Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} 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) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	4	11	15
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	11	11
RfD	0	0	4	27	31
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 2 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 10 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 12 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 132 sockpuppet investigations
• 3 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 0 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 28 requests for RD1 redaction
• 30 elapsed requested moves
• 5 Pages at move review
• 19 requested closures
• 90 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 38 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (58 out of 8073 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Al-Mansi 2024-07-20 03:15 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Societal breakdown in the Gaza Strip during the Israel-Hamas war 2024-07-19 20:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Ali B 2024-07-19 16:57 2024-08-02 16:57 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Dandansoy 2024-07-19 14:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Joseph Muscat 2024-07-19 10:31 2024-07-26 10:31 edit Persistent disruptive editing: per WP:RFPP Johnuniq Category:Amresh Bhuyan 2024-07-19 09:26 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Talk:えのきだたもつ 2024-07-19 06:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Lectonar えのきだたもつ 2024-07-19 06:15 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: talk-page Lectonar Ishwarsinh Patel 2024-07-19 02:53 2025-07-19 02:53 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare Miyana (community) 2024-07-19 02:52 indefinite edit Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Yadvinder Goma 2024-07-19 02:41 2025-07-19 02:41 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare Latabai Sonawane 2024-07-19 02:24 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare Madhukar Pichad 2024-07-19 02:23 2025-07-19 02:23 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Abecedare Kiran Lahamate 2024-07-19 02:20 2025-07-19 02:20 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Abecedare Killing of Mohammad Bhar 2024-07-18 15:45 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Draft:Come Home to Me (album) 2024-07-18 15:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Good for the Soul (comic book) 2024-07-18 02:10 2024-10-18 02:10 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Loki (rapper) 2024-07-18 01:07 2024-07-21 01:07 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Ravidassia 2024-07-18 00:25 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry and disruptive editing despite previous semi-protection; WP:CT/IPA Abecedare Jakkaphong Jakrajutatip 2024-07-17 21:21 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/GG; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Template:Sticky header/styles.css 2024-07-17 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2938 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Sticky header 2024-07-17 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2938 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II User:Versageek/Talk/Archive/2 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User:MBisanz/ACE2008 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:SirFozzie/Archive 24 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2010/April 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2010/8 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:PhilKnight/Archive94 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:JaGa/Archive 3 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:JaGa/Archive 5 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:JBW/Archive 6 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User:Andonic/Random Data 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User:Raul654/archive3 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:KnightLago/Archive 1 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Canterbury Tail/Historic Archive 8 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User:Marine 69-71/Personal Milestones 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Alison/Archive 62 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Alexf/Archive 49 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:NrDg/Archive 080331 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Alison/Archive 72 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:NrDg/Archive 071231 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:JBW/Archive 20 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User:Mister Alcohol 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:JBW/Archive 21 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:PhilKnight/Archive86 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:JaGa/Archive 11 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/2 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2014/January 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2013/4 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac User talk:JBW/Archive 19 2024-07-17 16:57 indefinite edit lower protection level for lint error fixes Primefac Loki's Castle 2024-07-17 16:54 2024-07-31 16:54 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Israel at the 2024 Summer Olympics 2024-07-17 11:08 2025-01-17 11:08 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR (related content) El C Battle of Toretsk 2024-07-17 11:03 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C Draft:Avicii 2024-07-17 02:59 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; existing article on this subject BusterD Where is Kate? 2024-07-17 02:40 indefinite edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy JPxG The Innocents (comic book) 2024-07-17 00:46 2024-10-17 00:46 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate Global War Party 2024-07-16 20:39 2025-07-16 20:39 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement under WP:CT/EE; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Willy Hüttenrauch 2024-07-16 15:50 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD

Audit of indef IP blocks

Moved from WP:AN/I

 – Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

 Note: Link to the filtered list — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

You may find this list more useful. ST47 (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

God they are so many, I'd like to list them later. -Lemonaka‎ 01:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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:

• @Daniel Case: Does 2001:1970:4962:D100:0:0:0:0/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) need to be indef?
• @PresN: What about 2600:1700:1B21:76C0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))?
• @Oshwah: 103.251.17.183 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and 85.202.184.54 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))?

