Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrative action review/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

I’m beyond fed up.

The following discussion 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.


Action:
User: Several. (talk · contribs · logs) (Cooied from a post I deleted. == Why can’t I even as for legit advice without getting in trouble here? ==)

I seriously will try to get this account gone for good if I keep getting warnings despite objectively being civil I am fed up with the corrupt admins here and refuse to be here anymore if this keeps up for at least 5 days I am done. Fuck the system and the people enforcing it. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You've done a good job in any case, as legal threats are a bright line for pretty obvious reasons. Good luck in the next life. Remsense 08:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
That’s not what I am doing I am threatening leaving for good if corrupt admins don’t stop bullying me. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
What does "will try to get this account gone for good legally" mean specifically? Remsense 08:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I don’t know I am not a lawyer and am too busy getting on work on time to explain. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
So it involves the threat of some sort of legal action? See you in the bardo, then. Remsense 08:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)|prior discussion]])

Don’t do anything except give me some advice. I am leaving on my own if a corrupt admin nitpicks one more time with a ban threat. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk)< Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

You need to be specific about who and what administrative action you want reviewed, or this is likely to be closed for being malformed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
To add, you were indeffed in 2012 for this same behavior. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • It's quite late where I live, but after reading through a bit of the background, my best guess is there is some distress that isn't directly related to Wikipedia. Maybe taking to the user talk page instead is a good idea, as I don't see any sanction that will "prevent disruption" as being useful. It may be that Blaze The Movie Fan needs a break away from here, of his own choosing. This place can be stressful, and while I don't want to assume anything, I get the feeling you don't need the extra stress right now. It's easy to blow things out of proportion when you are stressed, to be overly sensitive, and to take things out of perspective. This is true for all of us. But I don't think a discussion at ANI is going to find the solutions you are looking for, so as I said, maybe it's better to close this and the ANI thread and go to your talk page instead, and work it out there. Dennis Brown - 12:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
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.

Action: Declining my Draft:Gumn, when it does meet Basic WP:GNG as required in a WP: Notability. User: Saqib (talk · contribs · logs) ([[I have discussed the issue on the Draft talk:Gumn, even User:Drmies admitted that draft is in a better condition comparatively with other drafts for WP: Articles for creation.|prior discussion]]) I want to get my draft published and reviewd by an independent reviewer as User:Saqib first declined my Draft and then removed sources citing WP:CRAP. Kindly, look into the matter.182.182.97.3 (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

