Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Bureaucrats' noticeboard missing from Template:Editabuselinks?

Seems an obvious omission. Should be linked under the noticeboard section, but doesn't look like it will currently fit. ~Eliz81^(C) 01:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, WP:BN appears to lack a navigational header at the moment. Crossposted from Template talk:Editabuselinks. ~Eliz81^(C) 01:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the bureaucrat noticeboard have any particular relevance to editing abuse? I can't see that this board plays the same functions as the others listed on that template... WjBscribe 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. BN isn't really a 'public' noticeboard. We wouldn't want the bureaucrats board to attract the same vandalism that AN and AN/I currently suffer. Plus {{editabuselinks}} is pretty full as it is. — Edokter • Talk • 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, how about the RfA template?

This one specifically links the bureaucrats noticeboard anyway, and I think it's standard practice to have all pages included in a projectspace template transclude the template. It's just bizarre that there isn't a navigational header for the page. Presumably, transcluding this header onto WP:BN would only aid in navigating the site, not in encouraging vandalism? ~Eliz81^(C) 23:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done already. Anthøny 03:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

An experiment on WebSlices

I want to try out making the RfA report card a WebSlice, and am being bold and doing it (since it should not affect the functionality in any way). Please do not revert it within 15 minutes. Comments and suggestions (including whether to continue it after the fifteen minutes trial period) is welcome. --soum ^talk 17:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Test was successful - works like a charm. If you don't want this, feel free to remove it. Suggest any changes if you feel, I am all ears. :-P --soum ^talk 19:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Layout of this page

There is a bunch of white space between the intro and the TOC, then a bunch more white space, and the the first section starts. There has to be a better way to put everything on the page... without making it look so awkward. hmwithτ 15:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right - looks a little clunky. --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I realigned it. Is that better? Kingturtle (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kingturle. :) It's better, but I still see a ton of bunching. However, I don't know how we can improve it without removing or totally changing a table... unless no one minds the tables being along the right side of discussion sections. hmwithτ 13:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Now listed on Wikipedia:Coordination

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard will now be part of the noticeboard listings on Wikipedia:Coordination as of 12:15 (UTC) on this date. @harej 11:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Harej, this function does need more community input from time to time. MBisanz ^talk 14:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Before you get excited, Wikipedia:Coordination gets only like 30 hits a day. @harej 18:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI query

Is this request of 'crats reasonable or doable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Crats have traditionally declined to do such things because it would be an expansion of our powers without basis in policy and because it would further the notion that crats are super-admins and that admins are super-users and that therefore Wikipedia is a hierarchy. MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well :) Thanks. Any suggestions for how to get a responsible uninvolved admin to close that thread and determine consensus in 12 hours or so? Or does that put you on the 'crats-are-not-special spot? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, somehow admins (competent or not) tend to do things, so I might hope for that, or failing that, Arbcom. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the response; we'll see if ANI can generate more light than heat for once :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• If any Crat feels like acting in any way in the matter concerning me, I have no concerns, quibbles, and I waive making any complaints to such actions as out of process or inappropriate. I hope this will remove any doubts that may keep any from intervening or acting. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If a crat did act on this it'd be with his admin hat not his crat hat. Closing ANI is not a crat function, as MBisanz says. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Review request reverted and user blocked

I requested the review of the granting of a bot flag to a non-bot account.[1]

In response, I was accused of edit-warring and blocked. If this is not the place to post a request for the review of a improperly granted flag, where should I have posted this?

It clearly states on this board:

"Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please record any actions which require review below in a new section."

However, I was clearly made to feel that I was not allowed to join the discussion and that I was not allowed to request a review.

I would like this matter cleared up. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself. Over the last several months you've commented at a number of BRFAs on many different IPs in a way that comes across as hostile, aggressive, and uninterested in working with the community, bot operators, or BAG in advancing the aims of the project through the bot approvals process. In this instance, trying to start the fork discussion into multiple forums and reverting when people directed you to keep it in one forum was disruptive. MBisanz ^talk 18:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been commenting at RFBAs for years, long before the anybot debacle, even. Over the past few years BAG members have come across as hostile, aggressive, and uninterested in any input from IP members of the community, to the point of simply approving requests in the face of any input by IPs members. This has always been a problem at RFBA, and this is why things like thousands and hundreds of errors occur in the first place, hostility to community input.

It's not the same discussion. The discussion at RFBA you effectively closed to all discussion because you simply approved the request by getting a bot flag as soon as possible and granting an unlimited trial that was the same as approving the RFBA. The review request I posted here was for a review of the flag being given in the first place, and to request the flag be removed, since your "extended trial," was in fact the approval and the bot had completed its task, the flag on the non-bot account was no longer required, and it should be removed because it was not within the scope of the RFBA to grant bot flags to non-bot accounts to do an end run around the process to get a task done without community consensus. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've already explained at the BRFA why it was within policy and was approved by a different bureaucrat. This is really getting tiresome. Lots of people come through BRFA, BAG members, bot operators, and community members alike, and none (that I know of) hold the extreme interpretation of policy that you do. Could you please not bludgeon the process? MBisanz ^talk 18:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an extreme interpretation of policy; you yourself, before you said it was within policy, said it wasn't.