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

@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)

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)

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)

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)

I concurred. This may origin from the difference between statutory law and case law. -Lemonaka‎ 04:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@Canterbury Tail: P-blocks are less of an issue, but Roy's comment above^{intended 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)

Great minds, @RoySmith. Or something like that... ;) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 15:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

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:

• The three blocks by Canterbury Tail, discussed above: Special:Contribs/168.195.126.171, Special:Contribs/50.204.200.142, Special:Contribs/80.111.4.80. It would be nice to have a bit more discussion of them.
• @Courcelles: 84.65.85.60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is blocked for socking (non-CU block). Is there a CU aspect or other extenuating circumstance here?
• @PhilKnight: 45.129.234.49 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is blocked for PROMO, so I was expecting it to fall into the accidental-indef category, but it turns out all their edits are OS'd. Is there something in the OS'd stuff that justifies an indef?
• @Drmies: Does 82.24.202.71 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) still need to be indeffed?

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

@Tamzin: - I have unblocked 45.129.234.49. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin: go ahead and unblock if you like--it's been a while now. Drmies (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, but one year blocks would be better. IP's change over time. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

@Canterbury Tail: I like what you said better.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• (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)
• (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)
• 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)

  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)

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)

• Please don't start RfCs until you've exhausted the alternatives.—S Marshall T/C 08:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

No, it's an RfC to classify the reliability of a source at RSN. Cheers, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

• AirshipJungleman29, I just located Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes/Archive 1#Keraunos?? (2011 Talk page discussion), which is a previous discussion specifically about the source in question. There was 2 talk page discussion previously as well as several instances of disagreement. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 09:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Anything from within, say, the last decade that you can find by searching talk page archives for the word "Keraunos"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Sadly, no. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 09:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• 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, AA^Talk 10:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• I have deleted it and redirected to Battle of Zikim, where the content was covered anyway. I have dropped the editor a reminder about editing ARBPIA articles as well, as they clearly haven't understood that (or have ignored it). Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  The author does make the point that User:SunDawn reviewed the article and even praised him for it. Animal lover |666| 14:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

In the current climate, such pages should be deleted immediately as a matter of course imo. Selfstudier (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

And that's another view that should raise concerns IMO. Number 57 16:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

No, this was an page created out-of-process, and it was bad. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

To avoid any doubt: I am withdrawing my request. Orwell1 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

I see we had the same thought at the same time. Revoked: Special:Redirect/logid/154419860, User talk:Orwell1 § Removal of extendedconfirmed^diff. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

To avoid any doubt: I am withdrawing my request. Orwell1 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Requesting Reconsideration of ECM Permissions

• Orwell1 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

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)

To avoid any doubt: I am withdrawing my request. Orwell1 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Running an unapproved bot to game extended-confirmed is not allowed. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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)

(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)

Concur with stwalkerster . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 09:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Cheers @Bri! Serial 17:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Tweaked the query again, new total about 150 listed here. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a task for WP:URLREQ - I would suggest posting there. Galobtter (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@GreenC: also since they do a lot of this kind of fixing. Galobtter (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Question about ban evasions

• 65.92.247.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

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)

• 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)
  • Also there are a lot of very experienced editors that have changing IPs, some moreso than all but the most experienced registered editors. They have never caused any trouble and are not socks or blocked. I think as above you need to Wp:AGF until such time as indications trend otherwise. Canterbury Tail talk 14:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your good advice. The IP is 65.92.247.90, they are active under that address since 27 October. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• 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)

A recent row at RfA

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)

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)

• Hi Fermiboson, the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/0xDeadbeef#Lourdes's canvassing has witnessed multiple apologies from me to multiple editors. What do you wish me to do here in this report? Let me know. Thanks, Lourdes 08:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry if it seemed like I was going after you, that wasn't my intention. I mostly wanted wider input on the concerns I raised above. That said, I would appreciate if you could elaborate more on what the original intent of your message to GS was - if you didn't mean for it to be "favour-trading" then why mention your favour at all? Fermiboson (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Fermi, it was a mistake to ask for a review of the oppose based on past interactions. I also have taken heed of the comments from other editors there. Let me know what else would you wish me to do here? Lourdes 08:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Could you also disclose, if you remember, whether the past interaction involved the use of admin tools or permissions? Other than that I have no more questions, and thank you very much for your straightforwardness. Fermiboson (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, it would have involved the use or the opportunity to use admin tools or permissions. Even a comment given by an admin on an AN or ANI notice is equivalent to using an administrative authority. Thank you, Lourdes 08:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you very much, and sorry again for the trouble. No hard feelings, hopefully. Fermiboson (talk) 08:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

About KENGRIFFEY24FAN's editing behavior

• KENGRIFFEY24FAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

Aaand now they're edit-warring their changes back in. (diff) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Because I didn't do anything wrong... KENGRIFFEY24FAN (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