This does not appear to have been an administrative action. Therefore, there's nothing to be reviewed here. --Yamla (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey User:Yamla, Where to address the issue? I genuinely wants an independent review of my draft by someone other than User:Saqib. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
WP:FORUMSHOP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
But, Saqib, are you sure you got that ping...? ——Serial Number 54129 12:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Obviously. Why do you need to ask this? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
User:Serial Number 54129, ;) Drmies (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Am I missing something? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Heh. Drmies grasses me up :) apologies Saqib, merely a lighthearted remark vis à vis the IP pinging you six times  :) ——Serial Number 54129 14:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saqib&diff=prev&oldid=1222868417Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I suspect this is the banned user, Nauman335. I want to be clear, this is based solely on behaviour. I have not used checkuser tools here. --Yamla (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nauman335#01_May_2024Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
You can have investigation on my IP to confirm the fact. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
So, just to be clear, you are acknowledging you are indeed Nauman335, evading your block. Is that correct? --Yamla (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
No, because User:Saqib has accused me of the same. When I'm not User:Nauman335, it's frustrating to be tagged with the WP:SP. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Yamla, left a comment on the SPI. Maybe WP:MEAT more than WP:SOCK but the pushy nature and focus feels like WP:UPE. And I'm quite certain they've had named accounts in the past, their editing and knowledge of Wikipedia is significant. Ravensfire (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Noting the IP is blocked with a note for them to log into their account to edit. [1] S0091 (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Nothing to review - This isn't an administrative tool use, it is an editorial decision made by a reviewer at WP:AFC. Dennis Brown - 13:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Nothing to review. I wouldn't close the door to all review here of AfC Reviewer actions, since being a reviewer is essentially an advanced permission. That said, I would think that meaningful review here would have to be focused on procedural matters. We can't open the door to review of every approve/decline. I'd say the same about New Page Patrol actions. If all the OP wants is independent review of the draft, they just need to solicit outside feedback (which they've already done in other fora) and then be patient. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I should have been more clear, but yes, if there is some obvious abuse, but there were two declines with no edits between them. It's like the editor is shaking the Magic 8 Ball and hoping for a different outcome (reviewer) instead of at least trying to address the problems. Dennis Brown - 13:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I'd really appreciate that. Thank you for your attention, Appreciated. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Nothing to review please ip do not stalk Saqib. You've taken this everywhere, in my talk, in two admin's talks, at ANI, thats enough. ToadetteEdit! 14:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    In your talk it was about Draft:Hook (2022 TV series) and Draft:Wonderland (Pakistani TV series). Currently I'm concerned about Draft:Gumn. All of these are declined by Saqib, so he's stalking me, not vice versa. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Reviewers often specialize in particular areas they're familiar with. I specialize in articles in and around food. Saqib may very well specialize in Pakistani entertainment because they're familiar with reliable sourcing in that area. The fact they reviewed all of these doesn't mean they're stalking you. Valereee (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I disagree that this is out of scope of XRV. Only people that meet the criteria for the AfCR pseudoright can review AfC submissions, which makes it an "advanced permission" and therefore something that should be subject to community review. Since 182.182.* doesn't have an account, they also can't move the draft themselves. – Joe (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Hey User:Joe Roe, I have never moved draft by myself. I just want an independent review of my Draft:Gumn by a trusted reviewer. Thank you! 182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    IP, which three and only three of the sources used best represent significant coverage in independent reliable sources? Asking editors to review this draft, which contains 25 sources, is a big ask. If you'll tell us which three and only three support a claim to notability, someone may be willing to take a look. Again, only the best three sources. Valereee (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Hey, [2], [3] and [4], these 3 I believe meets WP:GNG. Thank you for your interest. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Images.dawn.com comes up 'not found'. Daily Jang appears to be sigcov, barely; is Daily Jang considered reliable/independent for entertainment news? Daily Times doesn't appear to be sigcov re:the show, it's really about the actor. Depending on the reliability of Daily Jang for entertainment, which I can't speak to, that would mean you have possibly one instance of sigcov. Some reviewers would accept two, but I like to see three. Valereee (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Try [5], IP pasted junk characters at the end. Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Hmmm, author has 6 article posted, all in the "Comments" section of the site. This has me slightly concerned [6] about the site in general and specifically this source - is this submitted, any editorial review and does this meet WP:RS? Not sure. Ravensfire (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    [7], This one User:Valereee is from Images Dawn. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Note that the page explicitly states that it is a comment and is thus unreliable. ToadetteEdit! 15:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, that's definitely sigcov, but like Ravensfire I'm questioning the editorial oversight. Valereee (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, that's what I said. If you had an account, you could just move it. But it's completely fine that you choose not to make one. – Joe (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    They used to do that.Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Who they? Why you're inclined to prove me a WP:SP. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    First, you linked to Wikipedia:Subpages and not WP:SOCK. Second, you have been editing in the same areas and often asking assistance from other, in addition to requesting reviews from others. ToadetteEdit! 15:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    I think you could strike that comment, Saqib. As you know, then there's a place to share suspicions of sockpuppetry. But unless and until it's proven by a CheckUser, repeating the accusation elsewhere is just casting aspersion. – Joe (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    The first AFC reviews didn't really address the main relevant criteria (meeting GNG) and the last one mentioned it but also spoke of presence of non-GNG or lower grade sources. I think article would have passed NPP and AFD as is, (which is supposed to be the AFC criteria) but since it's under a magnifying glass and there have been prior declines the GNG compliance bar is inevitably going to get raised a bit. Suggest that the creator do their best to find the best possible sources with respect to GNG (published independent sources that cover the topic of the article in depth) and then carefully get ready to re-answer the question posed by Valereee above, keeping in mind the other analysis and comments made by Valereee. Maybe this could get handled here/now or I'd be happy to look at it later if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Assuming there's no socking going on (I have no idea yes or no), I would have thought that the way to get a second opinion, if you honestly believe the previous review was wrong, would be to resubmit for a new review. In this case, Saqib has reviewed all 3 submissions. If no other reviewer is going to review this, then going to ANI or here or WT:AFC or something is the IP's only chance for a review, so this is not forum shopping. I'm surprised AFC isn't a little more like unblock requests, where it is poor form for the same admin to reject more than once. Wouldn't the solution here be "Saqib, please leave it for another reviewer"? But I find it a little hard to believe that AARV's purpose is to go into the content weeds and ask for and review 3 sources to determine notability. Surely that's AFC territory, not AARV territory? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Typically rereviews are by different editors. This one was resubmitted so quickly each time, though. Valereee (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    @Floq - I'm pretty new to NPP, just started a couple of days back. I've had patrolling rights for a while but I never really got into it until now. So, I'm not sure if it's okay for the same reviewer to keep reviewing the same drafts. I'll definitely be more careful next time if that's a rule. The thing is, there's a big backlog in patrolling pages, so I figured I'd at least pitch in on Pakistan-related pages. That's why I ended up reviewing this one three times, and this too. But like I mentioned earlier today, I'm cool with anyone else giving it a review. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    I worded it the way I did because I really have no idea if it is against a written rule or not. Indeed, I suspect if it was explicitly against a rule, someone would have said so by now. I just think that, rule or not, it seems like wise practice. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Alright but here's the thing. If you check the draft's history, it's obvious they keep asking for reviews without making any edits, let alone fixing the issues. So, I figured it would be OK to reject it repeatedly. Like I mentioned, we already have a big backlog so why do we keep letting this page sit when it's clearly not ready to be moved to the main NS? And let's be real, the IP isn't innocent either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    For two reasons; (1) as a human, you might occasionally be wrong about something, and another reviewer might have a different opinion, or even when you're right, another reviewer might have different suggestions, and (2) because you avoid the kind of drawn-out meta-discussion that is occurring right here, when a content dispute turns into a behavioral dispute to no benefit.
    Trust your fellow reviewers to notice no changes were made before re-submitting. One person repeatedly declining a submission requires some system to appeal to others. Two reviewers declining a submission means, if nothing else, there's a kind of consensus against accepting. And if there is a large backlog, then if you leave re-reviewing to others, it gives you a chance to review a new page. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Points taken, thanks! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Unilateral overturning of a close by Seraphimblade

