Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Suggestion for improvement: thread parameter

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header

Please can we alter

'''You may use <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Wikipedia:Substitution|subst]]:[[Template:AN-notice|AN-notice]]<nowiki>}} ~~~~</nowiki></code> to do so.'''

which displays as

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

to

'''You may use <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Wikipedia:Substitution|subst]]:[[Template:AN-notice|AN-notice]]{{!}}thread=''thread name of the discussion''<nowiki>}} ~~~~</nowiki></code> to do so.'''

which will display as

You may use {{subst:AN-notice|thread=thread name of the discussion}} ~~~~ to do so.

This is so that the recipient (and other people reading the notice) can reach the relevant thread directly. See also Template talk:You should notify any user that you discuss#Suggestion for improvement: thread parameter and Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Header#Suggestion for improvement: thread parameter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This suggestion is for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Should talk pages of header subpages be redirected here?

I found it surprising that Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents redirects to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, but Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Header and Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Header don't.

Should these talk pages of header subpages for AN and ANI be redirected to WT:AN? There are no talk page archives there, which makes creating these redirects easier. The older discussions could there be archived to archive pages here. The latest one is Archive 17, but time-wise more appropriate earlier archives could be found. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I've archived old discussions from headers' talk pages, moved recent discussion here, and redirected the talk pages in these 23 edits. —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Closure for Dimadick discussion?

It was recently archived, but I think it would benefit from an admin takin a look. FortunateSons (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Admins encouraging bigotry and religious discrimination

I recently had a thread where I asked for a warning to be aimed at a user for, as he new editor in question put it, "insulting a religious group". Note that the thread closer, @CambridgeBayWeather:, said the user had also received a warning. I see no example of this. (The user received a warning from CambridgeBayWeather, which the user acknowledged, and then deleted.)

One of the administrators who also made anti-neopagan comments subsequently apologized for his behavior ([1]), @Cullen328:.

However, after reading the comments from admins on the thread, the new user in question, @Jared Hanson III:, has decided that it was never a problem that he was "insulting a religious group". In fact, after reading a few admins dismiss any concerns about his actions, some even joining in on it, Jared Hanson III posted the following on my user page:

Funny, the administrators at ANI didn't seem to think anything was wrong with my behavior, many of them actually lauded how I behaved myself and warned you they could go after you with the bite tag. Perhaps you need to get over yourself and stop having a victim complex and move on. I withdraw my apology as I did nothing wrong. ([2])

If it is in fact now OK to make discriminatory and bigoted comments about specific religious groups on Wikipedia, we ought to have some kind of chart outlining which are OK to discriminate against and express bigotry toward and which are not.

For example, I'm pretty sure the same comment made by Jared Hanson III about Jews, Muslims, and Christians would lead to an account getting indefinitely zapped pretty much immediately, apology or not.

But when it comes to neopaganism, some admins who responded in the above thread have, intentionally or not, encouraged this user to think it's OK to make derisive comments about adherents of specific religious groups. And we even had some admins there do exactly the same.

Pinging also @Yngvadottir:, @Ealdgyth:, who are involved with this discussion on separate discussions. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Is this in the right place? WT:AN? I'm going to inform Liz of its existence, since Cullen got a ping. Still looking for the warning; maybe it was on the article talk page? Yngvadottir (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I admit that I was in a bad mood at that moment for reasons unrelated to Wikipedia and allowed myself to make a sarcastic and dismissive comment, which I regret. When I woke up the next morning, I was disappointed in myself, and apologized to both of the editors on my user talk page. I again apologize to you, Bloodofox and regret that I made that snarky remark. I am truly sorry. Cullen328 (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again, Cullen. Jared Hanson III has continued to be uncivil, so I've just given him a level 3 warning. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Bloodofox is not helping their case, telling Jared Hanson III to delete their account. Both editors need to step away from the other, enforced if needed. CMD (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed as to the desirability of their walking away from each other, except that he's still throwing unsubstantiated accusations of sock puppetry. I suspect that AN/I being what it is, it was assumed that Bloodofox was asking for a block; asking for a stern word about civility was entirely justified, as subsequent actions have borne out. (Looking forward to their filing an SPI on me; I think it will be my first, always up for new adventures). Yngvadottir (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Which one is the he and where are the sock accusations? I don't see those here or at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bigotry at Talk:Germanic peoples. CMD (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Chipmunkdavis, by "he" I mean Jared Hanson III, at his talk page: see remarks at 02:16 and 03:18 in this state of the page and this edit summary for the second of two removals. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The warning was here to which they replied and then they removed it. Something they are permitted to do. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I have updated my summary above. :bloodofox: (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour and threatening by "M.Bitton"

I am new to Wikipedia, and some minutes in here I am already getting harrassed by another editor.

Under the article "Talk:Imane Khalif", some editors including myself were pointing that the article was not objective enough. Then "M.Bitton" started saying that the article was neutral and objective. When I asked him why he claims it to be, he refused to answer. He also claimed that I violated a policy, while I simply stated that controversies exist, without claiming if they were true or not.

When I asked him to explain his claims, he said that I attacked him personally and threatened me of reporting me, which I do not accept:

Me: Ok so this means you admit you are biaised. I will not ping you, but then refrain from stepping in this discussion without bringing anything constructive (since you neither explain why you pretend this article is objective, nor clarify the meaning of your ambiguous claims)

"M.Bitton": You're "new", so you get a pass, but further personal attacks will earn you a trip to WP:ANI.

Please refer to the point "too subjective article" under Talk:Imane Khelif - Wikipedia. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)