Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC on word limit

{{archive top|The block is meant to prevent this type of contributions. It's not a topic ban and it hasn't been circumvented, but it proves why I refused to remove the block so far. The closer of a discussion affected by bludegoning is usually experienced enough not to let it have an effect other than warning the bludegoning editor. There is no need for an ANI report about this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)}}

Transclude everything below onto the AN/I page. I can't edit the page myself. Do not add the "Title:" and "Comment:" parts, leave those out.

Title: User:Turtletennisfogwheat for WP:BLUDGEONING

Comment: This user has been bludgeoning on the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I've changed it now) talk page. He has responded to nearly every single Oppose comment in the RFC thread, including mines. Going through the RFC section alone, I can see he has made around 35 comments. This is a very severe case of bludgeoning and he was also blocked for 2 weeks previously. He should be blocked. DotesConks (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:From what I can see, you have made the same number of edits (4) and added about twice as many bytes to the page as they have in the last week. Can you point out to us where the bludgeoning is? Donald Albury 21:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::@Donald Albury Just use google chrome search function and search up "Turtletennisfogwheat" on the talk page for RFK Jr. There you will see all of his replies to "Oppose" votes. You can also find it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Turtletennisfogwheat at his contributions. They are way more than 4. Also the 4 edits I made were responses to... his replies to my vote and that was before I knew he was bludgeoning the discussion. DotesConks (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I apologize for the error, I meant the talk page for the Robert F. Kennedy Jr article, not the one I linked above. DotesConks (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• I'd like to note that User:DotesConks is topic banned from Wikipedia space. In the past we've held that includes the talk pages for Wikipedia space. Not only are they posting here to try and circumvent that ban - they are doing so on a contentious topic, subject to editing restrictions - which as far as I can see are already being exceeded! Nfitz (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• :@Nfitz And how am I supposed to stop the bludgeoner then? I'd like the RFC that concluded that. DotesConks (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• :DotesConks isn't topic banned from Wikipedia space, they are partially blocked. Also, ToBeFree (the blocking admin) said on DotesConks' talk page that {{tq|I intentionally left Wikipedia Talk open, but I didn't think about it much. I thought there might be situations in which adding an edit request for a noticeboard may be something I shouldn't technically prevent.}}— Tenshi! (Talk page) 23:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::👍 DotesConks (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

On WP:AN, please move the archives and search bar outside the section titled "Open tasks". If necessary, make a new section for them. On a mobile device, it isn't clear where the search bar will be because it's hidden in "Open tasks".

I would also recommend auto-collapsing the "Noticeboards" navbox so mobile users don't need to do so much scrolling to get down to either the archives/search bar, or the actual discussions. TagUser (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this (WP:ani and wp:an) really an "all or nothing" situation regarding admin analysis & input? Is it really just 0% or 100%; with only these two scenarios:

1. 100% An admin looks at the report and (and maybe some comments) and simply decides what to do.
2. 0% Usually when there is a proposal and a bunch of comments, the admin is a mere closer, like an RFC, and none of their own analysis is allowed to influence that; such would be considered to be a dis-allowed supervote. And per a normal RFC, they can't close it if they posted in the discussion.

And if the only choice on #2 is 0%, should that be changed? North8000 (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm wondering what the reason for your question is. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think it’s pretty common to see discussions at AN and ANI tread a middle ground, with various admins participating and offering input as experienced, uninvolved observers, whose opinions will typically be treated as more decisive than those of involved participants. YMMV on whether these comments are given any more gravity than those of experienced, uninvolved community members also weighing in. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think there's a hard and fast bright line, but I have definitely felt that once threads reach an undefined critical mass of commenters, I don't feel comfortable acting on my own anymore. Whereas if there are only a couple of commenters, I do. I think this is more a social norm than a policy? Floquenbeam (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with Floq. Many times, it's a fairly obvious asked-and-answered situation. Part of being an experienced user, admin or not, is recognizing when it's not one of those situations. Mackensen (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Answering the above question, the "reason" for my question is simply for the good of Wikipedia and because it is interesting for me. Some particular situations led to my question, with one of them a discussion with the closer provided an unusually clear crystallization of the question. But I waited until they were all old before asking here to reinforce that this is not getting input for any particular situation. It was an ani that became very lengthy with lots of discussion; so lenghty and messy (but non acrimonious) that it couldn't get a close. I don't think that there were any admins involved in the discussion except for one who suggested just letting it age out but one individual prevented it from doing that. In the end it was closed and in a subsequent discussion the closer (who I consider to be of highest caliber) in essence (my words) said "I think the result was wrong but I just summarized the consensus which is what I was supposed to do."

:My own opinion is that if an admin is experienced, wiki-knowlegable, intelligent, does a thorough review, fair/impartial, not emotional, I would trust and value their decision more than any other in Wikipedia. And far below that would be lots of comments by people who mostly just looked at the conversation and didn't do a thorough review of the situation which is more groupthink and psychology than full analysis. North8000 (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

There is an user @Orangemike i just asked for his help for How to improve Actor Sunil Dutt's page. Because Dutt's page was incomplete and i have contributed by including important details even his Legacy section wasn't well written. I also included Tribute section of his with reliable sources but this editor removed the Tribute section. His replies -

1. A lot of your edits seem dedicated to puffing up his significance and adding unreliable sources. Those editors, by and large, have been improving it from your less impartial versions.

2. Look at recognized "Good Articles" on actors or politicians. I would also suggest finding other editors in India who are more experienced in this kind of thing. An article should not contain any material that suggests the editor was looking for praise, tributes, and compliments; but you keep adding that kind of thing back in. The chants resonated in the air by all the Congress party, the common people and communities like the Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus; Jab Tak Suraj Chand Rahega Sunil Dutt Tera Naam Rahega (As long as the sun and the moon exist, Sunil Dutt your name will remain) is embarrassing to read, much less to see in an encyclopedia article. We aren't talking about Mohandas Gandhi or even Vishram Bedekar here.

I told him that give me some time I will improve it. But in return he mentioned me in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.

What on earth is this? Did committed a crime? I just improved his page as he was a finest actor of Indian Cinema like Dilip Kumar, Devanand, etc. and his page wasn't well written unlike others. Even some of his information before were wrong and i corrected with proper source.

Moreover, he said that i am obssessed with this person and making his page a memorial.

This is really heart-breaking. Gooshh (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Orangemike is a very experienced Wikipedia editor, and looking at your edits in question, I would say that Orangemike has a much better understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines than you do. I strongly advise you to heed his advice and suggestions. Donald Albury 14:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::He was experienced i admit but he mentioned me on WikipediaCOnflictInterest(what the). He can explain it to me properly. I asked for his help for the improvement for the page but he will react like this i never knew. Gooshh (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Gooshh: have you notified Orangemike of this discussion? I know this isn't AN per se, this is AN's talk page, but I think notification would be at least good manners, even if not strictly a requirement. (Besides which, I'm not sure why this is being discussed on the talk page in the first place, but I guess you have your reasons.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think Donald Albury touches on those reasons. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with Donald. No doubt Orangemike is very knowledgeable editor. I apologise for my words. But please let me contribute to wikipedia. I will be more careful. Gooshh (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)