Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Request to re-open RFC: oh, let's try Tamzin's idea of splitting the votes
Line 387: Line 387:


Because there was still active, daily participation from new editors, because the trend line was towards consensus rather than away from it, and because the closing statement didn't explain the no-consensus result or otherwise follow [[WP:CLOSE]] or [[WP:ACD]], I think this should be re-opened and allowed to continue running until participation dries up, and then re-closed. This will be more efficient than having to re-run the RFC later, and so will save editor time in the long run. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 19:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Because there was still active, daily participation from new editors, because the trend line was towards consensus rather than away from it, and because the closing statement didn't explain the no-consensus result or otherwise follow [[WP:CLOSE]] or [[WP:ACD]], I think this should be re-opened and allowed to continue running until participation dries up, and then re-closed. This will be more efficient than having to re-run the RFC later, and so will save editor time in the long run. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 19:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

===Involved comments===

===Uninvolved comments===

Revision as of 19:15, 2 November 2023

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

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

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
    CfD 0 0 0 0 0
    TfD 0 0 8 0 8
    MfD 0 0 0 0 0
    FfD 0 0 1 0 1
    RfD 0 0 15 0 15
    AfD 0 0 1 0 1


    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (39 out of 8768 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    2024 Tyre airstrikes 2024-11-01 02:48 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade
    Mahmoud Bakr Hijazi 2024-11-01 01:52 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade
    0404 News 2024-11-01 01:50 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade
    Assassination of Imad Mughniyeh 2024-11-01 01:47 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade
    Rashad Abu Sakhila 2024-11-01 00:09 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade
    Israeli airstrikes on Al Qard Al Hasan 2024-10-31 23:51 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade
    List of best-selling boy bands 2024-10-31 22:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter
    Sporting CP 2024-10-31 20:23 2025-05-01 12:37 edit,move Well, that didn't take long. Black Kite
    October surprise 2024-10-31 18:52 2025-10-31 18:52 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement of WP:CT/AP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Sadh 2024-10-31 18:22 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
    Kamala 2024-10-31 17:02 2024-11-14 17:02 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba
    Hebraization of Palestinian place names 2024-10-31 09:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq
    Beit Hanoun wedge 2024-10-31 09:39 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq
    Baalbek 2024-10-30 22:09 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter
    Ada and Abere 2024-10-30 21:55 2024-11-03 21:55 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Susanna Gibson 2024-10-30 19:58 indefinite edit,move WP:BLP issues. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanna Gibson (2nd nomination). Asilvering
    29 October 2024 Beit Lahia airstrike 2024-10-30 19:00 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Ganesha811
    Hwang Hyun-jin 2024-10-30 13:09 2024-11-06 13:09 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Goodnightmush
    Khushali Kumar 2024-10-29 21:30 indefinite edit,move Restoring some protection after creating redirect Liz
    Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism 2024-10-29 20:05 2025-01-29 20:05 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/AP Ingenuity
    Orakzai 2024-10-29 19:32 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
    Bangash 2024-10-29 19:29 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
    Bengalis 2024-10-29 19:24 indefinite edit Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case
    Zaher Jabarin 2024-10-29 19:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Killing of Shaban al-Dalou 2024-10-29 18:36 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Template:MusicBrainz release group 2024-10-29 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, My Life for Iran 2024-10-29 17:26 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Palestine and the United Nations 2024-10-29 17:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Israel won't exist in 25 years 2024-10-29 17:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Down with Israel 2024-10-29 17:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Donald Trump and fascism 2024-10-29 17:20 2025-01-29 20:05 edit,move Persistent vandalism; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Tim Sheehy (businessman) 2024-10-29 17:03 2024-11-12 17:03 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: restrict BLP violations from non-XC until after the election OwenX
    Mykolas Majauskas 2024-10-29 16:25 2025-04-29 13:09 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/BLP -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian
    Tony Hinchcliffe 2024-10-29 01:19 2025-01-29 01:14 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/AP ToBeFree
    Allegations of genocide in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon 2024-10-28 20:37 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Kurdish–Turkish conflict 2024-10-28 19:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/KURD; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Macrobiotic diet 2024-10-28 16:00 2024-11-28 16:00 edit,move Persistent spamming: Per a complaint at WP:AN3 EdJohnston
    User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 34 2024-10-28 13:58 indefinite edit,move Fish and karate
    Fusion power 2024-10-28 03:46 2024-11-04 03:46 move Liz

    Audit of indef IP blocks

    Moved from WP:AN/I
     – Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 02:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I've found many indef IP blocks on Special:BlockList, some of them are obviously wrongly set, while some indef blocks for open-proxy seemed to be harsh. e.g. an indef block on 2016 for an IP as open proxy, but these addresses may not allocated to open proxy today. I'd like to ask for help if some sysops want to clean them up. -Lemonaka‎ 15:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    information Note: Link to the filtered list — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You may find this list more useful. ST47 (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lemonaka: I know that @Yamla, @RoySmith, @zzuuzz, and I have all undone some of these lately. But it's tedious working through them, and a lot of the old proxy blocks are still valid. If you want to put together a table of old IP blocks, the reason for blocking, and why you think the reason no longer applies, feel free to drop that at WP:AN. I'm especially open to undoing old schoolblocks that have been in place for more than half of Wikipedia's existence. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I usually allow account creation on long-term school blocks these days and would like to see that become common practice. If it was up to me, that's what I'd do with most of the old school blocks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I got into this a while ago and then lost steam. In general, I agree that many of these should be cleared out, and policy for new school blocks should probably limit them to a year, or at most several years, except in extraordinary situations. RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Listing:
    1. 2600:1700:1B21:76C0:0:0:0:0/64--Too harsh for one strike, bad reason
    2. 2600:1700:1B21:76C0:977:1FB8:DD1D:4B7D --Too harsh for one strike, bad reason
    3. 2A01:4C8:1084:CFA3:C5B5:4AF4:1A01:595C --indefinite for first vandalism
    4. 79.43.155.16 --indefinite for first vandalism
    5. 2409:4063:4382:AAC0:0:0:0:0/64--indef for first vandalism
    6. 68.112.39.0/27 indefinate old school block
    7. 192.235.8.3 Indefinate old school block
    -Lemonaka‎ 01:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    God they are so many, I'd like to list them later. -Lemonaka‎ 01:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're doing this now, this isn't really an incident. I'll move to AN. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 02:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, so I've looked through all of the 2023 blocks and some of 2022. Most look like simple misclicks. I was going to ping everyone who'd made them, but that's a lot of hassle for all involved, so instead, unless anyone objects in the next day or two, I'd like to start bumping down (to a shorter term or time served) any entries at User:ST47/indef-blocked ips that are for simple reasons like vandalism or edit warring, unless there's a long history of disruption.