The following discussion 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.



Action: Reopened a closed RfC while the close was still being discussed at AN [8], twice [9]
User: Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · logs) (prior discussion)

S Marshall closed a lengthy RfC at the reliable sources noticeboard. S Marshall is a highly experienced closer but not an admin. As inevitably happens with contentious RfCs, a review of his close was requested at WP:AN shortly thereafter. After first attempting to resolve the issue with S Marshall, Aaron Liu and BilledMammal challenged the close on two separate grounds and invited comment from the closer, participants, and uninvolved editors. So far so routine.

Seraphimblade initially commented on the request as a "non-participant", arguing that the close should be overturned. A couple of hours later, he indicated to S Marshall that he considered him involved and intended to reverse the close if S Marshall did not do so first. There was a brief discussion in which S Marshall denied being involved and pointed out that he could not justify unilaterally overturning his close on the basis of WP:NACD (as he tried to) because it only applies to deletion. Nevertheless, Seraphimblade reopened the discussion,[10] stating that he expected "pushback or [...] people shouting at me". At that time comments had been given both endorsing and overturning the close. Multiple editors (including me) then objected to Seraphimblade's unilateral action and Serial Number 54129 reverted it on the grounds that the AN discussion was ongoing. Seraphimblade then edit warred to reopen it a second time, using rollback, without an edit summary.

I don't wish to shout at Seraphimblade but I do believe that this is a clearly inappropriate unilateral action while there as an ongoing attempt to achieve consensus. I don't understand why he thinks being "upset by [the close] because of how clearly unacceptable it was" permits him to disregard the opinions of other editors who were trying to engage in discussion. His attempt to justify this by citing WP:NACD is both incorrect and an abuse of the privileged position his admin tools give him.

