Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:19, 5 October 2023

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages: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 you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, 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)

Open tasks

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

• 4 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 25 sockpuppet investigations
• 2 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 3 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 0 requests for RD1 redaction
• 43 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 27 requested closures
• 49 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 6 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Ban revision request

A couple of weeks ago I had asked to have my one-way interaction ban with user AldezD revised - not to drop the ban, but to narrow the scope. There was no consensus to do anything. That's OK. Much to my surprise, AldezD came out of a 6-month "retirement", apparently for the sole purpose of harassing me. Given this, I would ask that the indefinite one-way ban be extended to an indefinite two-way ban. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure. If he's retired, it doesn't affect him, and if he isn't, it appears it might very well be needed anyway. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Taking a second look, that PA is more than just dehumanising. I think in addition to an interaction ban a final warning against all personal attacks is warranted, and if AldezD makes any further personal attacks, they can be blocked from editing for any period of time or indefinitely. Assuming bad faith, calling an editor immature, and dehumanising the poster. I think the revision linked should certainly be revision deleted as well by an admin. I am considering the severity of the personal attack in this comment as well. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I was also about to say the post in that diff link of AldezD's comments looks ageist but it is a bit unclear. I don't want to go too far and make a false accusation, but that is one of the reasons for this. If they don't come back to Misplaced Pages then it won't affect them, and if they do, it hopefully gets them away from the areas of dispute. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Since there was very recently consensus against loosening the restriction, and given the other editor's gross overreaction to being inadvertently pinged one time in a discussion clearly falling within WP:BANEX, I think it's reasonable to make this a two-way IBAN. As for your earlier request: sanctions aren't meant to be a Sword of Damocles hanging over your head forever. If you edit something and then someone goes through the history to find that the edit was actually contrary to your ban, apologize and revert and that should be the end of it. But also, if you want to be able to quickly check for a particular editor's edits to any page, the User History script here will add that filter to the standard history page. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 18:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support (Non-anyone comment) I absolutely agree. AldezD has either retired (in which case they won't be affected) or they haven't, and they think that calling people "Goblins" is acceptable behavior. Their entire post yesterday was wholly disingenuous, up to and including the claim that they were 'harassed', an extremely serious claim, which was patently not true (since it appears that BB has not even mentioned them in the last six months). Frankly, I believe they deserved sanctioning for it at the time, but that's in the past. Incidentally, this seems to have originally been a six-month IB, which was extended following a self-request. Is that the case? Serial 18:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
  • If you're asking me, yes, it was to be six months and I asked for it to be indefinite. If I had known he was going to "retire", I would have agreed to the 6 months plan, and wouldn't have asked about it a couple of weeks ago. And when I was hit with this unexpected barrage yesterday, at first I wondered if the account had been compromised. I also don't recall pinging (or "tagging", as he put it), but maybe something triggered it. He was talking about 10 years ago, or some such, but I never heard of this guy until sometime in the last year or two. So something's not making sense. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    • When you added a link to their user page at the editing requests talk page, that would have generated an on-wiki notification for them, like this: User:Baseball Bugs. If you don't want that to happen then you can use {{noping}}, like this: Baseball Bugs. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
      • Oh! I didn't realize that. I thought that a ping came from putting User: inside pairs of braces. I'm either working off old information or had forgotten it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support two-way IBAN. The ANI discussion opened was unacceptable and the "coming out of retirement" to retaliate was also very unacceptable and uncalled for. Retirement does not provide protection against sanctions. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support two way IBAN. AldezD was way out of line hurling their bizarre "goblin" and "creature" insults. Cullen328 (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support two-way IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment The "goblin" comment was out of line but I'm trying to look at it from AldezD's perspective. Reading through all the archives and history shows Aldez was very, very much upset by the interactions between him and BB. It was continuous despite numerous requests to stop and it eventually ended up where a non-involved admin put the one-way iban on BB. Later on out of nowhere, the person, who from AldezD's perspective, harassed and annoyed the hell out of them without stopping, comes back with a ping out of the blue. I would say a lot of us would freak out as well especially if the history between them was as one-sided antagonistic as it was. Slap them with a "Don't do that again" for that comment at the very least (which has been done). I think escalating to a two way is premature. spryde | talk 12:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
  • A personal attack is a personal attack. Calling someone a "goblin" is dehumanizing at the least. If an editor is unable to keep their cool by accidental violations of WP:IBAN or even with behavior where there is consensus that WP:BANEXEMPT applies, then it probably means they should not be interacting with them to begin with. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 13:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
  • @Sp: can you also explain AldezD's references to BB's "nonsense from 10x years ago" that harasses him? Serial 14:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

    No clue about that. I am talking about the interactions 2020-2022. spryde | talk 15:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

    • Indeed. The problem is that it's now harder to confirm the nominator's own statements if they claim to have had literally decade-old issues with BB. Serial 17:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
      • Is there a way to create a list of when one user has interacted with another over time? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
        • Like if you have responded to each other? I don't know, I looked around and tools like this seem to show when you've both edited the same pages and what the time differential was. Zaathras (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm with spryde on this one. Given the reason for the ban in the first place, I would be more inclined to extend Bugs 1-way ban to explicitly remove any of the usual exemptions. Its not necessary to ping someone you are banned from contacting with to appeal the ban. Sanctioning an editor, who had to go to the lengths of getting someone forcibly restricted from interacting with them for harrassment and stalking, for reacting badly when said editor then pokes them? It seems far too much like enabling harrassment to me. Aldez has been sufficiently chastised for reacting poorly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I was not aware that I was "poking" or pinging the user. I thought I was merely providing a link to the user's page. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
    • You have been here long enough and are experienced enough, that that excuse has little credibility. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
      • You are mistaken. I don't do pinging as a general rule, so I didn't know that merely linking to a user page would generate a ping. I had thought putting the user name in braces was the way to do a ping. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

        "Putting the user name in braces" and "linking to a user page" are identical acts; they both involve writing two open square braces, the characters "User:", the username, and two close square braces. --JBL (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

        Yes, I know that now. But was it always that way? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

        • No opinion on the actual interaction details, but I also have no idea what does or doesn't 'ping' a user. In any case, I would say the user should be 'pinged' or otherwise be aware if the other side of an interaction ban is asking for a change in the status of that ban. If the ban had been changed, should that have happened without AldezD knowing a discussion was ongoing? What is the appropriate venue/method for Bugs to make such a request? --Onorem (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

          That's why WP:BANEXEMPT exists - you must notify a user when opening a discussion about them on ANB, and appealing a ban is no exception. In fact, that is the only time a user is allowed to even interact with them during an interaction ban, barring obvious vandalism. Of course there can be restrictions on when appeals may be levied and where they may be levied. Awesome Aasim 14:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  The reaction by AldezD was grossly inappropriate. To quote WP:BANPOL, "A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption." In this case, this would stop the uncalled retaliatory statements that came out. Retirement does not stop one from becoming sanctioned. Pings can certainly happen at accident; I did not know at the time that linking to a user page would generate a ping; when I figured out, I eventually figured that that is probably included in an interaction ban, except during appeal of the ban. I have also in my early days accidentally pinged people. That is when I made the edit to reword and clarify.