They weren't blocked the IP edited so I'm assuming it's a different editor. Galobtter (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

My bad. I will discuss it first before posting edits KingAgniKai (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I have posted on the articles talk page. I apologize for not doing that sooner. KingAgniKai (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

 Done. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Off-topic; please stick to the original topic, viz. bollocking people. Serial 15:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've never seen the term "ivote" before. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC) My guess is it's a corruption of "!vote" - which also makes no sense as RfA is more explicitly a vote than a discussion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 15:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC) i can already hear the screaming. ltbdl (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC) 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) 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)

• The last two at least were deservedly struck, as they were both disrupting the process to make a point and not actually commenting on the candidate. RFA is supposed to be a consensus-building process, and editors with an axe to grind making protest votes should be removed. RFA is enough of a mess without that crap. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

• If your vote (and it is a vote, RfA is about numbers, not discussion or consensus) is not based on the candidate's suitability for adminship, it absolutely should be struck. Well done to Acalamari for having the balls to call it out. If your vote is a personal attack, you absolutely should face the same consequences as you would elsewhere on Wikipedia. The free for all punch up and the drama when somebody dares try to enforce some decorum is everything that is wrong with RfA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Very well put. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's a vote, RfA is about numbers, not discussion or consensus +1 Serial 16:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  If it's about numbers, why are we allowing comments of any kind? Just vote (!!vote) and leave. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's a vote, RfA is about numbers, not discussion or consensus - this right here. Discussion can go to the talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@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)

With all due respect, where did I say I wanted to erase votes? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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 nominee, 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)

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)

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)

We assume that all admin candidates have good qualities just as all have flaws. The onus is on you to disprove the nomination statement if you feel that the flaws outweigh the good qualities. I've done so many times but doing so just to take a potshot or make a point about the process, or for any other reason not related to the candidate, is disruptive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• I have to disagree with the last couple of comments. The "high social cost of writing the first oppose" absolutely is a problem. If an oppose vote is obviously cast to make a point or to disrupt the process then yes, I think it can be struck. In any other case though (and that includes votes that initially look like they are poorly explained), it's different. Those votes should be respected as such. As I said in the discussion of Cupkake4Yoshi's oppose vote to JPxG's RfA, Cupkake4Yoshi has every right to vote against a (so far) overwhelming majority, AND to be taken seriously. Johnuniq, and others below, have explained how this vote may be the result of a misunderstanding, but that doesn't justify assuming bad faith. It saddens me to see voters questioned and ridiculed like this, because it genuinely threatens the process. We need people to raise genuine concerns ESPECIALLY in the face of overwhelming majorities. If they turn out to be mistaken then that's great, but we must not shout them down. JPxG themselves commented earlier today to ask that people not jump in and try to beat this guy's ass on account of his oppose rationale. I tried to convince the editor not to leave Wikipedia entirely. Whether they'll change their mind, I don't know. The necessity to stay civil applies to all! Compare Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Hey man im josh#Replies to Sportsfan (hatted) for another recent example of an oppose vote being shouted down. Renerpho (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• I'd agree with that, Renerpho. There seems to be a bloodlust for some in attacking oppose !votes - and many of the objections and attacks would be worthy of admin attention (even though it is often admins making some of those comments). No one questions the support votes (as opposed to !votes) on an RFA, but it seems to be de rigour for people to attack an oppose, even when made in good faith. It seems that sometimes supporters don't seem to want to see even one oppose without jumping on it: they should take on board that people's views and opinions differ and it's just as fine to oppose with what they think is a weird rationale, as it is to support with zero rationale. As long as the oppose carries something of a realistic rationale that isn't obvious trolling or an outright attack, then it should stand. This is slightly bizarre, given the (248/1/1) close (really, why bother with the dramah and supervote of the delete when the count is never going to be anything but a pass), but huge kudos to JPxG for their approach to the oppose. - SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  The reason given to strike that oppose vote (quote: as the rationale is false in some parts and a rant about Wikipedia in others; less to do with the candidate as it otherwise ought to be) borders on a failure to assume good faith, or at least to parse what that vote actually said. Yes, the vote is a rant about Wikipedia, but that's in response (reality check) to what was perceived as an unjustified praise of the project by the candidate (the "Jimbo quote", as they call it; the statements "free access to the sum of all human knowledge" and "a reliable source of high-quality information"). Is that rationale "false"? I don't know. But it's not unreasonable, and it definitely is about the candidate's statement, not just about the project. Wikipedia has its flaws, and if someone opposes an RfA because the candidate seems to be unaware of those perceived flaws, that sounds like a good reason to me! The vote still would have easily passed, so I don't understand why Acalamari would even open that can of worms and strike a vote that could have been made in good faith. Renerpho (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• RadioKAOS voted oppose because "the answer to Q1 is a whole lot of happy horseshit", then goes on to explain why they think the answer is horseshit. Simply put, RadioKAOS thinks either JPxG's answer is dishonest or JPxG is living in fantasy land. RadioKAOS is also unimpressed with JPxG's self-proclaimed non-answer to Q10.
  Sure there's an unrelated rant in there as well, but votes with zero rationale still get counted. It seems the bar for oppose votes tends to be higher, but even in that case an oppose vote that merely says "Oppose, I think this candidate does not have the required mindset for an administrator" which could universally apply to any candidate would probably still be counted. So to discount a vote due to its rationale would require an extraordinarily irrelevant or false rationale and should virtually always be discussed before getting struck. In a few cases an argument could perhaps be made to move, strike or collapse a rationale without striking the vote itself: in this case the rationale is rather long which doesn't fit well in a numbered list of votes. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's also noteworthy how close to the end of the RfA that this had occurred, so unintentionally or otherwise, there was no likelihood of any sort of rebuttal being posted due to the new policy requiring the automatic closure of an expired RfA. I have to wonder if that may have prompted the suddenness of striking the !vote without any discussion. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 00:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Perhaps relevant here is the thing I said when someone asked me about it at said request:

