Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive274

• Floquenbeam, 20 August: "Wait, are we accepting AE reports from IP addresses now? I thought it said somewhere that we don't do that. If it doesn't, it should."
• Fyddlestix, 23 August: "This reporting-as-an-ip nonsense is incredibly petty and lame, and I think Collect is quite right to call for an SPI here. If the IP can be tied to another editor then that editor should obviously face some serious sanction."
• Chillum, 23 August: "This complaint also strikes me as being made in bad faith. The filer is clearly someone trying to evade scrutiny while attempting to seek action against another Wikipedian.
  "

• Support as proposer. I'll add that IMO, if a request is filed by an account that is gaming the autoconfirmation requirements, or is otherwise an obvious sock (on this particular board it's not really that hard to tell), it shouldn't be removed, but the AE admins ought to decline and close it briskly. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC).
• Support While I suppose it is possible a new user would know enough about our proceses and how to find out if an editor is subject to AbrCom sanction it is so unlikely that any potential 'injustice' suffered by the 'new user' is far outweighed by the injustice of bad faith enforcement requests. The same can be said for IP editors although I have heard of, but never seen, a few long time editors who edit only as IPs. Those people have been around long enough to know that there are some things that IPs can not do. Again, the potential 'injustice' of not allowing IP reports is far outweighed by the actual injustice and potential harassment suffered by those who the anonymous report would be made. Jbh^Talk 11:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Additional comment. - Disagree with "...AE admins ought to decline and close it briskly" as per the recent AE ArbCom case this would be an Admin action and not easily reversed. If an out of process case is opened by an new user or IP it should be closed but that should not be a bar from an established editor filing an Enforcement request based on the same issue. Otherwise false false reports could be easily used to game the system. Jbh^Talk 11:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it absolutely shouldn't be a bar to an established editor filing an enforcement request based on the same issue. I didn't mean to suggest it should. Do you mean re-filing the same complaint would be a reversal of the admin action of declining it before, Jbhunley? I don't think so — it seems far-fetched to me. Certainly, if it was declined for the reason that the filer was not respectable, a refiling by a user in good standing wouldn't be a reversal of that decline. But, anyway, that was just a side comment of mine — not a part of my proposal. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