    For ones that may have been intentional, probably worth asking individually:

    -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 02:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tamzin In addition to check after being blocked, some policy needed to be updated to limit indefinite block of an IP. The blocking policy for indeffing IP is currently ambiguous.
    Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses said

    IP addresses used by blatant vandals, sockpuppets and people issuing legal threats should never be blocked for long periods unless there is evidence that the IP address has been used by the same user for a long time.


    But a better way should suggest how long it may be blocked, or the range of length the block can be. Even open proxy may not be indeffed, a better way is using BOT to scanning them when starting to edit. School blocks may lengthen every time they blocked but may not be blocked indefinitely on the first time. There's really lot to discuss about. -Lemonaka‎ 02:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the current wording of WP:IPBLENGTH is pretty clear: "IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked". Occasional exceptions arise, and very statically-owned proxy ranges are one of them. Very static IPs/ranges used by LTAs are another. Institutional IPs with extraordinarily high rates of vandalism may be another. If I were to add one thing to the essay it would be something like "In a given year there will usually be fewer than 5 valid indefinite blocks of IP addresses." -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 02:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but what about a 20 or 30 years of block against an IP address, are they legitimate? We have 10-year block though. My proposal is to set a maximum blocked length and standardize the process for using indefinite IP blocks. -Lemonaka‎ 03:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The de facto maximum block length for IPs is 10 years. There's a report somewhere of unusually long blocks. They either get shortened or converted to indef. I don't think there's any need to standardize something there. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 03:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I concurred. This may origin from the difference between statutory law and case law. -Lemonaka‎ 04:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tamzin - ......DANG IT! I managed to let myself indefinitely block an IP address... Twice! I should really take some time and add code to my scripts to give them the ability detect if the indefinite I'm about to place is on an IP, then spit an error back... Anyways, thanks for going through and auditing the IP blocks over the last year. This is something I try to do at least once a year, while posting the results here. So... thanks for saving me from having to do that! :-) Those IP addresses should not have been indefinitely blocked. Enough time has elapsed since the block was applied (both in December 2022), so I've removed the block on both of them.
    For the record, you are 100% correct. Unless an extremely extenuating circumstance completely out of the norm exists for a certain IP or situation, IP addresses and IP address ranges should not be indefinitely blocked. It's okay to set the IP block many years out, so long as they are set to eventually expire (shoot, there are a pile of school IPs that are on 5, 7, even 10 year blocks). This is the reason why I performed yearly audits, just as you're doing right now. Again, thanks for putting forth the hard work and effort, and for keeping us honest. ;-) Best - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably made a mistake there; I might have been in the middle of indeffing some registered accounts. Since it's been more than six months, I have unblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't make a mistake, to be honest; when an IP address spends several days subtly vandalizing a range of pages, and upon being blocked proceeds to continue for several more days, I'm not terribly interested in wasting my time sending more than one warning or debating whether "literally infinite" or "long enough that they never come back" is the right option to pick. The result is the same- it's an IPv6 address, they'll have a different one if they ever want to edit productively in a few years, and I've never seen an ip address get 2+ warnings during a vandalism spree and decide to become a productive editor. If consensus is that "long enough that they never come back" is the right dropdown option, then sure, dropped it to 1 year, and I'll do my best not to re-offend. --PresN 14:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @PresN the issue is that IP addresses get reallocated over time. Even static addresses don't last forever; carrier networks get reconfigured, customers change carriers, etc. For a typical residential customer, 1 year is plenty long, and if abuse persists after the year, 2 or 3 should be about the limit. Even for something like an open proxy running out of a data center, it's hard to imagine any scenario where blocks longer than that make any sense. RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My three on that list are all partial blocks from specific articles of clearly static IPs for long term disruption to said articles and I believe they should stay as is. Canterbury Tail talk 15:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Canterbury Tail I'm looking at the first one. The "long term edit war" consists of 5 edits over about 13 months. My general rule for blocking IPs is to block them for as long as it appears they've belonged to the same user, because that's a first-order approximation to how dynamic the allocation. Using that rule, a block of 1 year would have made sense here.
    For the second one, the IP went active 6 weeks before your block. Blocking it indef was clearly an overreaction. Block it for a couple of months and see what happens. If they come back, a reblock of a year could be justified. But all making it indef does is at some point in the future when it get reallocated to somebody else, you've created a problem that somebody else will need to sort out. RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Canterbury Tail: P-blocks are less of an issue, but Roy's comment aboveintended referent was cmt. of 15:00, but applies to cross-post of 15:41 too still applies. Sooner or later they won't be the same person. 168.195.126.171 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) has only been in use 18 months; 50.204.200.142 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) had 2 edits in 2015 and then everything else was in the 6 weeks before you blocked (and is a p-block from all of mainspace, so closer to a siteblock); 80.111.4.80 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))'s disruptive edits run December '21 to June '23 (including after the p-block). I would say set the first to 2 years from most recent edit, unblock the second, and make the third a siteblock running to 18 months from most recent edit. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 15:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Great minds, @RoySmith. Or something like that... ;) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 15:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Easy ones done

    Okay, per the above, I have handled 22 cases from 2022 and 2023 where the block appeared to be a routine IPblock where indef was set accidentally. Based on the principle of blocking for roughly as long as the IP has been in use by the person in question, 17 were commuted to time served and 5 were converted to temporary blocks. That leaves:

    Thank you all in advance. Next round, old schoolblocks! -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 03:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tamzin: - I have unblocked 45.129.234.49. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamzin: go ahead and unblock if you like--it's been a while now. Drmies (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Think I had some accounts in the mix when I issued mine, must have hit them all with the same hammer by mistake. Shortened that one. Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also to note there are a few IP blocks done by WMF as office actions. Can you maybe consult with WMF before shortening the block? I think it might be accidental.
    But to be honest, I don't think there is anything wrong with an indefinite IP block as long as the IP is able to still appeal the block and show that it no longer relates to them. For example, with open proxies, we can have those blocked indefinitely until it is confirmed that the IP no longer belongs to an open proxy. Awesome Aasim 16:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing that was intentional on the WMF's part, but I'll drop a ping to @WMFOffice and/or @JSutherland (WMF)​ to confirm. For context, the blocks in question are 36.227.120.0/22 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and 1.163.0.0/18 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). They are the only outstanding Office blocks on enwiki, at least of the User:WMFOffice epoch. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 18:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Are indef IP p-blocks okay?