I don't know if it is appropriate for me to do a full go-off about the RfA process while I am in the middle of one, but I suppose I will be honest: it's fucking sad. While nobody has individually chosen to play the part of the villain, the outcome is nonetheless disgraceful. The number, right now, is 222/1/1: but is that real? Who knows. Maybe there are some people who think I'm a complete piece of trash, and are simply choosing not to throw themselves upon the bonfire by saying so in public at a 222/1/1 RfA. I guess we'll never know: I have been given the gift of a potentially high ratio, at the price of a potentially dishonorable victory. But what else could have been done? What else were they supposed to do? The options seem to have been to do that, or to say nothing and let it stand.

On one hand, I did strongly disagree with the oppose voter's claim, and I do feel like the process benefited from the mistake being pointed out, but on the other hand, did it really warrant 7,200 bytes of response? Perhaps a better question is why we've decided that it is uncivilized to have a candidate respond directly to accusations, but it is highly civilized to have a dozen other people respond nebulously on their behalf. The circumstances behind an oppose vote, especially one based on something that happened a long time ago, are generally arcane and half-remembered even by their participants; why would bystanders be better-equipped to address them? I feel like they usually aren't, which is part of the reason people make up for quality with quantity, and we end up with giant walls of text below every oppose. I don't know how this could be formalized, but it seems to me that if you see an oppose that's so goofy you feel you absolutely must take action, it's probably better to channel your outrage into asking the candidate a somewhat open-ended question that lets them address it.

I think one of the major issues that gives rise to badgering is that, for whatever reason (an actual rule? an unwritten custom?) candidates are forbidden to (or at least considered uncouth if they) respond to opposes. This means that random other people must do so on their behalf, and since nearly everybody except the candidate is just some random person who wasn't involved in the thing being brought up, it's very difficult to tell if any given objection was thorough enough, or addressed the central point, or was "enough". Hence why there are a ton of them. I think that if we let the candidates just say "That's not true because of diff and diff and diff" or "I disagree", it would be worth a thousand "this is impetuous!" badger responses. jp×g🗯️

JPxG, I wish all admins approached it the way you do! Discouraging oppose votes actually is unfair to the candidate, who is denied both valuable criticism and honest feedback. It is also dangerous. It is interesting that we are discussing this on the day another admin has been desysopped and blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.[5] They passed 207/3/1 in 2018. I can't help but wonder if more people would have opposed at that time if it didn't come with such a risk of shaming. Looking back, there are hints in that RfA that make me think... The question whether Wifione was a sockmaster has even been raised in their RfA in 2010 (passed 90/23/4), so obviously just raising an issue doesn't guarantee that it is properly addressed (there wasn't enough evidence to prove sock puppetry at the time).[6] We have been rightfully talking about how painful RfAs can be for the candidates; but at the same time, an almost unanimous vote is meaningless if voting a certain way is discouraged! Renerpho (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Me too @JPxG: I have mad respect for you as an editor. You did the research when I was getting pummeled at AfD a while ago, and I never forgot it. I think your answer to question 11 was spot on and I know that you will be great in this new role. I am sorry for dragging you in here a day after your RFA. Congrats! Lightburst (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Section break / bureaucrat response

First off, this thread could have waited until I'd had a chance to reply to the messages on my talk page about this topic; that being said, this general subject is a good discussion to have.