@Bishonen: thank you for clearing that up. My concern was really just how closing/dismissing a request would be effected by section 4.1.5.1 Dismissing an enforcement request (alternate) of the recent ArbCom AE case. I am not familiar enough with the 'usual and customary practices' at AE to know how things would actually pan out but I think any new procedures should explicitly address the matter. Rationally I would guess that a procedural dismissal would not be an 'administrative judgement call' so 4.1.5.1 would not apply but I can see disputants claiming otherwise. Jbh^Talk 04:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support only when it's obvious that the IP is acting in bad faith. IP users are users and some people don't want to register accounts. If they make a good faith complaint, that should be treated as such. If it's not, close and dismiss it as a bad faith filing and sanction anyone else who tries to hold it against those named in the filing. If someone else involved in the dispute wants to refile under their account, that would be acceptable.
  Ravensfire (talk
  ) 13:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I suggest a threshold of editing for at least 30 days and at least 100 edits before an IP can open an AE request, or something similar. Also, we shouldn't ignore the ubiquitous elephant in the room. ← If you don't know what that means, just ignore it. - MrX 13:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - although if an IP wants to comment or add evidence, I assume this would (and should) still be allowed. Regardless, if a registered user logs out just to file a request, that is the definition of evading scrutiny, thus shouldn't be allowed. As a safeguard, preventing all IPs is a reasonable step as the necessity of an unregistered editor needing to file doesn't exist...they can ask an admin to file or take action at ANI/AN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't pointless complains like the ones mentioned already covered by the AE rules? In that big red box at the top is the following line, "Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions." So wouldn't the
  talk
  ) 13:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe the idea here is to keep the targets of anonymous complaints from having to answer them. If we say no new/IP editors can file complaints it short circuits the kind of crap
    WP:IAR for what it was meant for - to keep big picture rules from hurting the encyclopedia - and let the request continue as an exception. Jbh^Talk
    14:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I would support contribution restrictions much more than a blanket ban on all IPs. I like how the autoconfirmed restrictions are set up. IP exempt users on a TOR network have to have 90 days and 100 edits before they are autoconfirmed. Perhaps those same restrictions can be used for AE? --
      talk
      ) 14:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
      • There are a lot of things we could do by adding something like a 'voting rights' group or raising the bar for 'autoconfirmed' that would address more issues than just this. The problem is that it still depends on some static identifier (Read UserName) to grant/log those privilages to. IPs change - sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly and in some cases several people are editing from a single IP at the same time - so there is no way to track an editor without an account through IP changes so there is no way for them to build trust. Jbh^Talk 15:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as it would restrict filiers who are avoiding scrutiny. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly - IP editors are
  re
  }} 14:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support If an IP or user is truly new to Wikipedia then they just do not know enough to make a valid case. If they somehow know enough about Wikipedia to make a valid case then it is likely they are hiding their identity through or evading a block through sock puppetry.
  Chillum
  15:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support to prevent abuse of process and gaming the system by those who would avoid scrutiny.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - If a new user wants to file an AE, but are incapable of doing so themselves, they can always contact on the AE enforcers on their user talk pages, or, for that matter, pretty much anyone else, have that other individual look over the request for merit or lack of same, and, if they see fit, have the complaint taken care of in that way. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support It's the scrutiny aspect for me. AE is a heavy hammer. It shouldn't descend by anonymous denunciation.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support While it should be obvious if an IP is acting in good faith, the examples Bishonen has provided indicate that some threshold is needed so that this process isn't misused to hound others via a throwaway account or IP.--MONGO 16:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Being able to edit as an IP can't be compared to being able to bring something to AE. Doug Weller (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support While one might dream up a plausible counterexample it is so rare that it isn't worth worrying about. In addition, a legitimate counterexample will know how to find ways to arrange for a filing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support No brainer. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Support The only concern is that we may stop someone who has a real problem from solving it. But, getting an account is trivial or waiting four days, and if thats all that stands in the way, its a no brainer. AlbinoFerret 18:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment First, this same issue came up months ago with
  Gamergate controversy editors so it's not a situation limited to the current complaints. Secondly, reading the instructions for the page, it appears as though the procedures have been instituted and changed by the Arbitration Committee and I'm not sure a proposal on AN can be used to revise the filing procedures. Finally, I suggested that Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement not to be redirected and to have its own talk page a few months ago but since I was just a AC clerk, I had no authority to make this change. But I think AE warrants having its own talk page to discuss issues that emerge in enforcing arbitration decisions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}
  21:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Regardless of the red tape needed to change procedure I find that arbcom is always open to the input of the consensus of the community. This discussion has value even if ANI does not have the authority to make this change(I have no idea if this is the case) because it will inform arbcom of the community's desire.
  Chillum
  21:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• If this discussion results in consensus for the proposal, it should IMO be added to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header as well as to the instructions in the editnotice (Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement). I know you're the arbcom Kremlinologist here, Liz; could you clarify where you see an implication that community consensus wouldn't be sufficient authority to modify the AE instructions? It's not strictly an arbitration page, as far as I'm concerned, and arbs rarely have any input into the business conducted there. A look at the history tab of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header (=the AE page instructions) shows editing it isn't restricted to arbs and clerks, the way some arbitration pages are. It would be civil to ask the committee first, no doubt, since this would be a big change and no mere copyedit, and maybe they'd like to pass a motion or something. Though, appearances sometimes to the contrary, I've always assumed they're no fonder of busywork than the rest of us. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC).

• P.S, speaking of the devil, an arbitrator can be seen supporting the proposal in this section, though I presume not as arbitrator. Bishonen | talk 16:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC).

