satisfaction as I lack any formal standing. I am simply another observer and an editor. Maybe someone else will have ideas. Andre🚐 03:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

As I understand things -- and I could be wrong about the procedural history here -- in a situation like this where someone starts an AN(/I) that is WP:BOOMERANG worthy but the discussion at the noticeboard is archived or closed before that happens, then basically your choices are to either do nothing/maintain the status quo; to wait for (or ask) another editor to create a new, separate noticeboard complaint about the accuser; or lastly to do it yourself. Just looking at this objectively, option 1 doesn't give you what you want, and option 2 doesn't appear to have happened. So if you want to see this be addressed, I suspect it will be incumbent on you to make the appropriate complaint about it. That's probably not an ideal workflow, but it's the one we've got. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not saying you're wrong, but how do you know? I can find pretty much zero documentation for how AN/I is meant to work. -- mikeblas (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Just my analysis of what your possible courses of action are (e.g. do nothing, wait for someone else to do something, or do something yourself -- these three things pretty much cover 100% of possibilities). If you want documentation, maybe another way to frame it is like this -- and please feel free to correct me if I accidentally misrepresent something here: you're in a conduct dispute with another user (in this case, the dispute is about their behavior in a prior AN/I complaint). Because this is a dispute, you start with dispute resolution. Because it is a dispute over conduct specifically, that dispute resolution pipeline is: discuss directly w/ other user on talk --> noticeboards --> arbitration. Now, personally in this case, I can understand why one might want to skip over the "discuss directly w/ other user" step -- in my opinion the original AN/I thread already satisfied that part of the process by virtue of the other user already being involved in that discussion. Others may well disagree w/ me there. In any event, the next step would be pursuing a complaint at AN or AN/I. The dispute resolution policy contemplates you doing that yourself: you may ask an administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user but of course someone else could do that for you as well. Nobody is obligated to do this though, so if you want to guarantee it gets discussed, you'll be best off doing it yourself. Regardless either way, Administrators and the community will look to see if you have tried to resolve the conflict before escalating (as I mentioned, I believe the previous discussion satisfies that) and they will look at your behavior as well as the behavior of the other editor or editors (which in this case hopefully should focus on the other editor's behavior given that yours has already been discussed, but the community can do what it wants there). And it's entirely possible that discussion could end with sanctions against the other editor -- or it could end with no consensus and no action, or even theoretically sanctions against you (I suspect that's unlikely given the prior discussion but I can't categorically rule it out). But either way, none of that happens unless someone starts that process and if nobody else is going to step up to do it, you need to decide for yourself whether you'll be that person or not. I hope that is helpful and doesn't come off as 'splaining or overly simplistic. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries at all -- and thank you for the explanation. I know what I can do (I can edit anything, LOL) but I don't know what I am allowed or expected to do. That is, I don't know which actions fit the not-process, and that's why I was expecting documentation. I'm not the first person to go through this process, for sure, so I was expecting some established etiquette or guidelines. You've provided that. -- mikeblas (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Report User:Remsense

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

---

User:Remsense stalked me and reverted my WP:GF edits to push for a WP:POINT. All I've done in my edits were some minor contributions, I have added a couple of serial commas and rearranged a few countries by alphabetical order, and nothing else. None of my edits were WP:SPAM and his/her persistent enforcement of his own WP:MOS is uncontructive and confrontational. The last thing Wikipedia wants is Grammar Nazis like this guy which makes our community an unwelcoming place for potential contributors. Please take the appropriate actions to resolve this issue. Thank you.

Link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_China_Sea_Islands&action=history

42.3.15.131 (talk) 02:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

See, those people that cite the MOS while not actually having read it, even they usually successfully find ANI when they're feeling frisky. Remsense ‥ 论 02:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I had noticed this and would have reverted 42.3.15.131 first contribution on South China Sea Islands myself. ChaseKiwi (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. This is not the place for this discussion and this thread should be closed by an administrator. Jumped in myself with out reading what the page was about. ChaseKiwi (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

For sure, we seriously need some administrator interventions here. 42.200.20.241 (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Which policy are you quoting here? Even User:Remsense has admitted that both editing styles are not mandatory. He has put up a weak argument by saying that he was trying to keep consistency. The irony is that serial comma before the word "and" is already used consistently in that article and I was only trying to keep consistency myself.

Futhermore, countries large or small are considered equal. Unless there is a specific reason not to, generally countries are listed by alphabetical order.

The bottom line is that my edits were WP:GF edits. His reverts were out of personal preference, which is a big No No. 42.200.20.241 (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There are two possible explanations that I can think of for this section: that 42.3.15.131 is both very touchy and very obtuse, or that they are a trolling sockpuppeteer. This can simply be discussed in good faith on the article talk page like any other content dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I edit via a dynamic IP address. How does that make me a WP:SOCK though? Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? Based on the same ground, can I suspect thay you are a WP:SOCK of User:Remsense? 42.200.20.241 (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

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