We should not manipulate the results to produce an unrealistic 100% support outcome. - I agree, and more than 99% of the time there has been no need for a bureaucrat to strike anyone's participation. But there are situations when it has been appropriate to do so and never has it been to ensure unanimous support for someone.

As to address this message from Lightburst on my talk page, there was no "misleading explanation" for my striking out the oppose in question. The oppose falsely stated that the candidate hadn't answered question 10; there is an answer present. If the opponent merely disagreed with the answer, then they should have stated as such; saying no answer was provided was incorrect. As for the rest of the oppose, I will agree that my use of the word "rant" was erroneous. But that aside, the remainder of that opposition had nothing to do with the candidate and was, instead, the opponent sharing their views about various problems they perceive with Wikipedia. I have set past precedent for giving less weight or dismissing participation that is critical of Wikipedia or the WMF while being irrelevant to the candidate; in the bureaucrat chat for Floquenbeam's second RfA, it was people supporting because they were against the WMF - not because they were for Floquenbeam - that led to me disagreeing with my fellow bureaucrats and being the only one to argue for a no consensus closure.

As for my striking being "undemocratic", per policy, we are not a democracy. And about there being no "rule" about striking, I'm far from the first bureaucrat to strike a contribution (and this isn't even the first time I've done so); we absolutely can strike provided that there's either been a discussion that has proved the participation is inappropriate or, if acting entirely by ourselves, we are able to justify the strike. In this case, my strike is consistent with my past determinations in RfAs. I will not be reversing the strike because the RfA is closed (if we start going back and changing participation in closed candidacies, then we open an entirely new world of trouble) and because I consider the strike to be correct, as justified above. If there's a community discussion that forbids bureaucrats from it, then of course I shall abide by such a decision in future. Until then, striking or otherwise discounting participation has been an acceptable action for bureaucrats to take, within reason as stated.

To address other aspects of this discussion, those unrelated to my specific actions, over the past few years or more, it has become acceptable to move extended discussion to the talk page if it becomes too cumbersome or shoots off into irrelevancies. This, by itself, is not a reflection on the person who has supported or opposed. It's done to reduce clutter on the main candidacy page, not to censor anyone.

Finally, with regards to "badgering", while there is the voting element to the process, RfA is a discussion as well. Anyone participating in one is accepting that it's possible that their contribution may receive questions and other responses. This applies not only to opposition, but also those in support or neutral or even anyone just making a comment. The general thought is that since opposition holds more weight than supports, opposition receives more scrutiny; but if anyone thinks that supports should receive more than they currently do, then absolutely people should challenge accordingly and I encourage them to. Provided that no one is being followed back to their talk page or being sent uninvited private correspondence about their RfA participation, then no one is being "badgered" and we need to stop throwing that term around so readily.