  There is no way to speculate on the future, but if this is how AldezD will react in the event of an accidental violation or if Baseball Bugs were to engage in dispute resolution about the ban, then a two-way IBAN is the appropriate remedy. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Does it matter either way? AldezD only came out of retirement in response to Baseball Bugs's ping (Which we are told was inadvertant) so, if he has really retired from Misplaced Pages (I am trying hard to work out how that user saw the ping without logging on) then it makes no difference whether he is subject to a ban or not. Just toss a coin to decide the outcome and close this. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Are there any rules governing what "retired" actually means? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

    @Baseball Bugs WP:RETIRED is an information page that details the process of leaving Misplaced Pages. A person that is retired has abandoned the account and does not plan on editing at any time in the future. If they are to come back, the same sanctions will apply to them upon return. See WP:CLEANSTART and WP:VANISH. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger AldezD mentioned that they logged in to see what had been going on since their retirement, and that's when they saw the ping. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Challange of RfC closure (will discuss first)

Talk:Operation Underground Railroad#RfC: Reliability of sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Operation_Underground_Railroad&diff=prev&oldid=1177878538 FormalDude (talk · contribs) weirdly closed this RFC claiming that there has been consensus, which obviously isnt the case. Please someone look over it --FMSky (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that FMSky has not contacted me about the closure to try to resolve the issue through discussion per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. I see a clear consensus of editors agreeing that the RfC should be closed and the content included in the body and lede. I'm not sure what the objection here is. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The link says "other closures (including requests for comment) are discussed at WP:AN."

The rfc initally had no consensus. Then when new sources came out, there was consensus to CLOSE this rfc and start a new one with these new sources. Please read again --FMSky (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It says "If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard" (emphasis mine). I would've been happy to discuss your concerns with you (and still am), but coming here minutes after my close is jumping the gun.

And I'm still not sure how that's an objection as I made no comment about whether another RfC is needed, though more than half the people agreeing it should be closed explicitly mentioned that a new RfC is not needed. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, i will discuss it with you first then. This can be closed.---FMSky (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

FMSky has been a disruptive presence at that talkpage and the related Tim Ballard, arguing against the consensus of other editors that mainstream news publications reporting on Vice's investigation means that it is due to be included in the article. They've also been a disruptive presence on the talkpage of What is a Woman?, Including at one point arguing that the term anti-trans "could mean anything, such as anti-transvestite or anti-transglutaminase antibodies" , seemingly as facetious trolling. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment on the topic, not the user. The rfc initally had no consensus. Then when new sources came out, there was consensus to CLOSE this rfc and start a new one with these new sources. Please read again --FMSky (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should read about the concept of WP:BOOMERANG. The problem here is you, not FormalDude's close. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you focus on the topic at hand --FMSky (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The topic at hand here is you, as all the problems at the OUR article that resulted in the RFC in the first place were caused by your disruptive editing. I'm not the only editor to have had enough of your behaviour, see Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#What Is a Woman?. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Trust me, that feeling is mutual. However I'm here to improve articles, and will continue to do so within the guidelines of this site. It is my right to challenge an rfc close i deemed incorrect. you attacking me for a completely unrelated topic doesnt change that. -- FMSky (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely topic banned FMSky from the articles broadly constructed under AP CT procedures for not listening to others, edit warring, bludgeoning discussions, and displaying ownership over the articles. No comment on any further sanctions against FMSky or others. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 07:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: 1-year transgender topic ban

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

Survey

• Support as proposer - as raised by Hemiauchenia above, in September 2023, when another editor used this Pink News source, which gives the description of the anti-trans What Is a Woman? film, FMSky argued that the source doesnt say "anti-transgender", as that term could mean anything, such as anti-transvestite or anti-transglutaminase antibodies . Noting that the source Pink News is focused on LGBT content, and that the source does not discuss any anti-transglutaminase antibodies at all, and even mentions transgender in the source. Misplaced Pages:Competence is required to edit this topic, and FMSky has failed to demonstrate that by having egregiously misread the source. starship.paint (RUN) 01:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's obnoxious and concerning, but that one exchange isn't really enough to add an additional tban. There is perhaps an argument that the tban applied above should've been a typical AP tban given the combination of issues at Ballard, etc. and What Is a Woman, but given where we are now I think you'll need more diffs to substantiate this being needed. — Rhododendrites \\ 02:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: - consider the context, FMSky first started editing the article by removing anti-transgender and transphobic from the lede, despite six sources cited, on 16 June, then did it again on 24 August, with the comments: WP:WEIGHT, just as many sources dont see it like that and no need to highlight these fringe viewpoints, especially in the lead respectively. Over this time, FMSky also shifts the anti-transgender and transphobic further down the body six times despite being continually reverted: 16 July / 24 August / 25 August / 26 August first time / 26 August second time / 26 August third time. After this clear campaign to de-emphasize these terms, FMSky then objected to equating "anti-trans" to "anti-transgender", but now admits that they actually know "anti-trans" means "anti-transgender", yet they decided to initiate a talk page discussion objecting to that characterisation, thereby wasting the time of six other editors, and now admits that they actually provided a sarcastic reply, despite never mentioning this before, not even in the above discussion. This is disruptive behaviour. starship.paint (RUN) 13:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  That was a sarcastic reply, I thought that was obvious. It was to demonstrate that it was essentially original research as it didn't specifically say anti transgender and could theoretically mean anything. If you block me from that topic area you would have to do the same with the other user that agreed with me https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:What_Is_a_Woman%3F&diff=next&oldid=1174314760 FMSky (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  So, to be clear, I believe this is the reference in question? And if I have that right, then your position is that "anti-trans" as used in the subhead could "theoretically mean anything" and to say it refers to transgender is original research? Dumuzid (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  I know that it means anti transgender. But it didn't outright say it, that's my point. Imo when citing text we should say exactly what the sources say FMSky (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  "Anti-trans" is so obviously "anti-transgender" in this context, though? LilianaUwU 09:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Its obviously either transgender or transsexual --FMSky (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

...am I being trolled? LilianaUwU 10:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