    So, Canterbury Tail above and Cullen328 on my talkpage have both expressed the opinion that indef P-blocks of single IPs (or IPv6 /64s) are acceptable. I rarely find myself disagreeing with either admin, but I think Wikipedia:Blocking policy § IP address blocks (policy) and Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses § Indefinite blocks (explanatory essay) are pretty clear here. Now, both of those sections predate the use of partial blocks, and one could make the case that p-blocks should be a carve-out. They're definitely, on balance, less disruptive, and I don't dispute for instance Black Kite's several indef p-blocks of disruptive /16s from a few year-related articles. But in the latter case there is, as I understand it, years of disruption. So in short my answer to this question is they're less problematic, but should only be used for long-term disruption. Otherwise, many individually not-too-bad indef p-blocks add up to a headache over time, as has happened here. (Note: I will leave a cross-post to this section at WT:BLOCK.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 18:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but one year blocks would be better. IP's change over time. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I've not clearly expressed my view, but the odds of an IP returning to the same article with a different user and wanting to edit is extremely low. Like you're better investing in lottery tickets low. The only exception to that is IPs that represent institutions like schools, universities and the like. Canterbury Tail talk 19:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Canterbury Tail: I like what you said better.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes In my view, pageblocking an obviously disruptive IP from one specific article is dramatically different than a sitewide block. Like using a scalpel instead of a sledgehammer. But if the consensus is that indefinite pageblocks of IPs are not acceptable, then I will limit such blocks to one year. I hope that other editors will comment. Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will go with consensus, quite happily. But it is my opinion that it's non-harmful. Canterbury Tail talk 19:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that there isn't much collateral damage to the average individual p-block of this nature. The issue is with assessing them in aggregate. Someone (me in this case) has to check periodically if indef IP blocks are still needed. I guess, yes, we could just ignore partial ones, but we do plan for Wikipedia to be around for quite a while, I hope, and sooner or later someone will have to take a look. (I mean, maybe not, with potential IP masking or an end to IP editing, but who knows where either of those might go.) So that's a nontrivial downside compared to little chance of benefit beyond the short term. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 19:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they're definitely a lot more ok than site blocks, but I still wouldn't see the reason to block for e.g. 3 or 5 years instead of indefinitely. I think it's fine go straight to a long pblock rather than escalating with site-wide blocks. Galobtter (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't it be better to assess on a case-by-case basis, say if someone requests removal of the partial block?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say most people when they see block are not going to appeal it. But I see the argument - but at the same time a 5 year block would do 99% of what an indefinite block would do. Galobtter (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See here's one thing with my view on indefinite blocks (not just P-blocks but site wide as well.) They're not permanent. They're until there's a reason to lift it. I think a lot of admins are more likely to lift an indefinite block for good reason than an X time block. There's a feeling that a definite length block should often stay, but an indefinite (again not permanent) can be negotiated and adjusted. I tend to use indefinite as a tool in blocks to ensure editors don't just return after time served and continue doing what they were doing when their behaviour isn't acceptable, but instead need to convince the community in order to re-obtain their editing privileges. Canterbury Tail talk 21:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally speaking, no they're not OK and we shouldn't encourage them in any way (by way of 'carve-out' or similar). They're bad practice because they generate work for people reviewing them, or even not reviewing them as others get reviewed. Tamzin has it right, IMO. Do us all a favour and just set them long time, thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen several three-year site blocks for some IPs and more partial blocks for other IPs. That is probably a pragmatic equivalent for indefinite but I wouldn't object to five years if someone thought that was warranted. More than one year is definitely called for in some cases where an obsessive IP has more or less no useful edits but who periodically returns to their favorite topic. Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned in the precursor thread to this, what I do is look at the IP's history and try to figure out how long this IP has been associated with the same user. I block for approximately that long. No need to obsess about the details, as long as I've got the right one out of {1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 1 year}. For residential IPs, even static allocations will change over time as networks get reconfigured or customers change carriers. And even if they don't, in the common case of a kid playing with mommy's or daddy's computer, they're likely to lose interest (or just plain grow up a bit) by next year. In the case of a school, if it's one particular student who's being a jerk, they're likely to have moved on in a year, or certainly in a few years.
    In summary, if the IP has no history, make a reasonable length block. If at the end of that, problems recur, by all means make a longer block. But in almost all cases, a year is about as long as you want to go and it's almost inconceivable that anything longer than 2 or 3 years can be justified. RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In general I agree, and reviewing my logs it appears I follow that procedure. However, I have seen occasional three-year blocks that I agreed with, I think particularly for what appeared to be open proxies. Sorry, can't find an example now. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First, how partial is "partial"? A block from one article is a very different beast than, say, a block from all of mainspace. But in both cases, the use of an indef on an IP, whether partial or sitewide, should be very rare. Remember that while all of us here know what IP addresses are and how they work, many (probably most) Internet users have no idea how networking actually works, and even if they've heard of an "IP address" they have no idea what it actually is or how they're assigned, so they may have no idea to make an unblock request stating "I think someone else abused this IP before I had it, and it looks like that was seven years ago, could you unblock it now?". They probably think that for some reason, the block is targeted at them, and just get discouraged and leave. It should be a pretty extraordinary case that a block longer than a year gets applied to an IP, and even more extraordinary that it should be indef. That doesn't mean "never", but pretty close to it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes for individual pages only. No for namespaces, as the risk of collateral damage is too high. Basically the criteria should be: if they return to editing the pblocked domain in 5 years, can we be confident (per WP:DUCK) that they are the same user? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes for the individual pages, but I wouldn't be particularly bothered if those indefs of mine on the year-related pages were converted to, say, 3 years. I suspect they'll have got bored by then. Black Kite (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I don't see a problem with indef IP partial blocks. I don't even see a problem with indef IP blocks. The whole point of a block is to prevent further disruption, and if an IP is reassigned, it would be trivial for an administrator to review, see the IP is reassigned, and then unblock. Indefinite is not "infinite", just however long is needed to stop disruption. Awesome Aasim 13:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment)Yes, but please limit such kind of indef block. If partial blocks can stop them, do not impose a site block. If single IP block can work, do not range indef. Thanks. -Lemonaka‎ 12:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There seems to be a significant split here and I'm wondering if this should go to a proper RfC. Or maybe a viable compromise answer here is "They're okay, but it's also okay for any admin to downgrade them to tempblocks after a while", the same way we treat indefinite protections. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 22:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That's also pretty much the existing IP block policy. I was around when we were working on the original policy for indef IP blocks, and also lifted many of them. I've concluded a couple of things: people will always indef-block IPs, and people will always review them and eventually lift the blocks. It's unfortunate when admins create the extra work for reviewers when a simple long block will suffice, but that's always been the case. In my opinion there's no need to change anything. There's a big difference between a few IPs getting indeffed, and saying it's OK to indef IPs. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad Pre-Mature RfC Closure by BilledMammal