Tl;Dr - the oppose I struck here had nothing to do with the candidate's qualifications or suitability to become an admin, and was otherwise a long commentary about Wikipedia; the one part that was about the candidate was false. Acalamari 00:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyone participating in one is accepting that it's possible that their contribution may receive questions and other responses -- Your response sounds like you are suggesting that the incivilities mentioned above are an acceptable way to "discuss" an issue on this site. Please clarify where you draw the line of what is acceptable, ideally with reference to the examples given above. Renerpho (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Acalamari, The oppose falsely stated that the candidate hadn't answered question 10; there is an answer present. If the opponent merely disagreed with the answer, then they should have stated as such; saying no answer was provided was incorrect.
You are misquoting RadioKAOS. They actually said: this RFA is almost over and the candidate still hasn't provided an actual answer to Q10. Note the adjective "actual" here. They didn't claim the question was literally unanswered.
And to quote from the answer given to Q10: so here is a bullshit non-answer So by JPxG's own admission they were unable to provide the examples that were requested in Q10.
And about there being no "rule" about striking, I'm far from the first bureaucrat to strike a contribution
This argument falls in the "n people can't be wrong" category.
(and this isn't even the first time I've done so)
"I've cheated on you many times, I don't understand why you are mad." ;-)
we absolutely can strike
Considering there's no rule about striking this is something bureaucrats just started doing. So now I say: no, you can't strike. In the absence of a rule my word is worth as much as yours, so you really can't strike anymore now. This doesn't impact removal of content for policy-based reasons, but you can't strike the actual vote in cases like these.
provided that there's either been a discussion that has proved the participation is inappropriate or, if acting entirely by ourselves, we are able to justify the strike.
And you're not able to do that. So where was the discussion?
In this case, my strike is consistent with my past determinations in RfAs.
"My cheating on you has been consistent, I don't understand why you are mad." ;-)
I will not be reversing the strike because the RfA is closed (if we start going back and changing participation in closed candidacies, then we open an entirely new world of trouble)
So declare your close invalid. Reopen the RfA, unstrike the vote and let someone close it. If that changes the outcome (which in this particular case it won't), so be it.
It's done to reduce clutter on the main candidacy page, not to censor anyone.
It's worth considering to move such comments down to the general comment section while remaining on the same page, but that discussion is probably not one for AN. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Acalamari: You made a unilateral decision to strike a valid vote by an editor based entirely on your own subjective criteria. As stated above, this was an easy pass so your erasure of the vote is curious. Editors above have insisted that RFA is a vote: but it obviously not if you are able to cancel a vote. I think you were wrong, and it is not even a close call. What is the next step for us pawns if you as a bureaucrat refuse to un-strike a valid vote? Lightburst (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Two impersonators blocked and Spike's page move protected. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

k, cheers, seeing his account messed with on my watchlist did look like a red flag. Govvy (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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:

• Western tulku and history;
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western tulku discussion there;
• Tulku and recent history;
• My talk page; and
• Skyerise's talk page.

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)

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)

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)

You have created an article which inappropriately separates out religious figures by ethnicity. That's the root of the problem. Skyerise (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Blame the academics who coined the term. Plus, this isn't the venue to continue this argument. I went here for arbitration. It's not the place to clutch pearls. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

But is it a place to mention that you have stalked me to an article I am working on and seem to be harassing me on both talk pages. Perhaps WP:BOOMERANG should apply here? Skyerise (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You literally started the merge and neutrality discussion and have been merging the pages without consensus. It's not stalking if you're the one who is creating disputes and leaving messages on my talk page. Plus, when I first created the article, you kept disruptively editing the Western tulku page. Holy shit dude. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You have complained that tulku was too short. You said to go ahead, only clarifying that you meant AfD rather than merge after I had already finished the merge. I've expanded tulku from 10,980 bytes to 48,921 bytes in the last few days, most of which has nothing to do with Western tulkus. Perhaps you could also do something productive? Skyerise (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You've continued to merge the pages long after it became obvious what I meant. I didn't complain it was too short; I noted that I didn't want to flood the tulku page with a discussion of Western tulku. I still stand by the claim that this deceptive in the context of your claim that I've forked the pages. If someone wasn't aware you had been merging the content to the older Tulku page, maybe your claim that I was creating a POV fork'd attack page might hold up. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll say this one more time in bold: it's totally inappropriate to split an article about title holders of any religion by their ethnicity. I'm sure you'll be getting feedback about that from other editors soon enough. Have the last word here if you want. I've got better things to do. Skyerise (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I know I said I wouldn't make any accustations but it looks like User:Skyerise has canvassed two users in the deletion discussion on Western tulku. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Both the editors I contacted know that I am looking for their independent opinions, which I value, and not !votes. They do not always agree with me, nor do I expect them to. That's not "canvassing". Skyerise (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

So what is it when you hit up two friends of yours and then claim I'll be getting feedback about that from other editors soon enough? MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 20:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, both editors disagree with me as frequently as they agree with me. It's called "more eyes". I'm done here. Skyerise (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

"It did not count the votes. See Wikipedia:Consensus: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote". Given there was no consensus in the weight of the arguments (based on policy and guidelines), the "trending towards consensus" claim is a straw man. Vote counting has never had a place on WP.

In your little chronology, you missed the point that Legobot removing expired RFC template on 29 October after thirty days, so it's already run over a fair period already. The advertisement at VPR on 30 October was the second time it had been advertised at that venue, the first time being on 29 September. Is creating more heat and dramah and dragging out a timesink rfc really beneficial? It wasn't on 30 October (when I requested a close at WP:RFCL, and I doubt it is now either. - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closer: Levivich gives me two substantive points to respond to.