No why? I think these are the most common meanings (I could be wrong though, I'm not an expert on this). Im really not sure what you guys want from me so I'm not going to comment here any further --FMSky (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support for deliberately disingenuous conduct at the What Is A Woman talk page as highlighted by the nomination - for example, the "anti-transglutaminase" thing in the nomination, and accusing other editors who voted against his RSC of wanting "info suppressed from this page to make them feel better". I also would not oppose an AP TBAN, because the conduct at these articles has been less than acceptable - see, for example, describing Vice as a "biased far left outlet" while trying to argue against inclusion of something, before a week later adding Vice as a source to the Tim Ballard article, which is a BLP. I could go on. ser! 10:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That comment was struck out by me afterwards https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:What_Is_a_Woman%3F&diff=next&oldid=1177214005 and there are actually doubts about WP:VICEs reliablitly --FMSky (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, so you doubt a source's reliability and call it "biased" and "far-left", but you add it a few days later to a BLP, for which there's even more stringent sourcing policies? Something's not adding up. ser! 10:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support, the comment about anti-transglutaminase is revolting enough, but then FMSky is playing dumb on this very discussion (here). Clearly not fit for the topic area. LilianaUwU 10:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - In a WP:CTOPICS area, I found their behavior problematic at that talk page. I also find their answers/comments about the Pink News source disingenuous, considering the topic of the article, and their edits to the article, here, here, here, and here. They undoubtedly knew what anti-trans meant, but sill insisted on the talk page that since its doesnt say anti-transgender so its WP:OR. And then when a discussion didn't achieve consensus for content they wanted in the lead, they opened a RfC which participants also agreed that this rfc was disruptive, as the previous discussion was also opposed to adding the text. They also pestered editors about not watching the film: you obviously haven't even watched them film you're commenting about, You probably havent watched the film, and this question to me - Why are you voting if you havent even watched the film. In my view, watching a film shouldn't be a condition for commenting in a RfC. I made one more comment and then left the discussion, due to the "chilly" reception I received. And then there was this insinuation about the motives of editors commenting in the RfC: I have accepted now that people want the info suppressed from this page to make them feel better, so whatever, which they were asked to strike, and instead just removed their reply and other editors replies with a whatever edit summary. It was rightfully restored later by another editor and the comments were then struck. I think a topic ban in this area is reasonable, considering their comments on just this one article's talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support As I noted previously, they just seem to be a trolling account that is actively being disruptive across a number of articles related to this topic. They continuously make new threads on talk pages over and over, arguing every single point to death when they don't get their way because the majority of editors do not agree with them. It's tendentious to a degree of insanity and unhelpful on actually improving any of the articles. They do not seem to be here to make the project better, but to instead push their POV on this specific topic area. Hopefully a topic ban from this subject will allow them to be more productive elsewhere, though I'm rather doubtful about that. Silverseren 16:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support, although I think an extension of the ban to American politics might also be needed because some disruptive areas like Sound of Freedom (film)/Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) and Killing of Jordan Neely/Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely aren't covered under either the specific page blocks above or this topic ban. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Sound of Freedom is covered by being related to Tim Ballard, which i have been banned from --FMSky (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that error at the same time you did. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Honestly, I think there's a lot more evidence for a topic ban from AP, where FMSky edits frequently and is consistently disruptive, than from GENSEX, which they edit relatively infrequently. However, because of the large overlap between the categories and because of how egregious the "anti-trans" argument was I'm still in support of a GENSEX topic ban. Loki (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I am unimpressed with their intransigence and their generally disruptive nature; they would be better off editing a subject area that does not so thoroughly demand knowledge, carefulness, and a full understanding in order to edit constructively. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

The problem with this proposal is that I edit dozens of BLPs every, some of them happen to be trans without me even knowing. So if I just do some basic formatting in these types of articles which I often do (such as correcting date formats etc) would that be a violation too? That seems needlessly excessive. 🤷‍♂️ --FMSky (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely it would be a violation. Slow down and read articles before editing them. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that this whole discussion is a massive violation of WP:FOC. I started this thread because of something completely different. What is all this pile-on because of a completely unrelated talk page entry of me in the past??? --FMSky (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Your own behavior may be scrutinized any time you post at a noticeboard. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That's good to know, I will think twice about visiting this page again in the future then.

I have obviously made mistakes in the past, i acknowledge that, no one is perfect. I try to improve as a user every day and i generally take criticism very seriously as to not make the same mistakes twice --FMSky (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I think a topic ban because of behaviour in a single article is a bit excessive tbh --FMSky (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

At least five articles have been mentioned along with a number of associated talk pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Why would anyone's behaviour change between different articles anyway? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Many blocks shouldn't be indef

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

Hello. I oftentimes see vandals, suckpuppet accounts or similar getting indef blocked. Many times they are new users testing the waters of Misplaced Pages. I think such blocks may be overly harsh, specially for new users. My suggestion is if there is need to block, the block should not be indef. For example, instead it could be for a year, giving chance to some users who genuinely want to stop vandalizing or testing to contribute afterwards to become helpful editors.

If they repeat the behavior, then for example, a two year block, then a 4 year block, then an 8 year block. This way, there is a balance between administrator time, dealing with unduly problematic editors and giving chance to other editors to become productive and learn the ropes in Misplaced Pages. Also, multi-year blocks can give chance for instance to a user who is still maybe an immature teen to pass their phase and in adulthood they might be more mature and be interested in Misplaced Pages in a more productive way.

This chance doesn't happen if they return and still see their account indef block after 10-15 years. Even though there is an appeal mechanism, most editors probably either just see the block and give up immediately or they think they won't get unblocked and don't return. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Would anyone wait two years before contributing constructively? Assuming run-of-the-mill disruption, the blocked user could easily get unblocked by posting a plausible request after a period which might be as little as a month. Being nice to people is great except that doing that often involves disruption for other editors. A good editor can get tired of monitoring more and more nonsense and may leave if disruption is not controlled. Indefs play a valuable role in saving community time and energy, and they are not forever. Johnuniq (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Define "forever". I think I have seen people indefd blocked for 15 years or more with no updates from the initial block if Im not mistaken. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I have seen people indefd blocked for 15 years or more Are you saying that you followed Misplaced Pages's internal matters for over 7 years before you started editing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I have been around since 2001, although not registered. Also, I was thinking in the date they got blocked not that I saw them getting blocked. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

If they're here to be disruptive, they will create sockpuppets anyway (and these will only be discovered if the vandalism is distinctive enough to convince of aikely connection); there's no difference in this context between a month and indef. If they're here to be helpful, and simply don't understand the problems with their edits, a shorter term block will give them time to learn our policies better. Animal lover |666| 06:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

An indef block does not mean "forever". It means "until a convincing unblock request is made". We can't control if people think they won't be unblocked, which would apply even if an end date is put on the block. I've unblocked accounts where the user says "I was a stupid teenager 5 years ago and won't do that stuff again", no problem. 331dot (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Accounts whose first edits are vandalism virtually never go on to make constructive edits, which is why we block vandalism only accounts. Indef blocks are also not permanent - they can actually be quite short if the user posts an appeal in which they acknowledge their error and make a convincing commitment to not repeat it. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's say I created an account as a teenager, vandalised a few pages, gotten blocked, and then five years later came back with the intention of contributing legitimately: I would have two options available to me. Option A, assuming I could remember the original username and password (or was still using the same email address I was back then), I could log into the old account and request unblock. That would likely be granted, but I think I would be more likely to take Option B, to create an entirely new account and just start editing. Option B is technically a WP:BADSOCK violation, but who would ever know? Nobody would report my new account, because I wasn't being disruptive, and the old account would be stale for CU purposes even if anyone ever did suspect a connection. I expect there are many constructive contributors active on the site, who are technically evading blocks on ancient accounts they used abusively in the dim and distant. Does anyone care? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Indeed, we've had at least one user elected to adminship who acknowledged having taken "Option B". See the examples at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock. Part of me thinks we should formalize something like allowing cleanstarts for simple vandalism/DE blocks after 1 year, but at the same time IAR seems to work decently in cases where this has arisen—combined with the fact that, as you say, most people just never mention they're technically socking (cf. User:Worm That Turned/Quiet return and User:Tamzin/Lot's wife.) -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 19:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Speaking generally: Indefinite is not infinite. Indefinite just means that the behavior is severe enough to warrant a full stop to editing until the poor behavior is addressed in a convincing unblock request. However if you want anything concrete to happen you should probably post specific usernames/blocks that you'd like reviewed. Hard to action anything without diffs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Ok, what about putting a technical limit of 10 years to indef blocks so it doesn't become a permanent block? That means that after 10 years the account is automatically unblocked. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a solution to a problem that has not yet been articulated. What is the problem with the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of extant indef-blocked throwaway vandalism-only accounts remaining blocked? Girth Summit _(blether) 20:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

(About a million and a half. —Cryptic 20:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC))

