Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

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)

Not to mention that there appeared to be significant problems with the nomination, which is a BLP. Black Kite (talk) 15:19, 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)

Speedy archive AN(I) topics about LTA MAB?

I think we should archive topics discussing the LTA MidAtlanticBaby very early when we are done talking about them. Maybe a 1 day (or 1.5 day) archival time would suit?

At the moment, those threads are nothing but a magnet for that LTA, as it seems the discussions have run their course. Perhaps it would hurt a lot less to archive early than to block off all IP and new editors for literally the entirety of the time that those threads linger on the noticeboards for? — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. WP:RBI. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)