1. I closed the discussion prematurely. No, I didn't. That discussion had gone on for more than the requisite amount of time. It was eligible to be closed. With AfDs, there's a deplorable tendency to relist them when they don't reach consensus, but RfCs aren't the same; they're 30 day discussions that suck up a lot of volunteer time. We only want them relisted in exceptional circumstances. The "trending towards consensus" argument reduces to "if you'd closed it at a different time you might have got to the result I wanted".
2. I didn't say how I got to "no consensus", and I didn't summarise the arguments, and I didn't count the !votes, and I simply asserted that the outcome was no consensus, all of which are just the same point said four different ways. The arguments reduce to "Infoboxes are useful" and "The infobox information is redundant to the first paragraph". Editors cited no policy or guideline that says we should or shouldn't have infoboxes, because no such policy or guideline exists. It's just an aesthetic judgment.

Changes to an article need consensus; the consensus wasn't there; and at some point we have to draw a line under it.—S Marshall T/C 20:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closed when !votes were still coming in, better to re-open it now and let that continue to see if a consensus can develop. nableezy - 22:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do we have to draw a line under it? That is how filibustering works, when you have what you want in place you can block changes by "no consensus". If anything, your close opens the door to a brand new rehashing of the same discussion, because you didnt draw a line under it, you left it unresolved. If the discussion is continuing to get new input it should be allowed to continue. Because right now, the way I see it, anybody is totally justified in opening a brand new RFC on the exact same question. Because there is no consensus against the change. nableezy - 20:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying I "had what I want in place" and I was trying to "block changes"?—S Marshall T/C 20:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, of course not, sorry if that was unclear. I am not accusing you as closer of anything, but what I am saying is that when users feel they have their position in place as the status quo that they can, and often will, filibuster discussions to the point of aiming to prevail by no consensus. And since this was continuing to draw in more participation, that process should have been allowed to continue so that a consensus could form even with the volume from the people who really really care about the issue. nableezy - 20:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You can't filibuster an RFC. !Voting and walking away still counts in the end judgement and adds no more time to the process. RFCs are timesinks and should only be used sparingly, which is why WP:RFCBEFORE "RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable". If anyone does decide to open a new RFC right now, it would be disruptive in the extreme. Those that care about the article and the subject are likely to have had it on their watchlist ahave had ample opportunity to comment on it in the previous 30 days. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes you certainly can, and Id say as a rough definition that making 20 out of the 115 comments in a discussion qualifies. Add to it the *involved* support of a no consensus close here because, surprise, that results in your (minority) position prevailing, and Id say that is actually a solid example. Besides, the whole point of an RFC is to get outside perspectives, presumably the reason an RFC is opened is because the people who do care about the article and the subject are likely to have had it on their watchlist have not come to a consensus locally and so they seek out more views from the wider community to find what consensus may be. And for the record, I probably would have voted no infobox. nableezy - 20:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, you can't: filibustering is about extending or prolonging a discussion to stop other people getting their argument in.This is not the case with an RFC. If someone is replying to a point, it doesn't stop anyone (or 5 or 10 people) from !voting at the same time.