"giving chance to other editors to become productive and learn the ropes in Misplaced Pages." Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not a "permanent block", as I said above. I don't think that 10 years would make a difference- this is a solution looking for a problem. Editors have the chance to return and be productive editors- request unblocking. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Out of the millions of "extant indef-blocked throwaway vandalism-only accounts" probably there is a margin of error of at least 1%. That would mean tens of thousands of potential legitimate editors blocked indefinitely. Regarding the appeal, the question is what's the proportion of editors who would be legitimate who are deterred by the sole look of their account still blocked after years vs the proportion who would submit an appeal. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

How have you calculated this MOE? 331dot (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Girth Summit said "possibly millions", then if a margin of error is 1% of possibly millions then it follows "tens of thousands of potential legitimate editors". Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That wasn't the question. 331dot was asking where you got 1% from. Mz7 (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes no sense to me. If you created an account years ago, and now want to edit constructively, you'd just create a new account. I see no reason to change the status quo. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That's quite a begging of the question. Assuming a 1% margin of error on no evidence and then determining that because of this margin of error that we have tens of thousands of falsely indeffed editors (who chose not to make an unblock request, to boot)? Rather than swinging for the fences, it'd be worthwhile to base your guesswork on some actual statistics. I'd be interested to know if there has been any research done regarding the block ratio of editors, specifically sampling those who were indef blocked but then eventually unblocked, and of that, what percentage of them turned out to be blocked incorrectly and for what reason. I think that's a better way to base the premise of your argument than just picking a random number. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't reach a conclusion. I left it at possibility (notice the key words "if", "probably", "would"). And in statistics a margin of error is included in formulas. I don't think it would be scientific to assume that all blocks are 100% accurate with no margin of error whatsoever, specially if there are "millions" as Girth Summit mentioned.

I support the inquiry you mentioned. I am a regular user so I don't have access to those statistics. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Granted, but a 1% margin of error is not scientifically realistic either, unless you can prove the sigmas are large enough that a 1% MoE is probable. And since we have a very large sample size to draw from with specific circumstances for each block, I do think 1% is an overly high guess at best.

I'm not an admin either. I know there are publicly-available tools out there to analyze Misplaced Pages activity - likely not the oversight blocks/bans or UTRS appeals, but any other visible ones at least. Perhaps a WikiStatistician can speak to that. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is normal practice in Statistics to include a margin of error between the ranges of 1% and 15% in calculations using formulas. I chose the lowest figure. I ignore what's the sample size you mentioned. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Astonishing. --JBL (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Your input is welcome given that you are a mathematician. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

My input is that margins of error are not calculated by people making up numbers between 1% and 15% with no justification whatsoever. Luckily no one has expressed any support at all for this proposal, so there is no risk of the innumeracy on display here having a harmful impact. --JBL (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

So you believe there is absolutely no margin of error in say 100,000 blocks. All are 100% accurate, administrators make no mistakes whatsoever ever. Is that what you are saying? Again, I wouldn't think that would be a proper statistical opinion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I would not have thought it possible, but your arguments are getting even worse as you go on. --JBL (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of assuming good faith, I must make the following points:

• No one here has suggested there is no margin of error.
• No one has suggested that every block is accurate and perfect and admins don't make mistakes.
• There is no basis for assuming that the margin of error will be 1%, because we don't have a statistical sample to draw from.
• You must understand that margin of error is not a flat number you can just pick out of thin air. When you analyze a sample population based on your independent variables and their dependent outcomes, the margin of error is determined by the standard deviation of your results and the sample size, which is affected by the confidence interval. And in picking the lowest number, the confidence interval is likely what you're thinking of. If you want 99.9% confidence in your results, then great. But the margin of error is resultant on those above factors, just like you can't say 2 + 2 = 7 because 7 sounds like a good number.

I hope this explains things a bit better. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I just realized there is a history between JBL and me, so I am not confident in the editor. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I actually have pretty much the opposite view. Outside of logged-out editing, where an IP address could be reassigned to an innocent user, most blocks should be indefinite. Blocking is not a punishment; it is merely a technical measure by which we can prevent someone from editing while concerns about their editing need to be addressed. If those concerns are addressed in a satisfactory manner, then we will lift the block. Temporary blocks can and do have a preventative role, especially in edit warring blocks, where they serve to stop the edit warring in the short term and deter future edit warring in the long term—see WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. On the whole, however, I think that temporary blocks are actually more likely to be ineffective and/or seen as "punitive" because it allows a user to simply wait out the block without ever addressing the disruptive behavior. Mz7 (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree with Mz7. Almost all of the blocks I have imposed on accounts have been indef. IPs are different, since they tend to be impermanent, and there is no point indeffing an IP because an LTA used it one time. But accounts - why do we block them? Because the people using them are not following our policies and guidelines. Does a break from editing make them follow those PAGs? Rarely. Better to say 'You can't edit until you read them, and agree to follow them'. Then, by all means, unblock early and unblock often.

Here is an example: Koitus~nlwiki. I imposed a temporary block on their account, because they were edit warring and insulting people. They returned to insulting people almost immediately after the temporary block expired. It wasn't anything particularly egregious - I think he called his opponent a fool, or something like that - but I reblocked and made it indefinite. They badgered me on my talk page on meta for a few weeks, but I was clear that all they needed to do in order to be unblocked was to commit to abide by the no personal attacks policy. That seems to have been too much for them, so they remain blocked to this day. I see no reason why a block like that should expire automatically, when it would be so trivially easy for the subject of the block to get it lifted.

Folk who genuinely want to contribute here constructively have plenty of guidance on what they need to do to get unblocked. The fact that there are so many indef blocked accounts is mostly due to the fact that some people make numerous accounts to cause trouble, and to a lesser extent because some people stick to one account, but are unwilling to follow the rules agreed upon and imposed by the community. The middle ground between those two positions is a bit of a grey area, but as I've said, people who find themselves there are most likely to just create a new account and hope that the connection to their naughty earlier selves will never be discovered. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That seems to have been too much for them, so they remain blocked to this day. I see no reason why a block like that should expire automatically, when it would be so trivially easy for the subject of the block to get it lifted. To me, I think this speaks volumes. Vandalism-only accounts who get blocked and then are specifically told what process they need to follow likely cannot think of a justification any more sophisticated than "I did it for lulz lmao" so they don't even bother. On the other hand, contributors who feel they have been grossly wronged or blocked by an egregiously aggressive admin will generally make an unblock request, and they are armed with all of the appropriate resources to do so. Possibly the only thing that our process doesn't really cover in WP:NOTTHEM is how to handle the latter case of an overzealous cowboy admin, but even then, it suggests asking for input from an WP:UNINVOLVED admin.