    Apologies for the text block…Full context of the issue is given as well as a small timeline.

    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Keraunos was recently closed ([1]) by BilledMammal with the reasoning, “RfC is premature; a search of the archives show that this source has not been subject to repeat discussions, and thus doesn't meet the requirements listed at the top of the page for an RfC to be held. Note, the italic part was added by me as that was colored in the closure reasoning.

    That reasoning seems a little odd, given WP:RFCBEFORE does not state anything that “repeated discussions” had to have occurred prior to the RfC starting, especially since WP:RSP/WP:RSN is mostly done through RfCs. Anyway, in the RfC, past talk page discussions/disagreements were mentioned (naming a few):

    1. Talk page questioning source reliability in 2009
    2. Disagreements in July 2023 about the source ([2][3])
    3. Source disagreement in November 2022 ([4])
    4. Article with ESSL source + 2 Keraunos sources only marked with a “unreliable source” template in October 2022.

    So, with those listed, despite not having formalized discussions, there is clearly a disagreement between editors on the source. Actually, even the RfC showed that, as myself and Hurricane Noah were the only two editors who !voted in the RfC, with myself saying it is reliable and Hurricane Noah saying it was generally unreliable.

    Here is why the “Pre-Mature” RfC closure was bad: As stated in WP:RSPCRITERIA, For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. During the RfC, when it was suggested the RfC may have been started pre-maturely/badly, even Hurricane Noah stated there was clear disagreement occurring, so the RfC was still needed. Hurricane Noah stated that “withdrawing this RfC would sweep the issue under the rug and simply require another discussion. Why not just tackle this here since we are already discussing it?”

    I brought to BillMammal’s attention (Talk page) that the RfCs on WP:RSN should probably not be closed early unless it is a clear WP:SNOW closure as it interrupts them. Their response was to state the first half of WP:RSPCRITERIA, conveniently stopping right before the phrase I bolded above. Instead of wanting to discuss the issue, BilledMammal said if I wanted to challenge the early closure, I needed to come here. So I am. I believe BilledMammal, while not intentionally trying to, disrupted a needed discussion by early closing it without a valid reason. Also, it appears they do not fully understand WP:RSPCRITERIA, given they ignored the phrase about a uninterrupted RfC in their closing as well as after it being mentioned on their talk page. I formally request an admin re-open the RfC and, as Hurricane Noah (who I disagreed with in the RfC) stated nicely, not “sweep the issue under the rug”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Bruh, it is WikiProject Weather members disagreeing with each other. Well…I ain’t willing to spend the time to try to open more discussions, so I guess the issue will be swept under the rug, like it was sort of back in 2009, 2022, and July 2023. Cheers y’all? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's an RfC to classify the reliability of a source at RSN. Cheers, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You would be correct if this was an RfC in a general location. Your RfC was located at WP:RSN, where, as BM noted in the close, there are additional requirements; specifically, they state RfC's for classification should not be opened unless the source has been subject to repeat discussions. You say "past talk page discussions/disagreements were mentioned (naming a few)", but go on to list three article diffs (invalid) and one talk page discussion ... from 2008. BM's logic could not have been sounder. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • WeatherWriter, It's seldom appropriate to post at WP:AN and I don't believe this case should have come here. They were fully right by closing it. My comments made weeks ago were simply an attempt to avoid wikipedia bureaucracy and continue the discussion there since it was already started. Noah, AATalk 10:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking of closing this with the exact same reasoning, but BilledMammal beat me to it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's currently a discussion open at WT:RSN#Suggested changes to the edit notice to include the disclaimer about RFCs in the edit notice as well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I pointed out that issue right after you opened the RFC. If the opportunity cost wasn't high I would have closed it then. Instead I hoped that you would have caught the hint and closed the RFC in favor of a discussion. Good close. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with BilledMammal here. You don't need permission to find better sources to cite and to remove unreliable sources of information. Awesome Aasim 18:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO the close was a good move. If that is the only question, then a close review (or a bold reversal, maybe asking for an admin close) would be the next step. The way that you brought it up here (= neither of those) would be the way that you would bring up a conduct issue, and it certainly isn't that. North8000 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Another ARBPIA page created by a non-EC user