Just a little correction: I did not make 20 comments in the !vote section. I made about 15 comments to the that section (not the discussion section), and that is less than at least one editor who was vocal in his support for an IB, so if you want to make something of it, we cancelled each other out. And, as a reminder, "no consensus" for a change is an entirely acceptable and common end to an RFC. - SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, filibustering is about talking so much that no change happens. Anyway, I think this should be reopened and more input sought out. nableezy - 21:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Filibustering is about extending a discussion to stop others talking (or at least it was when I did my politics degree - maybe its definition has changed considerably in the meantime). And it's not possible at RFC because one person commenting doesn't stop a hundred others from adding their input. It's a false parallel. If you think I've tried to extend the discussion, you've missed the point, but perhaps the others who commented multiple times (including at least one who commented more than me), may have had a different idea, but you'll have to ask them. - SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, when people see a clusterfuck of a discussion they will stay away. Which is one of the reasons why people turn them into clusterfucks. Hey look, its happening here. nableezy - 21:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed it possibly is, but at the RFC (as with elsewhere) it takes more than one to tango - and this is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, as is an RfC. I'm not going to get into a finger pointing game, but you should count up comments made by people, if you want to try and have a go at me for something: in the !vote section, one IB supporter made 16 comments; I made 15 (yes, I acknowledge that's too many); a second IB supporter made 14. I don't think they were filibustering any more than I was, and I don't think they were trying to turn it into a clusterfuck any more than I was. I do, however, resent your implication that I tried to turn it into a clusterfuck, or I did so as part of some malicious gameplan. Neither of those are true, and you should strike the implication. - SchroCat (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see a strong reason to reverse this closure. S Marshall is correct in that there isn't a clear-cut policy on whether an article should have an infobox; as such, infobox discussions are essentially a headcount, and there isn't a good reason to give "I don't want this article to have an infobox" less weight than a more long-winded argument. Under the circumstances 18/31 is on the border between weak consensus and none, and I cannot fault a finding of no consensus. Aside; this is why the infobox CTOP designation should remain in force. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Rare is when I find myself so disagreeing with Vanamonde but this is such a case. I think this this was closed too soon. WP:RFCEND says An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. and it later says Conversely, whenever additional comments are still wanted after 30 days... so our RFC information clearly contemplates situations where longer than 30 days would be an appropriate length. With the post to the Village Pump it was no longer clear that consensus wouldn't be achieved and so leaving it open for a few more days to see if that was the case, or not, would have been appropriate. However, given that momentum behind that will have evaporated by the time this thread reaches conclusion, I think this harm can't be cured. But that doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't have been closed at that time in my opinion. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think we absolutely do contemplate situations where longer than 30 days is appropriate. For example, where a new source emerges during the discussion, or a sudden news event affects the topic we're discussing; or where it's one of the difficult matters that demands a panel close. But an infobox dispute? I disagree that that's the kind of situation envisaged.

  I would not want it to become custom and practice that we're not allowed to close an RfC if it's recently been cross-posted to another venue. I feel that would have negative consequences.

  I'm becoming concerned that we as a community might be losing our institutional memory of the infobox wars of a decade ago.—S Marshall T/C 23:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  it's precisely because I haven't forgotten that I think you made a mistake being impatient because now the war will continue there. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  If it continues it will be disruptive and can be dealt with as such. I know you've made at least one difficult close in the past on this matter and have a better awareness of the arguments than many, so are in a good position to take a measured approach looking both forward and back. - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Impatient?—S Marshall T/C 23:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved) - Closing discussions is difficult enough and rehashing this does little to help anyone. My commenet today wasn't to overturn or challenge this close but to ask the closer to remove the part of the close that admonished me for extending the RFC. I didn't violate any rules by extending the RFC and per WP:RFC it's perfectly reasonable thing to do to find consensus. Plus, it was working to get more comments. Most of the RFC infobox discussions over the past year have ended in consensus inclusions. The few that have not have been close and they suffered from the type of "flood the zone" commentary from both sides that was wisely observed by nableezy. The wall of text responses in the survey do little to change minds and only discourage others to comment. This particular RFC appeared to be contentious as soon as it started. The exact same scenario is playing out in a similar RFC that started a couple of days ago. I would encourage the participants on both sides to dial it back. If you are unable to find common ground speak your piece and move on. Thanks and happy editing. Nemov (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• (Uninvolved) I agree with Barkeep, who already wrote out a bunch of words, so I'll keep it simple. When new editors are continuing to join an RFC it's not ripe yet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Fwiw, the exact opposite happened here on James Joyce and complaints were made when more !votes trickled in before the 30 day period expired. Victoria (tk) 23:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close, the text of the close goes in-depth on the closer's reasoning. Seems like a fair and well described close. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Issue on Mt. Sinai Holy Church of America

The admin continues to make changes on that page that dishonors the leadership of our great organization by removing their titles from their names. 2600:6C5A:5AF0:9BA0:E98F:BBD6:C1B8:5A14 (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Article: Mount Sinai Holy Church of America.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Edits like this one are completely acceptable (see MOS:PREFIX). This has nothing to do with "honor," and referring to an organization as "our" and "great" indicates you have both a POV and a conflict of interest. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I blocked Special:contributions/2600:6C5A:5AF0:9BA0:0:0:0:0/64 on October 10 for one week for disruptive editing at the article. My guess is they are the same person as Knightja, whom I just indeffed for not following the proper procedures for undisclosed paid editing, and continuing to edit the article after having been warned about their conflict of interest.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed motion to modify the extended confirmed restriction provisions

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to modify the provisions of the extended confirmed restriction. Comments are welcome at the relevant request for clarification.

In accordance with the procedural requirements for modifications of the Arbitration Committee procedures, a duplicate copy of the motion is available at the Committee's public motions page.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed motion to modify the extended confirmed restriction provisions