Misplaced Pages has over 6.7M articles. Let's not bend over backwards for editors who want to ruin them. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I noticed there seems to be a consensus against my proposal of 10 year limit for indef blocks. But I don't think such a limit constitute much of "bending over backwards for editors who want to ruin ". I was thinking of potential legitimate editors who outgrow their vandalism phase and give them an automatic chance after 10 years. Not really the same like lifting a block after a month or even a year. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

And I was thinking of all of the Willy on Wheels accounts that were blocked more than 10 years ago but will now automatically get their chance at redemption. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose this, as this is neither kindergarten nor a remedial school. A new user to the site must have the competence to comport themselves to the social norms of the community they are joining, and if they cannot manage that simple task, then they do not belong here, frankly. A user who has made mistakes but shows a willingness to learn from them should be able to articulate an unblock rationale good enough to get an indefinite block lifted. Call it a Wiki-Litmus Test. Zaathras (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• This isn't 2006, when I started. The website is a big deal now, compared to what it was, so the standard for blocking have, and should, change. Most new users coming in vandalising, yes, should be indef. Sometimes I will block for a few days if they did some good stuff and some bad stuff, to see if I can get the point across. When I have followed up, the vast majority of time, they either never came back, or went back to vandalising. Rarely did any come back to contribute in a positive manner. So to agree with the above, we probably need MORE indef blocks, not fewer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• No This has loads of problems. As stated above, this is already meaningless. If an editor wants to be unblocked, they can request so. What this would do is unblock thousands upon thousands of bad faith accounts, some of which were operated by extremely abusive LTA's who would most certainly use this hypothetical update to their advantage, attacking this website with their numerous now-unblocked accounts, which would take forever to reblock. And, for all our hard work, they would just get unblocked again in another 10 years. No way. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  By the nature of being a LTA, they are likely doing this anyway with new accounts. If anything, re-using a previously blocked account would be easier to spot. 216.126.35.137 (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• The spirit is more important than the letter. The purpose of blocking is to prevent imminent disruption. A disruptive editor with legitimate interest in contributing positively will do what I did - appeal their block after a reasonable amount of time and agree to conditions to editing. On the other hand, a person creating a throwaway account to vandalize will likely only come back if they have a genuine interest to contribute positively. If someone did one thing 15 years ago, I don't think we would care. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 13:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems to work well now. Often not true when you try to fix something that isn't broken. If this was an RfC, it would be snowing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Although I'm "involved", I kindly suggest that an admin close this. The discussion is proceeding to a point where not only is the consensus clear that the proposed solutions are problematic, but the discourse - such as it currently is - has the potential to become even more unpleasantly contentious if allowed to persist. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Deleting an image I uploaded

I uploaded the wrong image on Misplaced Pages commons and I want help removing it Capreolkid (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry, they will be deleted as copyright violations in no time. Bedivere (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I"m pretty sure you can just speedy delete it by tagging it. --Rockstone 21:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If no one else has edited it, tag it as {{db-author}}. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom Electoral Commission nominations open

Nominations for the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections are now open. — Frostly (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Frostly. Admins, this is a self-nomination and volunteers are needed! The commission is short-term and the primary duty is to help make final decisions about edge cases that may occur. If you are not going to run for arbcom and have experience dealing with user related issues, this may be a good fit for you. Thank you, — xaosflux 11:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Please Help Me

Hello, I'm Aviram7 but I unable to edit our main account @User:Aviram7 due to lost of password and gmail or my main account protected from 2 Factor, so, I unable to recover to old data due to phone format, Then I created yesterday alt account of @Aviram7. please see this.ÀvîRâm7 04:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Aviram7 (alt): Admins cannot recover your password. You are allowed to start using a new account, provided the old account is no longer used. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Thanks for reply, my main account already stopped by probelm , no more edit but they contains specific user right like, Pcr, rollback etc,any admin can I transform userright from Aviram7 to Aviram7 (alt) because I going to continue editing on Misplaced Pages from this account. Kind regards ÀvîRâm7 05:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell, ToBeFree, and Oshwah: Can you help about that because I'm in trouble and unable editing from main account on Misplaced Pages due to password lost, gmail lost and other phone data , I'm confirmed I'm Aviram7, please help me. Kind regards ÀvîRâm7 05:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Aviram7 (alt) I can verify that you’re the same person as Aviram7 via CU. @AmandaNP, can stewards still reset 2FA in cases like this or does this now need to go to Phabricator? Courcelles (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

If I interpret meta:Help:Two-factor authentication and wikitech:Password and 2FA reset#Wikimedia or wikitech two factor authentication removal correctly, disabling 2fa in cases where the scratch codes are unavailable or when the password has been forgotten in a way Special:PasswordReset can't fix requires you to be a developer with shell access to the mwscript command, or a member of one of the following groups: staff, sysadmin, or wmf-supportsafety Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles and Victor Schmidt: Hello, everyone, I trying to recover gmail who attach with my main account, Can staff or stewards are able to change gmail of any Misplaced Pages account, if it's recovery couldn't possible?. Kind regardsÀvîRâm7 14:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I have granted you the same user groups as your original account. Please contact Trust and Safety at cawikimedia.org, explaining your situation. Since you have lost your email account that was associated with your original Misplaced Pages account, they may not be able to help you, but it is worth a try. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles: yep we can't do anything, the email T&S @ this above is the correct process. -- Amanda (she/her) 00:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: Thanks for understanding my probelm and also thank for reply here and I'll try to contact trust and safety. Kind regards ÀvîRâm7 15:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I already mentioned I also lost our gmail Id who attach to main wikipedia account, then who I contact Trust&Saftey team, I'm unable to recover gmail Id due to 2 Fa protection, who to I contact there and I also decide to continue work on Misplaced Pages from this alternative account.Kind regards ÀvîRâm7 02:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

But continuous efforts are being made to recover the Gmail of the main account of my Misplaced Pages. As soon as the main account and Gmail are recovered, a reply will be given from the main ID in this section.Kind regards ÀvîRâm7 17:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The page of Geneva School of Diplomacy and International relations has been deleted

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

Hello,

We would like to bring to your quick attention that the page of Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Switzerland, has been deleted and no notification explaining the reason was sent.

We would like the page reinstated ASAP. We suspect conflict of interest with such deletion. Thank you for your quick attention and action. GSD Communication Team (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

You will need to change your username to something more individualistic, please see your user talk page. You will also need to make a formal paid editing disclosure.

The subject of an article is not typically notified that the article is being deleted, unless they already have an account and are monitoring it in their watchlist.

Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations was deleted in 2021 as a copyright infringement, but perhaps you are referring to something more recent? 331dot (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for a Soft Global Block

Can any admin wp:globalblock and wp:softblock to m:special:centralauth/corcelles? The username very closely resembles to courcelles.197.14.249.108 (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

How about no? The resemblance is almost certainly coincidental, rather than impersonation. See previous discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Administrator changes Hey man im josh Alex Bakharev CorbieVreccan Cyphoidbomb Davodd Hog Farm JamesR KnightLago Mark Ironie Nosebagbear (deceased) Rschen7754 Tamzin TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes DatGuy Ferret RickinBaltimore TonyBallioni Worm That Turned Oversighter changes RickinBaltimore TonyBallioni Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Misplaced Pages-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

• Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

• Remedy 9 ("MarioProtIV topic ban") of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case has been rescinded.

Miscellaneous

• The 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of one new CheckUser.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections opens on 2 October and closes on 8 October.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Twelve fewer administrators

According to the newsletter above, we lost twelve administrators last month, including recently-active stalwarts like Nosebagbear (RIP), Hog Farm, Rschen7754 and TonyBallioni. I believe the last time there were so many desysoppings in one month, excluding times when the activity requirements changed, was October 2016. There were a range of reasons, and hopefully for at least one of them (Tamzin) it will only be a short leave of absence, but still, it's sad to see. – Joe (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey you still got me right? RIGHT? Seriously, it's a thankless task and I can understand why some admins want to turn in the mop at times. To those who did, thanks for the help and hopefully we will see you back again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

From my noobie perspective.

