Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

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.

Create Page

Can someone create a page with this title please.

BAMIDELE OLUTUNJI OMOTOSHO Womotosho (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend you edit other articles first before starting a new one. Help:Introduction os a good place to start. As you've given a name you should look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) as we are very selective on who we give articles to. Secretlondon (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

It would have been preferable for this to be closed rather than archived by a bot. Heartfox (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to un-archive it, but please make sure the archived copy is removed so there are not duplicates. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Request an advice

Can I open a case at ANI based on Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Really? regarding reviewers not fulfilling their duties and pretending to be busy? As a result, my nominations were closed due to timeout without any fault of my own. These closed cases have undermined my efforts and hard work. I'm asking here because I'm not sure if my case is eligible for the ANI process. Thanks Hteiktinhein (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

No. We are all volunteers here, which means that if people are busy, then they're busy. We don't submit timesheets for our work on Wikipedia, and no editor is ever required to make an edit if they don't want to. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

So why Dyk is stand for? Hteiktinhein (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If you are only editing to get recognition at DYK then you are not here to build an encyclopedia. DYK is incidental to our work here: it is not the main point of it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes, you could open a thread asking for there to be consequnces for other users not doing what you want them to do, but the most likely result of such a thread would be a WP:BOOMERANG for you, so you probably shouldn't do that. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. This is absurd. Wikipedia is a volunteer project. We can stop editors from breaking policies, but we can't actively make any editors actively do any tasks. What would intervention even do? Do you think warnings, blocks or topic bans are going to help increase DYK participation? Sergecross73 msg me 12:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Are ANI notices necessary when requesting to revoke TPA?

A few times I've come to ANI to request TPA be revoked for blocked users. I have served such users with ANI notices because the instructions say to do so. But I am wondering if that is necessary. First since the user cannot comment at ANI, and second because I only do so in cases of obvious promotion, vandalism, or other bad-faith edits. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This can be useful for talk page watchers (and sometimes if an admin watches the talk page, and the request is reasonable, they can revoke a TPA), but of course the general efficiency is low, as of pretty much everything which happens on Wikipedia. Ymblanter (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)