User talk:ToBeFree

Please click here to add a new message!

^{To add this button to your own talk page, you can use {{User new message large}}. It can easily be modified: Colorful examples are provided on the "Template:User new message large" page.}

Please note that you are currently not logged in.

This is not a general problem – you can leave a message anyway, but your IP address might change during the discussion, and I might end up talking to a wall. Creating an account does not require an e-mail address; all you need is a password and a name. You are not required to do this, but please consider creating an account before starting long-term interactions with other users. Thank you very much in advance.

Archives
[megabytes]

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Block evasion?

Hello,

Just want your opinion re: [1]

Do you think this is connected to the same pattern of block evasion seen here ?

Best, Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Hi Amanuensis Balkanicus, the quality of their English is noticeably different. Of course this doesn't rule out them suddenly intentionally making grammatical errors to evade detection. On the technical side, the blocked IP address is from a web hosting provider / proxy while the new one is from a mobile network if I see correctly. If the new address was from a web hosting provider again, I'd block of course. If there's something I've overlooked, please let me (or WP:SPI) know! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I comment on a request for enforcement?

Hi, I am new to arbitration and requests for enforcement. This is going on: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Discussion_concerning_Bohemian_Baltimore. May I comment on this? Or can I request permission to comment on this? Thanks for any information! Yuchitown (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yuchitown, thanks for asking! Yes, you are allowed to simply create a new section for your comment, by editing "Statement by (username)", copying that heading for the next user, and editing the original section. Your statement is limited to 500 words and 20 diffs, but that's all – you're extended confirmed, so you can also comment on topics that are covered by an extended-confirmed restriction (not the case for biographies anyway). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information! Yuchitown (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Regarding the green text, I think you might be looking for {{tqq}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, TIL! Yuchitown (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement blocks

Hi ToBeFree. Could you offer some general guidance on what might be considered too short of a duration for an Arbitration Enforcement block? Anything shorter than a month perhaps? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel Quinlan, this is probably about Rob Roilen's 24-hour block that was originally an AE action. WP:CBAN provides some data:

Site ban discussions must generally be open for at least 72 hours.
If someone is indefinitely blocked and appeals their block at WP:AN, they are either unblocked or site banned as a result.
All community sanction discussions must be open for at least 24 hours.

So a 24-hour block will inevitably, per policy, expire before the unblock discussion is closed. That makes the request pointless. The block template for AE blocks correctly notes that an unblock request can only be made through AN or AE, so anyone appealing their 24-hour AE block ends up asking for something pointless.

This is less likely to be an issue for even just a week-long block, although requiring a noticeboard review for a quick week-long block is also hard to justify. Blocks are normally reviewed by individual administrators on the blocked users' talk pages, and the community would drown in appeal discussions if these were all held at WP:AN instead.

In the end, it's (mostly) not about the duration of the block but whether you expect another administrator to disagree and simply undo the action. This was a common fear when AE sanctions were intruduced, with sanctions against "unblockable" established users quickly being overruled by at least one of the then-over-1000 administrators, and reinstatement of the overruled action being prohibited as wheel warring. AE blocks exist to prevent me from being unblocked by you in case I made a personal attack, not to sanction battleground conduct by a newcomer.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. I understand now that shorter durations may be problematic given how appeals work. I had previously read WP:CTOP and WP:AC/P which both say Contentious topic restrictions may be imposed for any fixed length of time, or for an indefinite period. and 24-hour to 72-hour blocks don't seem to be rare in the 2023 and 2024 Arbitration Enforcement log (although not as common in 2024). I'm not saying that the current wording of the procedures actually encourages shorter durations, but would it be worthwhile to include some brief practical guidance on those procedure pages? I can file a request if needed, but I wanted to ask for your opinion first. Thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty good question. I guess a not-quickly-undoable 24-hour block of an "unblockable" user may sometimes make sense and may well have been an intended option. Regarding the logged actions, perhaps these are mostly from the WP:AE noticeboard, where practically every action taken on thread closure including short blocks becomes a logged contentious topic restriction that is only appealable on a noticeboard? Perhaps most of the blocked users are aware of their low chance of having the action overturned at a noticeboard, so the actual number of time-consuming reviews is low?

For a clarification/admendment request, I personally would be happy if a specific improvement to the existing policies was proposed. Specific wording that could be used instead; corrections that would improve the procedures.

Perhaps the following at Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Administrators' role and expectations already covers this?

Before imposing a delegated enforcement action, administrators must consider whether a regular administrative action would be sufficient to reduce disruption to the project.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(It's a bit comical that this comes from me, as I regularly fill the enforcement logs with contentious topic page protections that could simply be normal page protections. The reason why I do so, just for the record, is that placing a year of semi-protection or even a year of extended-confirmed protection without trying shorter protections first is something I wouldn't do if the topic wasn't already known to be contentious.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you (and many other administrators including myself) are in the clear on that. Without logging those protections as an enforcement action, it would be a violation of WP:PREEMPTIVE. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that blurb, which I've read before, but didn't cross my mind today, is quite clear and would cover many of these cases including the most recent one, but I believe it would still be helpful to add some practical guidance about the duration of restrictions somewhere.

It might also be a good idea to add a footnote (or even a sentence) to Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Standard set and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Standard set to remind administrators about the separate section. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to reply but was unsure what to.

Because I agree with you about the idea yet think if this should ever actually happen, that's probably only after someone wrote that practical guidance and the footnote text and presented them as a ready-to-use solution in their request at WP:ARCA. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I always use an AE action when I'm enforcing a CTOP sanction like 1RR or ECR, since technically the authority to block for those does not exist without AE authority. Another thing worth keeping in mind about when to use AE is if you want the action logged. A block for edit warring is different than a block for edit warring in a contentious topic, and strongly influences further arbitration enforcement. It also provides a helpful log for tracking the baseline disruption in a topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]