When you look at how much abuse admins get on a daily basis, along with the same old questions from new editors every single day, having to make difficult calls on behaviour (sometimes from long standing editors), having to be the one to keep your cool when someone questions every judgment you make and not to mention the (imho) frankly abusive mire at RFA, it is a wonder why any of you do it. Anyone who manages admin roles AND real life should be commended regardless of their length of service. Knitsey (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Not to say that the collective reason these admins left is specifically due to increasing toxicity at Misplaced Pages (in what volunteer environment should one be thankful to receive death threats, vandalism, and 100 abusive failed login attempts?), but it would be useful to know where some major problems originate and what possible ways we have to address them. It's unfortunate that anytime we try to fix the problem, the vastly diverse (and vocal) interpretations of how Misplaced Pages should operate results in nothing being done. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought I had read a few conversations about unbundled admin rights WaltClipper, I couldn't remember where I had seen them. Handy link, thank you.

I do think that there are pros and cons with some unbundled admin tools. I've thought on a few occasions that having specifically trained (sub? Not sure that's correct) admins just dealing with AIV and UAA would help but the amount of oversight that would need, it probably isn't practical. RFPP is another area that could alleviate admin pressure, again, oversight would probably create more work.

Admins, for the most part, seem to cope well with the pressures mentioned above but it would be really interesting to find out if there is an average 'shelf-life' for admins? Knitsey (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Leafing through them only two appear to have left for reasons other than inactivity or their personal lives. As for the other two CorbieVreccan was involved in a minor scandal and did the "quite before they fire you" thing (despite it being far from clear that they would have been desysopped) and Rschen7754 is a leader of the extremist wing of the roads wikiproject who left wiki en-mass in protest of our notability standards. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This comment is a perfect illustration why the administrators feel under constant attack, underappreciated, and lose motivation to do anything here. Ymblanter (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Ymblanter. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This statement is not appreciated. Seems like the last part potentially equates Misplaced Pages to a WP:BATTLEGROUND. The Night Watch (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

BATTLEGROUNDs have warring factions, not moderates and extremists within a given spectrum. What term would you use instead? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Horse Eye, jesus man--kick a guy on his way out, why don't you. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Who is down here? Rschen7754 wasn't kicked out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

How about you stop blatantly violating WP:NPA, Horse Eye's Back? I'm surprised Doc didn't straight up block you for this. LilianaUwU 21:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the personal feedback and will take it to heart, do you have any comment on my argument? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone exercising the right to fork (though I don't know the details and if it's a true fork as described by Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Forking); it is that same "extremism" that gave us the wonderful LibreOffice. I wish their roads project well and genuinely hope it prospers. - Aoidh (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Nobody said there was something wrong with forking, I encouraged the fork and fully support it. Perhaps this is just political science terms being misunderstood but the forking element is extremist by definition, the moderates stay with the core project. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not a protest to, when consistently told that the content you wish to write about is incompatible with a project, create a project that is compatible with the content you wish to write about. Finding a reasonable solution to the issue they faced regarding the content they wanted to write about is not a protest of anything. - Aoidh (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I am mistaken but a number do seem to be leaving wikipedia writ large in protest. When a group says that they are "seceding" and throws around some pretty strong language on the matter I take them at their word. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I've seen that TikTok and it came across to me as a video made from frustration, and is I think where I got the forking thought from, as an open source enthusiast I took seceding to mean forking. I don't see the extremist wing of the roads wikiproject who left wiki en-mass in protest of our notability standards but rather a group of editors who were constantly told that their efforts were incompatible with the project, and so found a solution by making a new project for their work. I think we're saying the same thing, just differently is all. - Aoidh (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken forking does not generally involve resignations etc. I don't see why they couldn't just fork roads and continue to edit other areas of wiki. IMO thats the difference between seceding and forking, one is a political act and one is a technical act. They aren't just forking, they're abandoning wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If I was told I wasn't allowed to edit in the only area I enjoyed editing, I don't think I'd continue editing either... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Who was told they weren't allowed to edit in the only area they enjoyed editing? I don't remember any topic bans but there may have been some. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

You just said "I don't see why they couldn't just fork roads and continue to edit other areas of wiki" - i.e. "I don't see why they couldn't just and continue to edit other areas of wiki." BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

What part of forking means that they're no longer allowed to continue editing roads articles on wiki? We don't ban forkers from editing the forked topic, there's nothing wrong with it... It should be encouraged. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

You told the road editors "I hope you continue editing the non-roads parts of wikipedia even if your roads related editing moves to a new project" - How is that supposed to be interpreted any other way? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Please explain this interpretation, I am baffled. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, I don't know anymore - maybe I just misread or am just a poor word interpreter - but anyway this is going nowhere so stepping away. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I apologize profusely to you and 707 if thats what it looks like I'm saying, that is not at all what I meant. What I meant was that their no longer editing roads articles on English wikipedia saddened me and even if they weren't going to edit those any longer in order to devote their efforts to the content in the fork I hoped that they would continue to edit in parts of the wiki which had not been forked. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I see - I may just have been misreading what you said - apologies if that's the case. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as Unless I'm mistaken forking does not generally involve resignations etc. I can't think of a successful forking situation where it didn't involve that. The examples that come to mind is OpenOffice.org developers leaving to create the Document Foundation and LibreOffice, XFree86 devs leaving to start X.Org Foundation, and Libera Chat (though that wasn't really a fork as such ,it had the same goals as forks generally do). - Aoidh (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

But they didn't fork wikipedia, they only forked part of it... Rschen7754 wasn't a roads admin, they were a wikipedia admin. Generally when a topic gets forked off of wiki (or to another part of wiki) those editors say active here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

A lot of forks are only partial (WebKit comes to mind), but editors come and go even without forks; an administrator leaving to pursue another interest, especially when they grow disillusioned or get burnout isn't unusual at all, and they may be back in some capacity later or they may not, but that's their prerogative. One last thought, sometimes forks (especially wiki forks) come full circle (like Wowpedia) so who knows what will happen down the road (no pun intended). - Aoidh (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Thats a very good point, perhaps it is more natural that I thought and is not necessary indicative of protest. I suspect that at the end of the day most of the editors will find their way back here, the actual disagreements aren't at all as stark as the TikTok makes them seem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

What they said. Plus if you joined Misplaced Pages to write articles about goblins, but after years of doing that a bunch of people who never really got involved in little green creature topics but had Strong Feelings about notability as an abstract concept suddenly turned up to say hey, you know what, we actually don't want all these articles on goblins, wouldn't you consider leaving to start Goblinpædia? It's a rational, understandable decision that does not at all change the fact that this project has lost a prolific admin with eighteen years of experience. We really do suck at valuing people around here. You're only as good as your last mistake. – Joe (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

How would one have prevented that exactly? Making our notability standards and overall quality worse in order to retain people who demand it be as such? Silverseren 18:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Would not mercilessly attacking content creators and admins have made Misplaced Pages worse, though? (that's at least how they felt - and I've had poor experiences that feel like that as well) We should overall improve how we treat admins and content creators, in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful if all editors behavioured in a more civil manner to each other. I fear this discussion isn't going to help that cause. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think bringing up "must meet GNG" is "mercilessly attacking content creators". You do try and bring up the past situation of you arguing that GNG doesn't matter frequently, friend. It's not actually a good argument. Silverseren 19:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Its not simply saying "must meet GNG" but also rude remarks like that above by Horse eye's back and relentless attempts to delete articles and tighten further notability standards again and again and again which is what drives editors away. As for "mercilessly attacking," that was the exact words of what one road editor told me offline what they felt was happening to them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