    Zikim Beach massacre is a very problematic piece of ARBPIA content that was created by a non-EC user and appears to be extremely off-kilter with respect to WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. Judicious un-creation may be in order. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It was a decent start to an article and was in no way problematic from a WP:V or NPOV perspective (it was well referenced to reliable sources). The question of why anyone would claim the article was problematic should be the concern here. Number 57 15:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the current climate, such pages should be deleted immediately as a matter of course imo. Selfstudier (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's another view that should raise concerns IMO. Number 57 16:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess we should get rid of Deir_Yassin_massacre and redirect it to the Israeli War of Independence. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a synth-y affair replete with ample editorialisation, POV tone and a POV title, and supported by three fairly weak sources that barely seemed to verify let alone cross-verify most of the claims, and with nary an WP:RSP in sight. Pretty much exemplary of why EC protections exist over the CT area. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, perhaps, you are the one who violates WP:NPOV and so on every article that doesn't align with your POV is automatically marked by you for deletion.
    I provided three reliable sources from the biggest media networks in Israel. Each of the sources I added is considered reliable and has an article about it here on English Wikipedia. Sometimes, not all the information is translated into English and is only available within Hebrew sources, so I did the hard work and translated three reliable sources from Hebrew to English. I could find even more resources, but once again, all of them are in Hebrew and therefore won't be considered as NPOV by Iskandar323. Orwell1 (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this was an page created out-of-process, and it was bad. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the original creator of this article. As I am now an ECM user, I am requesting the restoration of the article. Orwell1 (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To avoid any doubt: I am withdrawing my request. Orwell1 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For anyone reading - you just made 320 edits consecutively adding the same category to articles. I'm not sure if this qualifies as 'gaming' EC (genuine question, I've seen people talk about EC gaming previously but not sure where the line is). Requesting further input from other administrators and pinging original deleting administrator Black Kite. Daniel (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see we had the same thought at the same time. Revoked: Special:Redirect/logid/154419860, User talk:Orwell1 § Removal of extendedconfirmeddiff. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 19:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For God's sake, is there anything wrong with adding categories to articles after they have been double-checked and verified? Is there anything wrong with being a WikiGnome? Would you prefer me not to make these useful edits? I have lost my desire and willingness to contribute to this project since Iskandar323 started chasing after me and marking every single article I created for deletion. Orwell1 (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To avoid any doubt: I am withdrawing my request. Orwell1 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    Requesting Reconsideration of ECM Permissions

    I am a valued editor on the Hebrew Wikipedia with over 20,000 edits and a former sysop on other sister projects. My expertise lies in the Israeli-Arab conflict, and I have created dozens of articles about it on the Hebrew Wikipedia. I aimed to reach the 500-edit limit so that I could begin editing in areas I understand, but my rights were removed without violating any policy. Each of my last 300 edits was reliable, verified With the investment of much effort. There is nothing wrong with minor edits. I would greatly appreciate it if you could restore my permissions. Orwell1 (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]

    To avoid any doubt: I am withdrawing my request. Orwell1 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, no. Running an unapproved bot to game extended-confirmed is not allowed. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Only part of my edits were done with a bot. I still don't understand why it's not okay. Yes, a bot takes much less time than doing some tasks manually. But every bot requires development time and testing time to ensure it doesn't cause harm. Would you rather cancel these useful edits? I really can't understand users like you sometimes. If anything, the fact that I used a bot shows that I'm an experienced editor and shouldn't be treated as a new editor. So yes, I still believe that each of my last 300 edits was reliable and verified, with a significant investment of effort. And I still believe you should restore my permissions. Orwell1 (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Orwell1 (Non-administrator comment) We do not allow unapproved fully automated editing. All edits are expected to be reviewed by a human prior to implementation. The Wikipedia:Bot policy has more information on this. Right now admins saw a need to stop policy violations by removing your extended confirmed permissions. That does not mean you will never get extended-confirmed, just that you will have to work back to get it. There are millions of articles to edit, why not find something that suits your interest and work on rebuilding trust? Awesome Aasim 22:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) To be perfectly honest, you should probably count yourself lucky that you weren't blocked for running an unapproved bot. stwalkerster (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with stwalkerster . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A few further examples

    A few further examples of non-EC ARBPIA creation: Ein HaShlosha massacre, which was created on 13 October (at the time as a "massacre" with no death toll) by an at-the-time non-EC (/only just autoconfirmed) editor with unusual subsequent editing (mass adding of short descriptions to get back to ECP), and Nirim massacre, created on 21 October by a user active since 11 October and with 400 edits at the time of the Nirim article creation. The non-EC + pointed title combo is not great. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've suspected similar sorts of things, editors gaming EC in order to participate in editing of articles and RFCs where EC is required. No evidence just when you look at an RfC that's under ARBPIA and you see a lot of the editors are barely over 500 edits then it's hard not to draw that conclusion. TarnishedPathtalk 09:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Now we also have Alumim massacre, created by a user with 31 edits. Same issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Such pages should be deleted (or draftified at a minimum), not even bothering to make edits, just straight into this article, with a whole two Israeli refs in support. Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That page was draftified. In my opinion, draftification is better than deletion in such cases, because it can be done unilaterally and quickly. PROD and AFD take seven days, during which time the article is not indexed but is outward-facing. I see that page was then worked on, and is back in article space after being properly accepted by an EC reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The EC editor that returned this to mainspace actually barely edited the page at all; they simply added sources to existing statements, creating the impression of verifiability without actually editing any of the statements. Much of it still failed verification when it was moved back into main space. This seems inappropriate. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Major source problem with Associated Press