I've unredirected Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and left a note there, and the arb committee has been notified of this discussion via their email list. NE Ent 17:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

And it turns out it takes an Act of Committee to change to ... see notice below. NE Ent 22:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Supportper Bishonen. BMK (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WMF: You do not need to create an account to use any Wikimedia Site. . NE Ent 22:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Just pointing out the obvious, which should have occurred to even you: AE is not a "Wikipedia site", that would be Commons, Meta, Wikiquotes, another language's Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, stuff like that. AE is an area of this Wikipedia site, which IPs normally have access to unless the community or admins decide that IP editors should be barred, as happens everytime an article is semi-protected. Saying that IPs "cannot use" en.wiki because they can't access a specific part of it is exactly the equivalent of saying that a non-admin "cannot use" en.wiki because certain pages are fully protected. It's a bogus argument, as the suggested change does not violate the quoted WMF policy.BMK (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• You've also conveniently neglected to quote the end of the sentence "...except under rare circumstances." Clicking on the link provided explains what "rare circumstances" means:

  I thought I never needed an account to read or contribute! Under what circumstances would I need to register to read or contribute?

  You never need an account to read a public Wikimedia Site. And in most cases, you don't need an account to contribute to a Wikimedia Site. However, there are a few rare instances where you will need to register an account if you want to contribute. A local community of editors or contributors (for example, the English Wikipedia community or the Malay Wiktionary community) or the Wikimedia Foundation itself may decide to place temporary or permanent restrictions on what you can change. For example, a specific page may be temporarily restricted from editing to allow only experienced or administrative users because of vandalism or copyright concerns. You may also not upload content such as images or videos without being logged in because we need to verify that proper permissions have been obtained from the copyright holder (if the media is not already in the public domain) in order to post the content.

  So, there is no WMF policy restriction to this proposal. BMK (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support with suggested amendment IPs should be allowed to report at AE if they're involved in the situation related to the request and have made substantial edits in the topic area. IPs popping out of nowhere with no edits outside AE on the other hand... Brustopher (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • IPs popping out of nowhere with no edits outside are probably on a dynamic address anyway. The existing scary pink box at the top of the page says "Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions," which should be sufficient authorization for admins to deal with bogus IP complaints. On the other, what if an IP posts a totally righteous report after "the rule" goes into place? Are ya'll going to to ignore a AC violation because the reporter didn't have standing? NE Ent 02:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm very sorry to see that you've decided to return to your self-appointed position as contrarian and ombusdman-at-large, as it was rather nice when you had absented youtself from that role. BMK (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
      • In one of my more ridiculous moments, although, granted, given my history, it's hard to decide what goes higher and what lower on that list, I actually more or less presented the case of an individual who was the subject of an arbitration case because that individual chose not to do so herself, and added my material based on my e-mail exchanges with that person. I think it would always be possible to maybe add a comment, somewhere on the arb pages or in the box, to the effect of "if you find yourself unable to edit this page, there is a list of editors [here] who would be willing to act as intermediaries and post evidence they consider reasonable and appropriate for inclusion that is conveyed to them by others through e-mail, provided, of course, if there are individuals who would be willing to do so, and I guess I might count myself as one of them. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is a good idea. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support Assuming good faith is fine, but perpetual disruption from obviously tainted sources such as a throw-away account or IP proposing AE action is unhelpful. Knowing that an attack is being mounted on someone accused by an IP is corrosive for the community—if the accused needs to be taken to AE, someone in good standing will notice. IPs can't edit semiprotected pages and cannot vote in Arbcom elections, and the WMF don't care about arbitration so long as they don't have to do anything. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose We should make up our minds about the propriety or otherwise of non-autoconfirmed users. I've made up my mind, and I feel IPs are still just human beings behind a keyboard, and have as much "propriety" as anyone else. i.e. none. Shame on an experienced user allowing such wooly thinking even close to AN. Pedro :  Chat  20:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Pedro, that's a crudely misleading way of quoting a fragment of my sentence "We should make up our minds about the propriety or otherwise of non-autoconfirmed users (…) filing AE requests." Shame on you for pretending I've been putting the "propriety" of non-autoconfirmed users in question, whatever that might mean. You're a native speaker, I believe, so surely the syntax wasn't beyond you. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC).