"I agree this task doesn't fit precisely within the four corners of the policy, but it is the type of thing we want to keep out of recentchanges and the grant will be a temporary grant only for the duration of the test, so I think it is acceptable. MBisanz"

You granted the entire task under the guise of an extended trial. That also doesn't fit within policies. You disagree my contributing at RFBA, and this does tend to irritate people. I'm not going to read a wiki essay; they tend to be lame. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts are simple, the user in question was 100% correct in doing what he did. We have specific policies and common practice (example WP:MEATBOT) where semiautomatic or even non-automatic actions can be treated as a bot. I think in this case your actions are borderline trolling and you dont have a leg to stand on with regards to your argument. I would much rather see a user take careful cautions actions than cause a major disruption. Please note we also have some bots that are specifically not given/use the bot flag due to the nature of their actions. PS all Administrators can preform rollbacks and hide them from the recent changes field via a special url parameter. Werieth (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Because something isn't "precisely" within policy doesn't mean it's against policy either. The trial had the purpose of testing the script on a large sample of AFC submissions to look for errors, which is a valid form of a test. Like I (and I believe others) have said before, your wiki-lawyering is fatiguing to trying to those trying to help out the project in a generally thankless area, but you've made it clear you aren't interested in listening. MBisanz ^talk 18:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

So I get told that it is not within policy, then that it is, have my questions ignored, be blocked when I post a review request for a bot flag? Why? Oh, because I'm an IP editor and MBisanz clearly does not want his/her actions scrutinized by an IP editor? If all that was said at the RFBA is correct, then the flag should have been discussed in the other locations, or, if it's so clear-cut that I deserve to be called a troll, then someone could have included that information in the relevant discussions page. Instead, what I get is everyone treating me like shit because I am trying to understand something and think that caution is warranted. I follow processes, and I get blocked and told I am an asshole, basically, for following processes?

How do you expect to retain editors when the policies should not be followed, because you are a troll if you do, but then you get blocked because you didn't follow a policy? -68.107.137.178 (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't blame the IP editor for the fact that their ISP reassigns their IP address frequently, but it is quite confusing to read the discussions in which they participate; is it two (or more) IP editors agreeing with one another, or just one IP editor who's very persistent? It may be time to limit that particular forum to registered editors. As a side note, I have to agree with Matt that the phrasing the IP sometimes uses (e.g. "Now that you've finished your task with an extended trial end-run around the rules..." [2]) is needlessly aggressive and hostile, which is especially ironic given the IP's accusations that other people are making Wikipedia appear hostile. I'm not quite to the point where I'd support a topic ban on this editor for constantly (in their own words) irritating the bot ops, BAG members, and other participants in bot discussions, but I'm getting closer to it every time I see a conversation like this one. Whether the bot flagging was good or bad, there's just really no need to initiate this much discussion over a decision to assign the bot flag to an editor for a two-day period. 28bytes (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't listen? MBisanz, you tell me it's not within policy, it's within policy, I'm a troll, a wikilawyer, I should be blocked for edit warring since I was IP hopping. Your antagonism to my participating in RFBA is absolutely clear, and you continue to treat everything I post there as if I don't belong because you don't want an IP editor scrutinizing your actions and you are totally willing to spend as much time as necessary calling me names, but you won't once treat a question I ask at RFBA as if I have any right to ask it.

Now, you're just provoking me here to get me blocked, so that I cannot actually raise this issue with any one else.

Figures. Hat it, MBisanz wins again. Community consensus 0. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As the flagging crat, I can't say that I'm actively involved in the bot approvals process. However, I would not have granted the flag had I not been satisfied that it was within policy to do so for the extended trial; WP:BOTFLAG states that the flag may be granted upon BAG request, and bots have consistently run with a flag during a trial of a second (or later) task. For that matter, it wasn't too difficult to find various and sundry examples of bots running with a flag during their first trial. I'd hope that if there were a violation of policy here (or of an alleged community consensus, for that matter), we'd be hearing about it from more than a single IP address. -- Pakaran 19:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my concerns, rather than insulting me. The examples you give, the first two contain links to a discussion about the task; this bot did not; and the third one is rather old (2009), but I will look at it.

I did post a request a few years ago that RFBAs more consistently link to community discussions on the task and got a positive response to that, and it has been a great help in the process to the few editors who comment at RFBA. I tend to only edit articles outside of participating in RFBA, and I am not up on all of these policy areas; it is difficult to understand the community consensus when there is no discussion about consensus linked. This RFBA does not have a linked consensus discussion.