    It appears the Associated Press has removed all of their articles from the website from at least the year 2006 prior. Any Associated Press source that was dated in the year 2006 or prior will now link to PAGE UNAVAILABLE. This is a major problem as I'm sure many articles used Associated Press sources. I've actually contacted Associated Press about this and someone got back to me saying they've inquired with the operations team about it but until we get an update many of these sources will now link to page unavailable until it's addressed. It is of course possible that they may not bring them back at all, in which case we'll have to hope many archives exist on Way Back Machine, but it will be a pretty major job to go through all these dead links and archive them/recover as many links as we can. Inexpiable (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it possible to run a search of references to establish/guesstimate the number of times it's used? By its nature, a lot of its articles would have been syndicated to other outlets. Serial 17:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On the order of 3,300 articles have any source dating 2000 to 2006 using U.S. date format, and use apnews.com. Maybe somebody can improve this search for a more accurate answer (remove the prefix:A term for the full result).
    "associated press" insource:/"apnews.com"/ insource:/date=(January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December) [0-9]+, 200[0-6]/ prefix:A
    Cheers ☆ Bri (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers @Bri! Serial 17:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked the search queries a bit; not perfect, but more accurate. Got a number closer to 950, with both mmdd and ddmm date formats and going back to 1990. The searches are in my sandbox, if useful. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked the query again, new total about 150 listed here. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a task for WP:URLREQ - I would suggest posting there. Galobtter (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreenC: also since they do a lot of this kind of fixing. Galobtter (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the ping, Galobtter. One could use iabot.org but it will take a while to resolve since it has to see the link is dead on 3 passes, with at least 3 days between each pass. It's a better fit for WP:WAYBACKMEDIC ie. WP:URLREQ when only some links within a domain need to be saved or moved. I opened a request at Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests#apnews.com. Follow further conversation there. I won't start for a few days while we wait to see if AP resolves the problem, and I finish work on MetaCritic, another major source outage, then retool for apnews.com -- GreenC 21:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of note, I waited four days and the MetaCritic website fixed itself. Good thing because they had 50k to 100k broken links. See this often, sites break then repair themselves after some time. I'll still keep the apnews request pending for now. -- GreenC 23:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Earlier today, there was a big notice on the AP's front page, saying that some articles were unavailable, and to use the mobile app while they fix it. I tested just now, and a 1999 article that fails in the browser loads properly in the app. The notice is off their main page now, but there's a chance it'll get fixed. DFlhb (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about ban evasions

    When an IP user is very active all of a sudden, and makes the impression that they are experienced in WP matters, I'd be inclined to suspect that it is a case of ban evasion. What should I do by lack of further evidence? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Marcocapelle. Consider mentioning the IP here so that editors good at sock hunting can check the contribs and look for patterns. In general, I think WP:AGF applies until evidence emerges to justify a WP:SPI. You can always ask on their user talk page if they've ever edited on any other accounts. In my opinion, this is less about getting them to admit it (an actual sock would never admit their old master account) and more about putting up a red flag for other talk page visitors. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, assuming good faith is good advice. I've done a quick look around and there's no evidence of any evasion, and plenty of (on-wiki) evidence that this is a good faith editor who has been on a rotating IP address that the ISP dynamically assigns, since at least September 2021. So at least 2 years' experience, there. For what it's worth, I myself was like this (in fact worse, since my ISP assigned from several address ranges), on rotating IP addresses, for longer than that before I created this account. And yes, the person here has already been asked and said that xe is quite happy with just the tools that xe has. Uncle G (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A recent row at RfA

    Archived on request from User:Lourdes. Fermiboson (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This is now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lourdes has now been desysopped and blocked as the admitted sock of a banned editor RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Note: I'm not 100% sure this is the right place to start this kind of discussion, but it's definitely not AN/I. If there is a better place, please do let me know and/or go ahead and move it there.

    See previous discussion here

    Let me start by saying: I have either no or close to no prior interaction with any of the editors involved here. I am a relative newbie, having 500+ edits and most of them on project space, but spent most of the pandemic reading through project space, including past RfAs. I have read what it says on the top of the page about inexperienced editors not posting here, but I'm not opening this post to get anyone sanctioned or admonished. Rather, I want to get more opinions and start discussion on behaviour that I personally found concerning and deserving of wider attention, and establish some sort of consensus over whether and why it is/is not acceptable.

    Moreover, an additional disclaimer: I don't wish to cast aspersions of any sort on anyone I mention below. I believe, and have no reason to doubt, that they are all acting in good faith and without conflicts of interest or ulterior motives. The involved people all appear to be longstanding editors, much more experienced and with much more contributions to wiki than I have. Nonetheless, I still feel that the behaviour of some of them may be detrimental to the community as a whole.

    At the RfA for 0xDeadbeef which closed several days ago, Lourdes made several comments to the oppose vote which contained lanuage such as the following:

    • Because I remember having acted on your complaints at ANI a few times, and on the basis of that connect and support that I gave you, I am requesting you to reconsider your stand

    Kashmiri raised the issue of this comment giving the appearance of exchanging admin favours for a support vote, and in addition WP:CANVASS and WP:VOTESTACKING, on the RfA talk page. A discussion then ensued about whether this was the case. Loudres made a total of two replies during the course of active discussion, in which she generally apologised for the bad optics:

    • [M]y apologies with no qualifications whatsoever for how this came out and swayed a few editors to change their votes and some others to add supports than oppose. Do be assured that I have taken heed of all the points above.
    • It wasn't intended to be like this. Let this not take away from the worth of the candidate, whose RfA was drowning with few changing their !votes.
    • I understand the points you have written and don't wish this to be an issue for the candidate at this point.

    In my view, these comments fail to actually address the complaint, and instead simply acknolwedge that someone has complained and walk away without answering their questions. The talk page then degenerated largely into accusations of personal attack or conflicts of interest and discussion stagnated.

    My concern with regard to this is twofold:

    • Firstly, the original issue: Lourdes is making an appeal to her own actions to convince people to support another person. Kashmiri further takes issue with the fact that the reply is not actually discussing the candidate in question, but I agree with Noah that emotional appeal is unavoidable at RfA, and the main issue here is with the implication of "I did you a favour, please do me one".
    • Secondly, broader concern on the impact of admins and crats on discussions: In my view, what has effectively happened is an admin waving their mop around resulting in greater impact on discussions. Even an otherwise very experienced editor wouldn't be able to say "I did a thing for you" because they don't have the permissions to do said thing. (It is validly noted that it's not clear whether Lourdes actually used admin tools in the "thing", but the languge of "acted on your complaints in ANI" seems to imply something of the sort.) This is not unique to RfA at all, I'm sure we've all seen messages on talk pages along the lines of "I have 10k edits and you have 100, so shut up". However, I feel that mop-waving behaviour is of special concern in a venue where we're deciding whether to give someone else the mop to wave around. It gives an uneasy impression that if one has friends in high places, RfAs get a lot easier.