Why is this at XRV? Although closing or reopening discussions isn't an admin action, Seraphimblade has explicitly justified this action with the claim that it is "one of the powers the community has granted sysops". He also misused rollback in reverting Serial Number 54129. – Joe (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Overturn and warn. One editor (admin or not) shouldn't get to decide that an editor who made a good faith, reasoned close, is involved and unilaterally overturn that close. It's particularly egregious that this occurred while a close review, where people could discuss that aspect of the close, is ongoing. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    @Joe Roe, I think you meant XRV, not XFD. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Do not endorse. (disclosure: I am clearly involved with regards the RFC, but not regarding the subsequent discussions) It is completely inappropriate to unilaterally overturn the closure of an RFC that is being actively discussed at AN (or a similar venue). If the AN discussion was heading for a very clear consensus to overturn then someone uninvolved with both discussions could reasonably close the AN discussion per SNOW and then implement that at the RFC page. However there was very clearly no consensus at AN and discussion was still ongoing so that doesn't apply. To then edit war to reinstate your inappropriate action cannot be justified by even a very liberal reading of BRD. The RfC closure should be restored unless and until such time as there is a clear consensus at AN that it should not stand. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment My general feeling is that if an uninvolved administrator believes a non-administrator is involved, then that non-administrator should not be closing the relevant discussion, and if they have already closed it should withdraw their close. BilledMammal (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Admins are not infallible. As is clear from the discussion, not everyone agrees that the closer was involved. And if they did, that would be grounds for an overturn of the close, not unilateral action during a close review. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    No, but they have been vetted by the community. I support non-admin closures, but the closers need to recognize that they are not admins and in key questions like WP:INVOLVED defer to uninvolved admins, to avoid drama and the discussion being tainted. BilledMammal (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    If that happened before the AN thread was opened, sure. But you'd already asked the community to review whether S Marshall was involved, and they were in the middle of trying to do so when Seraphimblade overturned the close. – Joe (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Based on other processes, like WP:DRV, it shouldn't matter when in the process the admin decides to step in. BilledMammal (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    When any matter is under active discussion then that discussion should not be unilaterally pre-empted unless there is a very clear consensus in that discussion. This matter was under discussion and did not have any sort of consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm bitterly disappointed and thoroughly unhappy about this, and I've rarely felt so disrespected on Wikipedia. I ask the community to reverse Seraphimblade's decision as well as condemning it. I thought we'd long since established that sysops don't get to summarily overturn RFC closes on any grounds at all. These are content decisions. Sysops have no special authority over those. We obviously need to write that somewhere unmistakeable in a great big font.
    I'm appalled that people are criticising Seraphimblade for using rollback without an edit summary. If you think that's what's wrong with Seraphimblade's actions here, then all I can say is, what the heck?—S Marshall T/C 13:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Using rollback is just something additional to the reckless actions here. It's not the main point and just shows misuse of administrative tools to push their own opinion. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I believe I'm the only person that's mentioned rollback and I did so only to try and give the full description of the situation. I agree that it's inconsequential. That Seraphimblade apparently thinks that being an admin gives him the right to pre-empt the process of forming consensus is the main issue, and I find it as retrograde as you do. – Joe (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    @S Marshall: I apologise if it seems I overly focussed on one thing at WP:AN. I agree that what's appalling is SB's willingness to ramraid community expectations. I merely intended to provide another, lower league yet "still-same-ballpark" example demonstrating that their bulldozer approach was not necessarily confined to just the re-opening. ——Serial Number 54129 14:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Do not endorse, warn. Per above, this was clear overstepping that has now been reverted. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    @Aaron Liu: What does "endorse archiving" mean in this context? – Joe (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Endorse having the RfC stay archived. You see, voorts said "endorse overturn" above, but that's ambiguous as the very action we're discussing here is the overturning of a close. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    For clarity, my !vote is overturn Seraphimblade's unilateral overturning of the RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Since everyone here seems to be about "endorse or not endorse the administrative action, I'll change it to "not endorse". Aaron Liu (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Do not endorse, warn: I'm involved but I feel that this is kinda obvious actually. Loki (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Procedural comment. As a matter of fairness, it would be appropriate to allow Seraphimblade, as the admin whose actions are being reviewed, a resaonable time to respond to this thread before people start taking positions and casting !votes. I know he has made some comments in the AN thread, but that is not a substitute for the opportunity to address the specific assertions made here. (This is a general comment applicable to virtually any discussion on this board.