And yet that tightening in almost every case is just properly enforcing a requirement of having a single reference of significant coverage in an article, sometimes two. Because for the longest time we weren't enforcing referencing standards in all topic areas. That we've now moved as a community to do that enforcement of long-standing rules and requirements is not some onerous new strictness. Silverseren 19:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The encyclopaedia was always going to contract to a certain extent as the project matured and the community gained a clearer idea of what they wanted Misplaced Pages to be. But calling people who have worked hard on the articles that are now falling victim to that contraction "extremists", instead of working with them to preserve what we can, is not beneficial to the project's long-term health. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

What gives you the impression that I haven't worked with them to preserve what we can? They're leaving because they refused to compromise with the community, not because the community didn't compromise with them (it did, see the Maps RfC for one such comprise). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering that there is no such requirement (see WP:NEXIST), you might be able to see why suddenly beginning to enforce it has alienated a lot of people? – Joe (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It's driving me away. In one setting after another, I'm seeing a baffling combination of wiki-lawyering and simultaneously treating GNG as holier than policy. To me, there's no list of three or four bullet points that can sum up how to decide what goes in an encyclopedia that covers every sphere of human activity. General advice exists to be refined or overridden when more specific experience is available. But I'm burned out of arguing that the GNG is not in all times and circumstances the operating principle we should shape our thoughts around, so nowadays I only edit to fix things that are pretty obviously broken. XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Would not mercilessly attacking content creators and admins have made Misplaced Pages worse, though? Nobody is mercilessly attacking content creators and admins. People are just saying "articles should demonstrate notability", which isn't exactly a high standard given that all we require is WP:GNG.

Yes, even this low standard will cause people to leave, but just as the exodus of people who wanted OR on Misplaced Pages made Misplaced Pages a better place, the exodus of people who want articles on non-notable topics will make Misplaced Pages a better place. BilledMammal (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course, there's more to it then just saying "articles should be notable" - harassment, stress from the same group of editors over and over again trying to delete your hard work, etc. - I'm largely in agreement with SounderBruce's comment below. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's important to distinguish between reviews of articles in a topic area and reviews of articles created by a single editor. The former may be stressful for those whose articles come up again and again, but it isn't harassment, and it is necessary - we have a responsibility to curate the encyclopedia and that does mean that these topic area reviews must take place and editors shouldn't be criticized for doing them.

The latter is more complicated; it is permitted by our policies ("correcting related problems on multiple articles"), but it is also more stressful for the editor whose articles are being reviewed and can feel like harassment. However, in some cases it is necessary; when an editor has engaged in mass creation, and their mass creations are problematic, the only practical way to address them is by reviewing their creations together - LUGSTUBS and LUGSTUBS2 are examples of this.

I would also note that it's not only editors who hold your position who have felt harassed over this. I, for example, have been subject to hounding by some who disagree with my position on notability. BilledMammal (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless those articles about Goblins don't meet our notability standards (including the specific Goblin ones endorsed by the WikiGoblin community) nothing is going to happen to them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Continued harassment of several editors in good standing who merely have some disagreements on notability is definitely what drives people away from this project. The fatigue that sets in from putting out the fires (drive-by taggings, AfDs, and endless discussions) prevents us from doing what we do best: create content and manage it more effectively. The cherry on top is labeling people as extremists for just wanting some peace of mind and complying with the wishes of the deletionist bloc here. This is how communities die. SounderBruce 19:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no deletionist block here, this was an argument between people who wanted stand alone articles for all state highways (those who rejected WP:GEOROADS, specifically the word "typically") and people who thought that some state highways were better covered on other pages (those who supported WP:GEOROADS). Its two different approaches to inclusionism (even if the deflationists did pile onto one side). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

User edits, and especially user content edits, are as high as they have ever been, total page views have been solid since 2016. Misplaced Pages is not a dieing community. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added section headers for this conversation, which has diverged from the OP, and I'd like to strongly condemn Horse Eye's Back's language. Calling regular editors "extremist" is harassment and evokes the worst in global politics. And this isn't even the first time Horse Eye's Back has used hostile language when referring to editors he comes into conflict with. See, for example, here, here, and for a recent smattering, plus this block in 2020. Horse, what is it going to take for you to lighten up? As I've said to you before: not being a jerk is criminally easy. Ed  18:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a very neutral subsection title, if you read the discussion you will find that what I mean by "extremist" is probably not all that different from what you mean by whatever word you choose, what do you call the group in a system who rejects the moderate/consensus position and secedes? I didn't mean anything other than the purely descriptive, in political science its not a pejorative term any more than moderate is. I would also ask you to look into the context of a block before bringing it up, if you had I don't think you would. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I've boldly removed that header. As I said above all I feel all editors could do with being more civil with each other. I don't think HEBs comment was very helpful, and I don't think that header was either. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Admin loss discussion

Some statistics: not a single month this year have we had a net gain of administrators, and so far all but one have had a net decrease, some large - per the admin's newsletter: January: +3, -11, net -8; February: +1, -5, net -4; March: +1, -2, net -1; April: +1, -1, net 0 (only month without negative net); May: +1, -4, net -3; June: +1, -3, net -2; July: +1, -8, net -7; August: +1, -4, net -3; September: +2, -4, net -2; October: +1, -12, net -11; Overall: +13, -53, net -40. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Those are worrying numbers. Knitsey (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, that has been the norm for some time. There were 2004 admins appointed between 2002 and 2011, compared to 220 since 2012. We're still slowly working through a long tail of inactive admins from that early boom, and until that's done with we can't realistically expect net gains. – Joe (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

One could say that we should already count all of the inactive admins as negatives anyways, since they aren't actually acting as admins and haven't been for years in most cases. Counting them as part of the administrator group right now is just pretending there's more admins than there are.

At the same time, their inactivity despite the rest of the admin areas working fine means they weren't needed in the admin numbers in the first place. So that's the other angle to things. Lower admin numbers doesn't mean anything if they weren't doing admin actions in the first place. Them just existing as admins isn't beneficial to the wiki as a while. Silverseren 19:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I was coming here to say the same thing. If we lose inactive Admins it’s not a bad thing, and the two who resigned during a dispute over their use of the tools weren’t very active. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It's basically a situation of if we have 100 admins, but only 10 are doing admin work, then we only have 10 admins. And removing those 90 others is not actually affecting our available admins in any real way, other than numerically. Silverseren 19:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

While true, we're still not replacing the ones who become inactive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

As an aside, I've really never understood people who ask to be desysopped and then stick around anyway, even in reduced capacity. There's no actual rule that you have to "act as an administrator" every day, and even at 2% normal editing rate the extra buttons can really come in handy. I've had months where I maybe made 5-10 edits, but even then I could just block a spammer instead of going through the rigmarole of getting someone else to do what I could have. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point, there's nothing in the admin policy which dictates that. Apart from the possibility that maybe they want a period of time where they don't feel obligated to do admin activities, the only thing I can figure is that some admins want to feel like they have control over their own destiny. Thus if they foresee inactivity, even for a brief period of time, they would much prefer hang up the tools on their own terms rather than have them automatically removed by a bot. I'm trying to think of the instances in which an admin asked for the tools back after having them taken away mechanically, and the discussions I do recall on WP:BN weren't very flattering. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The general issue there is becoming out of touch... Tools, policy, and guideline are all constantly changing and we've generally treated being active with staying current on changes. Better I think would be a feature that let someone pause being an admin rather than the binary of mop/no mop. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