• Oppose. You do not have to have an account to edit. IPs are already abused by the regulars and the admins, now they can't complain about it either? GregJackP Boomer! 20:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless the IP's are shown to be socks or some banned editor evading their block, then the case should be allowed IP user or not. Outright dis-allowing IP's to post, just because they're IP's is straight up ABF (again, with the exception previously mentioned being the exceptions!) KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 11:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No, that is not the proposal. IPs are welcome to post at AE—the proposal is to require that an AE request be started by a logged-in editor. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I read the proposal, and again, dis-allowing an IP to post just because they're IP's , anywhere on Wikipedia, even to open a case, except if they're socks or banned users is ABF KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 16:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support People who bring cases here should have something to lose if it is judged that the report is not in good faith. I'd restrict filing of cases to autoconfirmed users. Others can add their comments after the filing. Zero^talk 12:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Piling on, for the many good reasons given above. It beggars belief that good-faith IPs would even know about
  WP:AE, let alone know the proper procedure for filing there. In any case, they can easily create an account, or let other people know, who can assist them in this. IPs are of course human, nobody is preventing them from writing content, this will simply reduce drama. Kingsindian ♝♚
  13:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed, for the reasons outlined here: [9]. There are, indeed, good faith editors who choose not to create accounts but have made useful and insightful comments at AE. I think there are about 3 of them. To my knowledge they've never initiated an AE thread. All the rest are people with accounts evading scrutiny. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - IP's creating anonymous AE requests clearly has more negatives then positives. This is not only matter of IP user rights, it is also matter of rights of accused editors who are being dragged to AE. Most obvious reason for such anonymous requests is filing party fearing a potential
  WP:BOOMERANG action.--Staberinde (talk
  ) 16:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - The set of users who happen on one of the topics where an Arbitration remedy is in place, that would recognize a violation of the sanctions, that would know where to report said sanction, that were either newly registered accounts or IP editors with little edit history, that needed to file a new ArbEnforcement petition is so astronomically small compared to the overall set that I feel this rule is reasonable. I would seek one caviat that if the petitioning "editor" has a valid cause that we not close it because they didn't fill the Form 22-B cover in triplicate the right way. Hasteur (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support - IPs should have their editing priviledges on Wikipedia severely curtailed, not enhanced. Guy1890 (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Because we really need to make these pesky IPs know they are second-class wikipedians. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Of course brand new users won't have a clue what AE is. Simple common sense should apply. Jusdafax 08:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion: IPs and socks

I realise now that although I support this personally, I should have pointed out that at Arbitration Enforcement we pointed out that "Arbitration enforcement (AE) is the noticeboard, set up by the Arbitration Committee and staffed by administrators, for editors to report suspected breaches of arbitration decisions. When enforcing arbitration decisions, administrators act as delegates of the Arbitration Committee and, in that role, they review the facts and, if necessary, take action." As it is an extension of ArbCom, it seems to me that we are the only ones in the end who can revised the instructions. Doug Weller (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Is there any reason to expect that Arbcom would not assent to a consensus here, assuming that one will be reached? - MrX 13:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That was my thought when I voted. I expected it would take Arb to make the change, but if a large enough showing is made, you would hope that Arb would see where the consensus was, as as agents for masses, would make the change, or at least hold a public vote on it. If it doesn't pass an Arb vote, we should be able to see who supports it and who doesn't, just as they can see who does here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That's what I would expect and hope. Doug Weller (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's an example of where an IP brought a successful case to AE (even though the IP was quickly blocked).[10] I know for a fact that both the editor sanctioned and the topic area are the target of an off-wiki campaign and the IP was clearly a banned or blocked editor still able to reach out to AE successfully. Doug Weller (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Amendement request

I've requested the committee give AE its own talk page. NE Ent 22:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

In the extremely unlikely event that as an IP editor I should ever need to initiate a report at AE, I would expect to be able to so, unless the page was temporarily semi-protected due to ongoing vandalism, in which latter case I would hope to be able to submit a semi-protected edit request on the talk page as with any other semi-protected page. Presumably no confirmed editor would approve a frivolous talk page request. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. How do you look at this abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Biruitorul&diff=679140123&oldid=679006619 ?