    Personally, I think that the appearance of due process is just as important as the due process itself, and looking at it from the perspective of an outsider, unfortunately this series of events failed to provide that appearance. Please do let me know if there is a better place to raise this concern, and apologies for the hassle to everyone I'm pinging below. Fermiboson (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy ping for all editors mentioned and/or involved in linked discussion, and elsewhere: @Lourdes @Kashmiri @Brat Forelli @Hurricane Noah @Tamzin @J947 @Voorts @Rhododendrites @TimothyBlue @Star Mississippi @RoySmith @0xDeadbeef @AirshipJungleman29 @Intothatdarkness @Serial Number 54129 @GiantSnowman Fermiboson (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    ARBPIA article Ibrahim Biari created by non-ec account

    Clearly in the ARBPIA topic area, and also beyond the fact it is, besides two edits, entirely the product of ineligible accounts, makes a series of disputed claims in Wikipedia's voice. Should be deleted per the extended confirmed restriction, and if not that then BLP as it is claiming somebody did X, Y, and Z based on the Israeli military and further claiming they are dead, again based solely off the Israeli military. nableezy - 03:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nableezy May be related, but I actually am wondering if G5 should be expanded to include these articles, so we would not have to waste time at the ANB. Awesome Aasim 18:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that ArbCom did not mandate, but allowed for, the deletion of these articles so Idk if it works to make them a CSD candidate. But if this isnt being deleted for the EC vio then it should be for the BLP1E issue, the fact we dont even have confirmation that this person existed or is alive or is dead, and all we are publishing are a series of claims by a combatant in an active war. But if at all possible, Id like to avoid one more pointless discussion to the 30 other ones happening in this topic area, so if it can be deleted without me nominating it that would be splendid imo. nableezy - 18:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Criteria for speedy deletion is discretionary as far as I am aware, and if a CSD is declined it does not stop the page from being nominated at XfD. Awesome Aasim 18:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved it to draft. If someone EC-confirmed wants to take a stab at it then fine, but at the moment it's simply an article about someone who never had an article before pretty much sourced to the IDF. Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    About KENGRIFFEY24FAN's editing behavior

    I just came across this user adding unsourced content while recent changes patrolling and realized after reverting their edits that they have years of warning templates on their user talk page for the exact same issues. It really can't be taking that long for the concept to set in that we need reliable sources, and I wonder at this point if this is a case of just stubborn refusal to "get it". —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaand now they're edit-warring their changes back in. (diff) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I didn't do anything wrong... KENGRIFFEY24FAN (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you ever considered that I didn't know how to cite things for a while? I was adding content that has been generally unsourced for years. When someone becomes a Free agent in sports, people don't cite it. So maybe you should "get it" and calm down. KENGRIFFEY24FAN KENGRIFFEY24FAN (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's enough. I've indeffed since it seems like you amply understand that people want you to cite your sources but you simply don't want to. Galobtter (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I just reverted 107.5.95.30 (talk · contribs) on Shohei Ohtani for making the same changes I described above. I really hope this isn't KENGRIFFEY24FAN adding sockpuppeting to the list of policies they've violated. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They weren't blocked the IP edited so I'm assuming it's a different editor. Galobtter (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    KingAgniKai edits

    KingAgniKai (talk · contribs) comes time to time to make disruptive edits in the Boruto article. They have been warned before to discuss their ideas at the article's talk page, but they refuse and instead insists on making edits the way they want. Checking their edit history, it doesn't seem that they have genuine intentions to contribute constructively. Xexerss (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I provided proof to make sure the edits aren't wrong. This is my 2nd time editing and the last time I didn't provide proof. KingAgniKai (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad. I will discuss it first before posting edits KingAgniKai (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have posted on the articles talk page. I apologize for not doing that sooner. KingAgniKai (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    EC permissions

    I temp dropped the bit but they didn't give me EC, if someone could please do me the favor, I would appreciate. I'm expecting to get the bit back in a while, but I need to edit my user page, which is ECP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 12:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    RFA oppose ivotes

    We have had editors blocked, badgered and cancelled for ivoting oppose at RFA. We have administrators moving discussions: Ritchie333 seems to do this more than others. I objected on Ritchie333's talk page earlier this year but they have not stopped moving the discussions in subsequent RFAs.

    See some examples
    Oppose ivoter Therapyisgood blocked in theleekycauldron's RFA - read discussion here
    Moving oppose discuussions in the Novem Linguae RFA
    Synotia was blocked by Maile66 for ivoting oppose in Aoidh's RFA
    I also unblocked Synotia when others pointed out I was possibly in error with that block. — Maile (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And today we have a bureaucrat unilaterally striking the oppose ivote of an editor in good standing.

    I questioned the crat (Acalamari) on their talk page. I believe that these actions are undemocratic. We should ivote in secret as we do for Arbcom candidates; that way editors will not be badgered, blocked, sidelined and cancelled. We should not manipulate the results to produce an unrealistic 100% support outcome.

    One thing we can still correct: @RadioKAOS: is an editor in good standing and their ivote in the JPxG RFA should be reinstated. Congrats to JPxG on their adminship and for trying to get others to stop badgering oppose ivoters in their RFA. Lightburst (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