The flag was for the entire task, though, because the extended trial was the entire task, so it was not really a bot flag for the trial, but a bot flag to allow the task to be completed. I consider this to be outside of consensus, among other things.

RFBA is not very welcoming to outside comments and hearing about a policy violation from a single user may be all you get. The process is very antagonistic to outside input. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the last one, and I think one can assume consensus for the task in a roundabout way, because editors have to tag the images into the action category. I think it helps out a lot at RFBA for outsiders to the process to see a link to the community consensus, and it removes the drama of name calling outsiders who come by and question what is going on. In this RFBA that I am concerned about there was no link to a consensus discussion on the task, and it was handled in a way that the task was approved without clearly stating that it was approved, by giving the non-bot account a bot flag for the duration of the extended trial necessary to complete the entire task. I think the RFBAs you cite are substantially different. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Snacks and such

After reading the notice here - I have a question: I found the snacks and club soda, but was wondering if anyone thought to bring some sweet-tea? If not, bottled water would be fine. — Ched :  ?  13:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Shake the club soda until it goes flat. By the way, you just volunteered for snack committee next craty chat! -- Avi (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh snap! And I don't have a thing to wear. OK - well, look for me on an upcoming version of "peopleofwalmart.com". (yes, that's a real thing) — Ched :  ?  15:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Closure of the Useight discussion

As the note at the top of this page indicates, this page is for discussion of how the noticeboard operates. The following comment from Lugnuts was removed from a closed discussion because it was closed:

@Nihonjoe: - see WP:INVOLVED. You close this because you don't like it. You really are a piece of work. Fucking sickening. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:46 am, Today (UTC−6)

This is the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, so any bureaucrat is WP:INVOLVED in any discussion that happens on it. Any bureaucrat may also close any discussion on this noticeboard. This particular discussion was going nowhere because Lugnuts chose to ignore the comments of many different editors, including a number of bureaucrats, and continue arguing the same thing over and over. If Lugnuts (or any other editor, for that matter) wishes to change the policy that was being discussed, they should go start an RFC in the appropriate location (such as WP:VPP), as was suggested multiple times.

So, again, go start that RFC, Lugnuts. You apparently care deeply about this issue. Go write up a good argument supporting your opinion and put it to Wikipedia as a whole. Do not do that here (on WP:BN or this talk page). Since it would directly impact bureaucrats, it's best to have the discussion at the Village pump so more people will notice it and participate. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2018

The article on Ashok Vajpeyi contains contentious material about living persons that is poorly sourced and is potentially libellous. Sahityap (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

A question

Why isn't the {{Noticeboard header}} template displayed on the page? It seems kinda weird that it is not on there. funplussmart (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you ask these sorts of questions. It has Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Header transcluded.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Well why isn't the normal one transcluded as well? funplussmart (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure because otherwise it would be too much. The current header already takes half a screen on a large screen. Plus, BN is not a noticeboard in the traditional sense and new users are unlikely to arrive here. Regards SoWhy 16:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Most likely because there is no requirement to have {{Noticeboard header}} appear on every noticeboard. BN is not the only noticeboard not to include it. The editors that regularly use each noticeboard have likely constructed the page over years of consensus to make it best serve the purpose for which its intended. BN is a highly specialized noticeboard and the need to easily navigate from different noticeboards due to things like referrals is fairly low. Mkdw ^talk 17:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. I don't understand why people are attacking me for asking this question. funplussmart (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

You asked a question, you got an answer, and now you are claiming that somebody attacked you? Drama Queen. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

​I'm the one (I assume) FPS thinks is attacking him, as this thread was one of the examples I used here of his general run-before-you-can-walk good-faith disruption over the last few days. ‑ Iridescent 23:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments at resysop requests

Hopefully this doesn't seem too bureaucratic, but perhaps we could clarify "what [sort of comment] is appropriate to put on [a resysop request]"? It appears some editors may be confused on the matter.

Historically, it has been acceptable to have comments from non-crats which were either "welcome backs" or "serious concerns" - this is reasonable as it allows our bureaucrats to be made aware of possible pending complaints or potential clouds, and gives them a fuller picture to act on.

The concept that welcomes would be appropriate but valid concerns would not be, is somewhat odd.

For future benefit, is this still the status quo? If not, what sort of non-crat comments are appropriate to put on a resysop request? - TNT ^💖 18:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: certainly welcome would be any concerns directly related to the evaluation process such as: reasons to suspect the account is compromised, reasons the editor may be disqualified from the process (duration, arbcom ruling, etc), as well as references to "clouds" that were present during the prior resignation. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure "telling the community what not to discuss on a noticeboard" is ever going to prove successful and amicable. I don't think resysop discussions have proven significantly disruptive thus far. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 21:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't call having a Two Minutes Hate on WP:BN good, but allowing it seems better than any alternative. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

IANAC, but I'd imagine it would generally be preferable to hear something potentially irrelevant than miss something important. Comments should ideally be made with the intent of affecting an outcome, rather than just piling on or taking a shot. In some sense a double standard is okay — inane and irrelevant friendly comments should always be more welcome than inane and irrelevant unfriendly comments — but I should think anything potentially relevant or valid is, well, relevant and/or valid. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

One less Admin?

Yesterday, I'm sure there was 1202 Admins and today there are 1201. What have I missed? Just curious. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Fred Bauder--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Ymblanter: - I see that now. Cheers for clearing that up for me! JMHamo (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It's happened again. Just a few days ago there were 1,191 Admins and today there's 1,190. Any ideas, just curious JMHamo (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

[3] Lourdes 17:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Watchlist this page, and you'll know who it is each and every time. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Amanda, very cool bit of info that I was unaware of.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  03:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

+1, I didn't know about that either; that is super helpful!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 04:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I mean it's a little delayed, but you still know. It updates for the admin highlight script. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The last change it shows is WOSlinkerBot being removed from admin status. While WOSlinkerBot is shown at User rights log as being granted admin status, Special:User rights log does not show the admin bit being removed from WOSlinkerBot. Does it mean that our logs do not capture automatic rights removal (or am I missing something)? Thanks, Lourdes 05:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

"temporary, until 19:57, 6 January 2019" -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Lourdes: automatic removals (which we do not have) would be logged, however expirations (which DQ identified as taking place here) do not generate a new log entry (just like how expiring blocks or protections do not create a new log). — xaosflux ^Talk 12:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks xaosflux. This is news to me. I guess expiring rights should be made to generate a log entry; it allows effective tracking of such rights. Lourdes 03:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Lourdes: my point is they don't need one - just like we don't need to track unprotection a page or unblocking of a user when the prior action expires. It is simply obvious by looking at the log of the object. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks xao. Lourdes 05:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Invisible RfA?

Why does the crat tasks table say that there's an RfA, when there isn't actually one? SemiHypercube 02:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Cyberbot I is currently disabled. Dekimasuよ! 02:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

What the headers of some talkpages feel like to get through

Dekimasu, thanks for fixing it and with the quick response! I'm confused at how the header works, I probably couldn't have easily found it myself! SemiHypercube 02:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

"One-click archiving"

@Cyberpower678:: we have the archiving bot intentionally set to 5 days to allow for scrutiny and review. I don't think the page is so cluttered as to require shuffling off of threads sooner than has been set. –xeno^talk 13:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Xeno, It was pretty intensely cluttered IMO, so I didn't see any harm archiving the closed threads that have seen no activity in the last few days. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

9 threads is not intense clutter. –xeno^talk 13:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It was a lot higher compared to how the BN usually is. But I'll stop.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Much obliged. Jeez, look at archive 41 - puts it in stark contrast - what a shame. –xeno^talk 13:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Xeno, indeed —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Help with userspace cleanup

Would it be possible for some 'crat to move these scratch pages, R-08 and R-02, somewhere under my old RfA? The pages were referenced in the RfA so I do not think it would be appropriate for me to {{db-userreq}} them or move them and correct the links myself but I do not want to keep them in my scratchpad either. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 18:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: you can go ahead and move them to subpages of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley, then edit your old RfA to bypass the redirects, then CSD the redirects. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Will do. Jbh ^Talk 18:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley/Aux01 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley/Aux01. I'll clean up the redirects in the RfA when I get to a real computer. Jbh ^Talk 20:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

"User talk:Old unused account 101001" listed at Redirects for discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect User talk:Old unused account 101001. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 19#User talk:Old unused account 101001 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Some useful context: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=848959703 28bytes (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Dude, just delete this. We don't need to discuss everything. Natureium (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Heh, it's an RFD notification, so this is typical, not a discussion, just a pointer to the forum of discussion. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Options: A. leave it as a redirect because who cares?; B. replace it with a novel about how at one point the account was user:bureaucrats but that was changed because...; C. delete the page; D. discuss it forever. Natureium (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I went with E. blank it and close RFD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need an independent review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear Admins,

I need an independent review for below case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mirhasanov

The ANI issued by users without providing proper evidences and supported by admin in an organized way following my ban from the topic. I tried my best to justify but, the ban imposed without my participation. I do think that the imposed ban is not fair. Moreover, admin didn't explain me what tban means and he waited me to make a mistake in order to document them and justify his decision. I believe admins must guide users not trick them. Considering all unfair action conducted by admin, I am asking an independent person who can help sort the dispute. Sincerely, Mirhasanov (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I hate to play "pin the tail on the correct noticeboard" but what you want is WP:AN, not here. Primefac (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.