The suspected sock master forced admin to defend him User_talk:Drmies#Good for a laugh, I guess

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&diff=679144252&oldid=679141844

Is there any non-involved part to analyze this case?

--220.255.3.185 (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look that suspicious to me. @Drmies: was not the only one to deny the investigation [22]. -- Orduin ^Discuss 00:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Biruitorul didn't force me to do anything. Your alternate IP/meat puppet/internet pal thought they knew better than the people running SPI. Go troll elsewhere. Thank you Orduin--but the next troll is going to say that I made you say this. Also, I just dropped off the $20 at Western Union. Y'all, what does "confirmed proxy server" mean? Drmies (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that what is considered a 'confirmed proxy server' by whatismyipaddress.com is actually an open proxy, without more study. But I've filed this IP for checking at

WP:OP. EdJohnston (talk

) 02:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Where it was confirmed. Making sockpuppet reports using open proxies is never going to end well. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That's where the confusion for me lies. Can the source be used, once in the infobox and once in the text (citing the same thing) and still be be in line with all the various rules. I am considering taking this to GAN, so I kinda need to be certain. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I notified both users mentioned of this discussion. Just for the record, I am not upset with either of these editors. Just contradictory information has me confused. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Why does this discussion need to involve administrators? Does anyone need to be blocked? Does any article need protection? Does any article need deletion? If the answer to these three questions is "no", then you have no reason to involve any administrators at all. --Jayron32 01:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Better to ask the people who are knowledgable on policies, rules, guidelines and such and those people are admins. Plus, it doesn't hurt to ask. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If that is all you wanted to do,

WP:RSN exists for that purpose. This board is for issues that need to involve admins acting as admins, using their admin tools. The harm is this is the wrong venue, and isn't suited towards attracting the best responses. RSN is, and will do that for you. --Jayron32

02:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Kalakannija has made several personal attacks/disrespectful-comments over the past few months and has been warned adequately. Diffs:1, 2, 3, 4 (This is a serious vulgar attack against against the other party in discussion which states he/she should be a Norwegian slave instead being a Sri Lankan. After being warned multiple times he still continue to make personal attacks. Diff: 5. He recently broke my talk page with this edit to reply to a discussion (sparked due to this warning by me) that has been archived a long time ago. I had to revert him back and comment on his talk page instead. Initially I thought I could resolve this dispute by a talk page discussion, but I'm unable to, and I have no idea what I should do next. He also claimed that I should not participate in a discussion if my nationality is irrelevant to the topic, which is ridiculous. -- Chamith (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried inviting uninvolved editors to mediate the dispute through one of the methods listed at

WP:ANI would actually be the proper venue. --Jayron32

02:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32: The thing is, I'm not sure whether a dispute resolution might help as this is not a content dispute rather an issue related to personal attacks. I agree that my post made it look more like a content dispute. It's just I didn't want to be rude saying Kalakannija should be blocked outright. And I'm in no position to give orders either. What I wanted to suggest is that he/she should only be blocked if it seems necessary to admins. -- Chamith (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Like you said I'll move this whole thing to

WP:ANI. Thank you. -- Chamith (talk)

02:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

As per

I have provided competent, honest, and objective criticism of the GPS article on the talk page. In proposing that the section "Geometric interpretation" of the GPS article is a disaster and should be removed, I have discussed what is wrong with the section and why it should be removed without mentioning any editor. It is important to look at the article and judge it objectively without biasing the judgement in any way by who may have written and edited the material. This is what I have done. I have noticed there has been a systematic deterioration in the quality of some of the sections in the GPS article and the Geometric interpretation section is one of the worst. This criticism is desirable since it can lead to a better quality GPS article. I have pointed out in "Geometric interpretation section is a disaster" on the talk page of the GPS article that there are statements made attributed to a reference which are in no way supported by the reference. I have pointed out that there are misleading statements which are incompatible with good quality GPS references. The "Geometric interpretation" section of the GPS article is terrible and should be removed. RHB100 (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is the wrong place for this discussion. I think you want

GPS article, and although he has toned it down a bit, his hostile attitude continues on the talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk

) 00:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)