    Off-topic; please stick to the original topic, viz. bollocking people. Serial 15:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    i can already hear the screaming. ltbdl (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An old habit of mine which other editors seem to understand. ivote is !vote because it is WP:NOTVOTE. Lightburst (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cargo-cult Wikipedia jargon. iVotes are not votes in the same sense that !OS isn't an operating system. —Cryptic 16:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why didn't you wait for Acalamari to respond on his talk page? You gave him less than an hour and a half before coming here. (I also think this is better suited to WT:RFA. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, agreed. The discussion could have continued at Acalamari's talk page... as it happens I agree that it was a bad call to strike that oppose, and in general we should avoid badgering RFA opposers too much, but I don't think this is a problem which needs a WP:AN dramafest any time soon...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru and Pawnkingthree: I am sure you are both right. Acalamari was just the latest RFA incident, and I thought it needed broader discussion. Lightburst (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm thinking of setting up an RfC soon (when I get time to write a decent proposal) of stopping replies to !votes (whether support, oppose or neutral) and put them elsewhere, such as on the talk page, the general discussions area ... just about anywhere. Basically, they'd be analogous to Arbcom discussions. It helps keep the noise and the accusations of "badgering" down a bit. Indeed, I would only consider archiving responses too !votes to the talk page because they have been badgering or otherwise talking too much about a single piece of opposition. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyway, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/theleekycauldron 2 was an absolute bloodbath, which I appear to have taken part in and helped, and for which I apologise. I was obviously having a bad day. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @RickinBaltimore: It is only a vote for support voters... but it is clearly not a vote for oppose voters. Are you ok with erasing votes? Lightburst (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, where did I say I wanted to erase votes? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If I ivote "Oppose why not?" my ivote would get scrutinized as disruptive and editors would demand for me to justify the oppose. But that is a common support ivote. Also "Support I thought you were an admin already?" Perfectly ok support ivote. Some just say "Support" with a signature and that is fine. Try doing that as an oppose ivoter: Oppose (signature). The response from @HJ Mitchell: is surprising - imagine enforcing decorum by erasing a valid ivote based on entirely subjective criteria. FYI: even JPxG recognized the problem with this response to question 11.Special:Diff/1182777427. With comments like that I know they will be a fantastic administrator. Also check out the comments of Chris troutman. Lightburst (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that, at RfA, the dynamics differ between support votes and oppose votes. Supporters who write only their signatures or use non-arguments like the "I thought you were an admin already" vote, are normally assumed to be indicating that they concur with the nomination statement, or that they find no problems with the nominee. If one were to oppose per no stated reason, whose statement or argument are they concurring with? Why are they opposing? Other times, oppose votes that are perceived to be directed at issues other than the nominator, or are perceived as weak, get badgered, while weak oppose votes don't get badgered as often when many are opposing, probably because it is assumed that it is not unreasonable to oppose the nomination. Nythar (💬-🍀) 18:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right @Nythar:, but you see the refrain above claiming it is a vote! It is only a vote if you agree with support. If you oppose you are forced to justify, which is the opposite of a "it is a vote". Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That does seem to be the case, and RfAs resemble genuine votes only when the number of oppose votes become large, although oppose votes still may be badgered. And I'm not referring to the reasonableness of an oppose vote; even the most justified opposes will be badgered in a 200/3 RfA. Nythar (💬-🍀) 18:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I'd like more discussion and less voting. But we can't fix something by pretending it's something else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crats should strike pointy disruptive opposes more often than they do. Even (and especially) if they make no difference in the final tally, it's deeply unkind and unfair to disrupt someone's RfA to make an unrelated point or general objection to the process or adminship in general. Folly Mox (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to agree with Folly Mox, HJ, and others. As a candidate who has experienced a rough RfA in the past, and was quaking in my boots before launching the second, the high social cost of writing the first oppose is a feature, not a bug. If you wanna take a potshot at a candidate in the one of the only places we basically ignore civility rules, you'd better have a good reason. There are lots of qualified editors out there who are terrified of RfA because of what dumb, insubstantial things might be dredged up in the oppose column just to embarrass them. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spike 'em

    I am little confused, is Spike'em being edited by a troll? I wasn't sure if something odd was going on or if I should just ignore it. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like one of our long-term pests has taken a liking to impersonating them. WP:RBI will do the job, as ever. JavaHurricane 17:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Two impersonators blocked and Spike's page move protected. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    k, cheers, seeing his account messed with on my watchlist did look like a red flag. Govvy (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Multi-page edit warring on Tulku and Western tulku, their talk pages, and other related pages

    For a quick introduction, I created the Western tulku page (still currently a work in progress) and was met with almost immediate pushback from User:Skyerise. Skyerise is of the opinion that this was intended as an attack page to delegitimise Western tulku. I won't try to make any accusations here, but I'd really appreciate it if an admin were to arbitrate here. Please see:

    I find myself getting incredibly petty here so it's time to step back. This is only intensifying. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 19:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You've given no warnings nor have you taken this to the correct venue first, which is WP:3RRN. If you believe I have broken 3RR then please follow the proper reporting process at WP:3RR. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm clearly talking about the massive row that's happened since I first created the page and not any specific incident of WP:3RRN. hence multipage. You know, disputing neutrality, flagging for deletion, and proposing a merge all at once, then unilaterally merging the pages without consensus or discussion despite opposition.
    Clearly something is going on and this is clearly disruptive for both of us. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 19:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to re-open RFC

    This a request to reopen an RFC and allow it to run longer, because:

    • Legobot tagged the RFC on September 29; the DNAU was dated Nov. 3 (tomorrow).
    • On October 30, further input was requested at VPR
    • That day, 2 editors voted (including me)
    • On October 31, 4 editors voted
    • On November 1, 1 editor voted
    • On November 2, 1 editor voted
    • Five hours later, the RFC was closed as "no consensus."
    • The closer wrote, "It's right to close it now," but I disagree. There is no rule that says an RFC must be closed after 30 days, and this one was still attracting new participants daily -- this is contrary to WP:WHENCLOSE
    • Of the 8 new votes that had come in after the VPR posting, 5 were "yes" and 3 were "no," so this was trending towards consensus, rather than away from it.
    • The final tally at closure was 18 yes, 13 no, or 58% in favor (18/31).

    Aside from being closed too early, I think the closing statement itself does not meet the standards for closing statements, because:

    • It provided no explanation for how it arrived at a no-consensus result -- as WP:CLOSE says, "A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached." This closing statement didn't do that.
    • The closing statement did not summarize, or even identify, any arguments, on either side
    • It did not weigh any votes, although some votes seemed to lack any meaningful rationale (such as the final one)
    • It did not count the votes (if you think that sort of thing matters)
    • What it did was simply assert "no consensus," and then write a generic description of how WP:ONUS works after a no-consensus RFC.

    Because there was still active, daily participation from new editors, because the trend line was towards consensus rather than away from it, and because the closing statement didn't explain the no-consensus result or otherwise follow WP:CLOSE or WP:ACD, I think this should be re-opened and allowed to continue running until participation dries up, and then re-closed. This will be more efficient than having to re-run the RFC later, and so will save editor time in the long run. Levivich (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Involved comments

    Uninvolved comments

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1183192207"