We're still slowly working through a long tail of inactive admins from that early boom, and until that's done with we can't realistically expect net gains To me, that assumes you're always going to have a net loss, forever, which still hurts us in the long-term. Though I'd be interested to see what the correlation is between the dates of loss versus the dates that said admins were appointed. I'm not entirely certain that all of these net losses are attributable just to a baby-boom type of effect. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I haven't crunched the numbers, but my impression looking through Misplaced Pages:Former administrators/chronological is that the vast majority of desysops in any given month are for inactivity (this month was unusual), and the majority of those are of admins that passed RfA before 2012 (when the number of successful RfAs per year stabilised at current levels). But it's not forever. Eventually we will get through that huge backlog, and at that point the net gain/loss will be a meaningful indicator of growth/reduction in the number of available admins. Until then, as I said, I don't think it's the right metric to look at. The discrepancy between RfA rates in the project's early days and now is just too enormous. – Joe (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Numbers mean nothng. What matters is how much the admins that we have are supporting the community. Most are, but some are not, so it's no problem if the latter go. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Do we actually have statistics of the dynamics of (i) total admin actions; (ii) admin actions per say active admin somewhere? Of course admins who lose the tools because of the inactivity are inactive, but at some point before they from active become inactive, and this is not reflected in these statistics. Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The reality is that most admins do very little admin work. Here are the adminstats for the past 3 months. This table doesn't include items such as closing discussions or Main page tasks, but I still think it provides good insight into the current situation. We've got maybe 100 admins doing 95% of the work. -FASTILY 20:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I'm apparently 38th most active, despite not even having been an admin for the entire period. And I'm 24th-most-active since I became an admin. Are there really only 20 people (and 3 both) doing more than what I had though was a relatively paltry share of the work? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You're doing great work PPP. There are many reasons the stats aren't perfect, but I also see you being very involved in tasks that the stats don't account for, like closing discussions (that don't end in a deletion). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact that I'm 21st most active on that list (18th if you ignore the bots) is somewhat worrying considering that I'm only sporadically active because of work and (when not at work) I spent much of August on holiday! Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• The desysopped admins had almost 2000 actions between them in the last three months. Those are 2000 actions someone else now has to do (though I remain hopeful that Tamzin will return soon). Even marginally active admins are doing things that other admins don't need to do. We have a considerable corps of editors who both carp at the admin backlogs at SPI or CCI, but then habitually oppose RFA candidates over peccadillos, and scream blue murder about any admin behavior that falls short of perfection. Small wonder that qualified RFA candidates routinely decline nominations, and that established admins experience burnout. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I think another interesting (and not great) statistic is that at the start of 2023 there were 495 "active" admins ("active" here is just a low bar of >30 edits in the past 2 months) which has now dipped to 453 (-42). VickKiang (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• A concerning thing here is that despite RFA being a dramatically more civil place than it was a few years ago, and most nominations very easily pass, a lot of editors are now unwilling to nominate to become an admin. It would be good to get back to something resembling the old mindset that being an admin isn't a big deal. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know how much more civil it really is. This year, the community successfully piled on MB hard enough to convince him to leave for good. Hope everyone who took part is happy about themselves. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that 68% support is really piling on. The outcome was unfortunate, but part of standing at RFA is that you have to accept that some editors may not trust your judgement. Also, maybe attacking "everyone who took part" is part of the problem? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  The last day of that RfA was an exercise in watching people twist a knife, and from a lot of the same people who I've seen write jeremiads about the state of RfA in other places. I'm sure you would agree, admins don't exactly have access to the nuclear football. On a better note, the latest RfA went through about as well as anyone (especially a conominator!) could've hoped for, so perhaps there's some hope. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that RfA was a disgrace. Whilst there were a number of good faith opposes, a significant amount were from people with an axe to grind relating to deletionism/inclusionism, their fellow travellers and socks. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  SFR, your own RFA is a perfect example of how our standards about casting aspersions get tossed out the window when experienced editors are commenting on admin candidates...a decent number of your opposers stuck to rational and civil comments, but just as many did not. And I don't think we should hesitate to call them on it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's really more that the higher level the discussion the less those standards are enforced. It just so happens that RFA is almost the highest tier of discussion we hold. It's quite a conundrum, because the more attention is on a discussion the less likely anyone is to step in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The process for becoming an administrator probably discourages most good applicants. Who wants to defend themselves to a hundred or so random editors? And there's no problem with idiots who have kept their edits to wikignoming from qualifying. One editor became an administrator to help colleagues write about Eastern Europe in a biased way. That got to ARBCOM twice, most recently about Poland and the Holocaust. Another editor became an administrator and created hundreds of redirects with the word "boobies" in them. Both of course were desysoped.

We might consider automatic appointments, as is already done for reviewers and rollbackers. If someome has extensive experience and hasn't been blocked recently, they probably are more capable than most recent editors who want to be administrators. Of course, being an administrator does not mean they would all carry out those tasks.

TFD (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The big hangup with that is arbitration enforcement. There is a lot of trust required to hand someone that mop. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

One option would be to create two tiers of adminship; appointed and acclaimed. The former would not be permitted to sit at AE or enforce contentious topic restrictions, while the latter would be.

Further restrictions on what appointed admins could do would also be appropriate; to suggest just two, perhaps they would not be permitted to reverse blocks or bans imposed by an acclaimed admin, and perhaps they would not be permitted to block any editor who is extended-confirmed.

It may also serve to smooth the path to "full" adminship; if an editor has performed well as an appointed admin for a year there would hopefully be less opposition to making them a full admin. BilledMammal (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

An alternative would be requiring all major admin actions to have two admin endorsements, a Robert's Rules first and second so to speak. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think adding a layer of bureaucracy is the right path. I originaly proposed this as a joke, but I do think there is some merit to the idea that we simply do away with RFA and let ArbCom appoint admins through the same process used to appoint functionaries. There is still public input, SNOW/NOTNOW cases should go down to around 0% due to pre-vetting of candidates, and the process would just be a little less painful for the nominee. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it a new layer? We already have a similar system whereby other admins tacitly endorse such actions by no reverting them. On RFA I actually have great faith in the future of RFA, I think we hit a nadir a bit there as a result of an oversupply of mixed quality admins in the early days... For a while people weren't willing to consider candidates unless they were as good as the best admins. As the admin supply naturally contracts we will again have a demand signal for new admins who are able and willing to do solid (but not yet necessarily the same quality as a decades old top tier admin) work. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

ARBCOM could streamline their case load requests by having only three arbitrators sit on each case unless there was any particular reason to have them all. TFD (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

AE doesn't need special requirements. Administrators should know the rules and whether they have the temperament to sit there. And of course it's not just one administrator making the decision and arbitrators can ban officious administrators from participating. TFD (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

86.28.234.5

Repeated non-consensual and non-encyclopedic edits and reverts with personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, reverting of starting discussion topic on their Talk page. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for 36h. Please next time report this at WP:ANI. Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:ACE Election Commission - Call for candidates

Hello all, qualified editors are invited to self-nominate for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections Electoral Commission. Those interested should list themselves on this page. Commissioners are empowered to make binding decisions on unexpected or exception issues related to the election, and some other duties specified in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections/ACERFC decisions to date. This is a single-term position lasting until the end of the December election. Thank you, -- Asartea 07:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Wellington Bay unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Wellington Bay (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction. This restriction may be appealed after 6 months have elapsed. For the Arbitration Committee, Izno (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wellington Bay unblocked

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards