Wikipedia:Administrative action review: Difference between revisions

Diffs/logs: Page log

User: Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · logs) ([[[2]|prior discussion]])

I have now been directed to this venue after being told at RfPP that ANI was correct and at ANI that AARV was correct. Policy should be adhered to when applying page protection. This has a very simple and obvious fix, but nobody seems to want to actually apply it. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you attempted to edit war out a passage from this article [3][4][5], weren’t happy with this discussion about including the material, saw the article get protected, didn’t like the answer you got when you reported Elmidae to WP:AN, didn’t like the answer jimfbleak gave you, weren’t happy with the answer you got when you reported Jimfbleak to WP:AN/I, and now you’re here to achieve….what? This has been going on for weeks now. I’m curious when you might consider dropping the stick and backing away? —Hammersoft (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to topic and discuss whether the protection was in line with policy. Thank you. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the gist of all the other discussions you have raised over this was that, “yes the protection was in line with policy.” — Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was the recommended venue for that discussion. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protection was correctly applied to prevent continuation of an edit war. Rather than more posts to AN, ANI, AARV, perhaps continue to discuss the disputed content on the article talkpage with alternative wording that better elucidates the source. You might also consider mechanisms like WP:3O to get more eyes on the topic. — Euryalus (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that protection be correctly applied so that other users can edit that article again at some point. Thank you. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will you agree to stop edit warring and instead to continue to discuss changes on its talkpage so a consensus can be reached? That’s the quickest way for the protection to be lifted. — Euryalus (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor is probably right that indefinite ECP protection is probably not needed at this article. Since the recent disruption is coming from a single IP range, the IP range should be blocked from the article instead. MrOllie (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m afraid I need to agree with Euryalus. You were told that the page would be unprotected when you 2 came to a consensus on the content dispute. Perhaps you should concentrate your efforts as has been suggested above. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie: we don’t like to block only one participant in a content dispute, however I think that your suggestion has merit. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Especially in the era of partial blocks so the IP can be only blocked from the article, I fail to see how it’s in any way better to give one editor in this dispute the ability to continue to edit war if they wish to, but deny that to the other editor; and also deny every single other editor who is not extended confirmed the ability to edit the article. Blocking IPs can sometimes be ineffective so I can perhaps seen an argument semi-protection is warranted to force the IP to register if they want to continue to edit and that way if they both continue to edit war, they can both be blocked. But IMO and I’ve said this before, it never makes much sense that we say we don’t want to block only one party or side but then protect in such a way that does actually give advantage to one side. I guess if you protect without paying any attention to which WP:wrong version it currently is and warn that anyone who reverts again after you protection no matter what will be blocked, maybe that is fair but it’s not clear to me that happened here and I’m sure that I’ve actually seen a lot of cases where the article is protected in some way which gives advantage to one side. And if it’s not currently on the version preferred by that side, they’re allowed to revert back to their version with no consequence. Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW personally on the content issue I agree with Elmidae and frankly I feel the IP was maybe in the greater wrong given the content was both sources and had been there for a while. Although we’re generally reluctant to take sides even there, I wouldn’t personally mind if the IP was partially blocked from the article to force them to come to some consensus rather than just edit-warring even if this means taking Elmidae’s “side” but my point is, if we are going to do that we should be explicit about it and do it in the fairest way which would surely be partially blocking the IP or rather the /64 instead of stopping everyone else who isn’t extended confirmed from editing. Heck I wouldn’t necessarily mind if it was semi-protection under the untested assumption partially blocking the /64 wouldn’t work if it was explicitly done for that reason (I’d normally partially block the IP but fear they’ll just use another). But the point is we either take a side or we don’t. If we don’t want to take a side than we shouldn’t take a side but say we’re not. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne: You’ve stumbled onto my dirty little secret. This is why I hate doing page protections. Much better to WP:PARTIALBLOCK the edit warriors from the article so the rest of us can get on with our lives. Now that you’ve hit me at a weak moment, I’ll go on to @Jimfbleak: at this point I recommend removing the ECP, waiting to see, and then partial blocking any edit warriors that emerge. While I see the ECP as the solution at that time, it’s time to see if that time has passed. And i agree (this can be the hard part) that we must avoid giving anyone an advantage by removing their “opponent” from the “struggle”. Wikipedia should not be made into a battle field with opponents and struggles. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would give me the power to indefinitely keep this article from being edited by non-autoconfirmed users by simply not engaging in further discussion. This would give IP users a very easy tool to remove articles from general participation. (Can I have a “goddamn, they’re right” at this point?) 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you’re just manufacturing argumentation at this point. Acroterion (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Acroterion. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C, this isn’t going anywhere. I encourage you to return to the discussion about the material. There isn’t anything wrong per se with getting WP:3O, but given how many times this has been rejected I think that won’t help you achieve what you’re hoping to achieve. The article isn’t permanently protected. It’s indefinitely protected until an agreement is reached about the material or an agreement is reached to stop edit warring about it. There’s a big difference between permanent and indefinite. I might not have used the level of protection that Jimfbleak used, but it’s well within purview to do so. —Hammersoft (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft: Policy states:

In addition, administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as Wikipedia’s biographies of living persons or neutral point of view policies).

Furthermore, ECP should be used in the following cases:

escalation from semi-protection (there was none), contentious topics (hardly), ArbCom sanctions, high risk templates and page creation.

None of this applies here. Indef ECP is for Arab-Israeli conflict level stuff, not for a simple scenario where not even 3RR was reached. What I’m trying to argue here is that policy exists because it contains the accumulated wisdom of generations of sysops. In all but the most unusual cases, policy should be adhered to. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(apologies to Euryalus) Will you agree to stop edit warring and instead to continue to discuss changes on its talkpage so a consensus can be reached? That’s the quickest way for the protection to be lifted. —Hammersoft (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus and Hammersoft: No, I have no particular interest in Antechinus. It is clear there is an entrenched position, and as far as I can see, no further progress can be made. The incorrect application of protection is a far more serious issue, which is what I have come here to discuss. I don’t know why everybody is hedging their bets on me showing up to that article again. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then you don’t understand the difference between indefinite and permanent. Indefinite assumes that at some point it can be withdrawn or reduced, when the disruption stops or when an agreement is found in the content dispute. If you wish to argue process ad infinitum, we don’t have much patience for that, we’re here trying to write an encyclopedia, not eternally litigate. Acroterion (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I too would have used indefinite semi-protection rather than ECP, but either way you can’t edit the article until you settle your dispute concerning content. Acroterion (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it were me, I would have used semi-protection. But not every admin is the same, and does exactly the same thing in every situation. User:Jimfbleak might be amenable to reducing the ECP to indefinite semi-protection. You’ve never asked Jimfbleak to do that. But even if they did do that, you still wouldn’t be able to edit the article. So, we’d still be at the same place, editing wise. So I ask the question that I originally asked; what is it you are wanting to achieve here? —Hammersoft (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct application of protection policy, as I have consistently stated throughout this excessively long process, including in my message to Jimfbleak, linked above. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So would you be happy if it was reduced to indefinite semi-protection? —Hammersoft (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Me being happy is not the issue here. There is no net value to pacifying one person who persisted against the odds to see a situation fixed. Net value comes from consistently appreciating the input from IP editors fairly and on equal footing, and renewed focus on the value of policy and granting due process. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And so we’re back to what is it you are wanting to achieve? What does “fixing” the situation look like to you? —Hammersoft (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)\[reply]

Okay, let’s assume you’re asking my advice rather than what makes me happy (because I don’t think you should, as stated above). If you were asking my advice, I’d say, lift it since it’s been a while, or if you feel you must keep it up, apply semi for not more than another month. Anything beyond that would be excessive. Put it on watchlist to cover your back. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, indefinite <> permanent. It’s only in place until the two of you (and any others that wish to participate in the discussion) come to an agreement or the two of you agree to stop edit warring over it. Nobody needs to watchlist this if that can be done. I do feel it’s necessary to keep the protection since neither of you appears to have agreed to do this. —Hammersoft (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You feel it’s appropriate to keep ECP indef? Just checking. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it’s appropriate for you tell me what it is you hope to achieve. —Hammersoft (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve answered that question. What was missing? 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

<yoda> Going in circles, we appear to be </yoda> Will you agree to stop edit warring and instead to continue to discuss changes on its talkpage so a consensus can be reached? —Hammersoft (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m really trying to wrap my head around why anybody would set up this one particular trigger (me continuing some particular pre-existing discussion) to (1) bring something back in line with policy in some weird way, and (2) without having any certainty that this trigger will, excuse me, get triggered. What’s stopping you from just fixing it now? I see your Yoda and raise you the whole cast of Monty Python. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What’s stopping you from resolving your disagreement concerning the article, which is the whole reason protection, of whatever character and length, was instituted.? That’s the whole point of protection – it goes away once the unsatisfactory editorial content is corrected by consensus. Protection is a tool to urge editors to improve the encyclopedia, nothing more. Acroterion (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the issue here. The issue is whether the out-of-policy protection will be allowed to persist. We all know (well, those who’ve actually read and internalised the policy) that an ArbCom-level protection is really for ArbCom sanctions and a few other isolated cases. What will it take to remedy this bad precedent? 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, nobody is agreeing with you. See below. It’s time to move on. Please. —Hammersoft (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on your “time to move on” notion. What seems to be happening is nothing but reinforcing a bad precedent, and is still awaiting adjustment. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is agreeing with you that it is a bad precedent. 3 admins and 3 non-admins have all endorsed the ECP. After a careful examination of the biological vitals, evidence appears to conclude the horse is still dead. I’m not going to respond any further. I’m sorry you won’t accept this outcome, but it is what it is. —Hammersoft (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft’s “happy” is rhetorical. You haven’t answered the question, you’ve published a position statement. Acroterion (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, it isn’t rhetorical. I’m trying to get an understanding of what the IP is wanting to happen. “Correct application of protection policy” is the answer, but it’s unclear what that means to the IP. —Hammersoft (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this venue is just to review the administrative action in question. I suggest discussing further actions by the filer somewhere else, such as on their talk page. isaacl (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse ECP. While I generally prefer partial blocks, I think in this instance ECP was the better choice. persuaded by Nil einne’s and Extraordinary Writ’s and Left guide’s eloquence. —— Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC) —— Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Your statement: “I think in this instance ECP was the better choice.” Which offending registered user was prevented from continuing to offend by the use of ECP rather than semi? 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s easy. By now any user who was not auto confirmed then now is. So any disruptive user who was not yet auto confirmed is now prevented from being disruptive by the extended confirmed protection. Semi confirm protection would have been an advantage to any semi confirmed user over any anonymous user, which is explicitly against protection policy. And again, I probably would have partially blocked individuals instead of protecting the article. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Just read Hammersoft and JClemens below. I heartily agree. this is as good a time as any to apologize for any typos I missed that were caused by my stupid voice to text, which likes to put words in my mouth that I did not say. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation In order for there to have been a violation, the variance from policy must have contributed to an actual problem. No such problem has been articulated, nor has any benefit to the proposed solution (revert to semi protection) been articulated. We don’t do “make someone follow the rules for the rules’ sake” on Wikipedia; we will absolutely consider admin misconduct, but by definition misconduct requires a situation that is at a minimum unfair to a particular editor in an articulable way. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: The benefit is that people, including those unrelated to any conflict, can edit, which is what this whole project is about. I will take no position as to the merit of the requested edit on the talk page, but will note that there has been one. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk) 02:02, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry if you thought I was in any way interested in, or would be responsive to, your attempt at bludgeoning the process by replying to me. I’m not. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse ECP. Whether or not it was the optimal choice, it was a reasonable option to take, and perfectly within Jimfbleak’s discretion to choose. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse ECP. I’ve been going around in circles with the IP, but it’s really getting nowhere. I’ve spent the last ~2 hours trying to untangle this, but to no avail. I don’t want to spend another 2 hours on this. I would have used semi-protection in this case rather than ECP, but the use of ECP wasn’t out of line. Arguing about the level of protection is rather pointless. The edit warring was stopped. That’s the point. Barring consensus by both parties or an agreement by one of the other to stop edit warring, I don’t see any reason to lift the indefinite ECP at this time. I’m sure Jimfbleak will continue to monitor. It’s time to move on. —Hammersoft (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I would have used semi, and indefinite-until-the issue-is-resolved, but nobody needs to devote so much time to pseudo-legalistic argument over something so inconsequential as this. We all have other fish to fry. This isn’t really an IPs are humans argument, this is more like an autoconfirmed accounts are humans argument, which is a new one. As admin discretionary items go, this is about as inconsequential as they come. Acroterion (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And as others have mentioned here, this discussion stems from a perennial conundrum faced by administrators who do not wish to endorse one side or another in an edit war. Acroterion (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as the protecting admin, I have no problem if the level of protection is reduced one level, but since the editwarring ip is unwilling to talk to other participants, I can’t see how the edit warring could be allowed to continue Jimfbleak – talk to me? 08:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t really see how Talk:Antechinus#Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution indicates an unwillingness to talk. Basically as very often the case, I see limited discussion with neither side really agreeing with each other so there isn’t any actual consensus and the most we have to fall back on is WP:STATUSQUO which to be fair does favour Elmidae & no real attempt by either party to use some form of WP:dispute resolution to resolve the dispute. As I noted above I do fairly favour Elmidae both for status quo reasons but also because the text the IP is disputing is sourced as even the IP seems to agree they just feel it’s insufficiently clear which would be a reason to reword and not remove. So if we really wanted to take Elmidae’s side fine I guess. But if the problem is the IP then the solution is to block them. I mean heck even a full block of the /64 seems better than the current solution although also unnecessary. And if we decide this gets too much into taking one side in a content dispute then we have to consider Elmidae is equally in the wrong for edit warring with that limited discussion which didn’t achieve consensus. So there’s no reason to protect in such a way that ensure they “win” the dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove protection or change to full protection: A good-faith content dispute between an IP and an EC editor should not be resolved with EC protection. Protection policy at WP:ECP is clear that:
  

  Extended confirmed protection should not be used…to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered/new users in valid content disputes

  If the IP was unambiguously on the “wrong side” from a content standpoint (i.e. vandalism), they would’ve been blocked and that has not occurred AFAIK. Left guide (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove protection or change to full protection or partially block one or both parties: I’m largely with Extraordinary Writ and Left guide here as I said in my comment above before I read what they said. I won’t repeat it all, but suffice to say it makes no sense to say we are protecting so we don’t take one side over the other when we clearly have. Either Elmidae is enough in the right that it’s fine to partial block the /64 or they’re not. If they’re not then we either need to fully protect or better, partially block both Elmidae and the /64. There’s no real reason to doubt partial blocking the /64 would work here but even if it fails, the solution would be to semi protect and block any autoconfirmed socks that appear. If it gets too much of a whackamole then we can ECP. I might have sympathy to the current solution if Jimbleak had protected without paying any attention to the wrongversion and made it clear anyone to revert further in that dispute without consensus would be blocked but this didn’t happen so it’s too late now. In practice & this gets to the heart of why I hate the way we handle this so much, probably 99% of the time despite supposedly us doing this because we don’t want to take sides, what happens is we semi or ECP protect, and if it doesn’t happen to be the right wrong version then the confirmed or extended confirmed editors are allowed to revert back to their wrong version without consequence. So we’ve actually decided the confirmed or extended confirmed editors are in the right but for some reason are going to punish all non confirmed (really mostly IPs or I guess temp accounts soon) or extended confirmed editors even those uninvolved in the dispute just because we want to pretend we’re not taking a side so cannot block only one side. To be clear, I was extended confirmed long before I began to realise how unfair this all was, I met the requirements way before the arbcom case which lead to it. So this is never something which affected me. And while this annoys me no end & I’ve said that before to some admins, it’s not really the fault of any particular admin since way way way too many do that and as this discussion shows even the community generally tolerates it. But if it comes up for discussion I am going to push back on it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.