Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

What happened to "Editor calling other editors who reject a source as racists and claiming religious discrimination"?

The "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)

Change to mandatory notice

This is an aside to any code-smart editors reviewing this page but could you add a header to the mandatory code that is to be listed on participant's User talk page? I often check to see if these notices are posted and the messages are often buried in other discussions and go unseen. They need to be highlighted and separated by a header like ==[[WP:ANI]]== above the code but I'm not sure about adding it to the edit notice. What do you think? Any one brave enough to change the unchangeable? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no requirement to use a specific template to notify an editor of a discussion at AN, only that the user must be notified. If someone's started a discussion on a user's talk page, and then the issue shows up at AN, there is nothing wrong with adding a "by the way, this is now at AN, see [link]" to the existing discussion. Primefac (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)