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Respectfully disagree with this assessment. Seraphimblade was warned that there would be consequences for such actions, knowing there would be "push back", and did so regardless and irrespective of such concerns. I'm personally reserving judgement before hearing from the user in question, but I don't believe others should do so, and editors can always change their !votes. CNC (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree on entirely different grounds. AFDs are routinely closed without input from the article starter. SPIs are routinely closed without input from the alleged sockmaster. People are routinely blocked without the chance to speak in their defence. I think it's wrong in principle to treat sysops any differently.—S Marshall T/C 15:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Fair point, even if it's somewhat irrelevant now. We now have the "not sorry, now sorry" replies for re-opening the RfC from Seraphimblade. Someone should probably collapse this conversation as off topic. CNC (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I apologize for using rollback in what Joe has noted. I didn't mean to do that, and that was probably a misclick in reading through everything here. That said, I do think this discussion needed to be reversed, and I don't apologize for that. It was a bad closure, and did need to be reopened. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Comment: I didn't mean to do that, and that was probably a misclick in reading through everything here is quite puzzling. While it is possible I have misunderstood, I would have thought that nothing which happened "here" could have had any bearing on a click potentially misclicked before there was a "here" here. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 15:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
      That part only applied to using the rollback. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
      Yes, I get that. But either the use of rollback probably was or probably wasn't an inadvertent misclick before this discussion was opened.-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 15:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Do not endorse There was an active discussion underway to determine community consensus on the appropriateness of the close. As this was not a case of, for example, hiding BLP issues, there was no reason not to let the discussion run. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • On a procedural note, as per instructions, please simply consider if the actions in question should be endorsed or not endorsed. isaacl (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Do not endorse the reopening I think that Seraphimblade had some valid points in the reopening discussion but that does not change that this was clearly procedurally improper. And using the admin imprimatur is equally as significant as using admin tools, even when not invoked, plus here it was actually invoked. I can't see where Seraphimblade weigh-in here would change the fundamentals but it could change if anything more than a reversal and a trout is called for. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • It's clear that the community does not endorse what I did here. Given that, while I think it was the right action, I cannot stand behind my action if the community does not. So, I apologize for my action and withdraw it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Do not endorse the re-opening of the RfC while the close review was in progress. The admin was warned that it wasn't a good idea to do so but ignored concerns of other editors and overturned the close regardless. They were upset and appear to have allowed emotion to dictate action rather than reason, made no apology for re-opening the RfC (aside from the use of rollback) while discussion was in progress, and even stand by that decision to disrupt consensus building. Edit: I see the apology above, but only after standing by the decision in the first place, thus remains far from convincing and I still do not believe they are fit for the role of an administrator. CNC (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    As a procedural note, this venue cannot determine whether someone is or is not fit for the role of administrator. If you think something stronger than "not endorsed" is appropriate you will need to start a discussion at an appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the info. It wasn't a proposal, merely an opinion. CNC (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Do not endorse the use of rollback. It was obviously not consistent with WP:ROLLBACKUSE, and there's no need to discuss that any further. The only use of administrator tools was the use of rollback. The act of undoing the close as such (the initial edit that was followed by the use of rollback) is important context, but was not an administrative action in the sense of this forum's scope. I think this should be snowclosed as "not endorsed" with respect to the rollback click as such, and the underlying issue should be settled at AN. Per WP:XRVPURPOSE, Administrative action review should not be used to ... review of an action with a dedicated review process, and AN is a dedicated review venue for RfC closes and I would say it is also the dedicated venue to resolve procedural disputes relating to RfCs, both on the side of process and conduct, as AN is also a conduct forum. The start of this review should have limited the review to the use of rollback.—Alalch E. 15:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that closing and reopening RfCs is not normally an admin action, as I said, but Seraphimblade made it one by invoking his admin status when doing it. That is why I thought it would be best addressed here and indeed we seem to have reached a near-unanimous outcome rather quicker than the average AN thread.
    Is AN described anywhere as the dedicated review venue RfC closes? It gets used for it a lot, to be sure, but I've always assumed that's because of AN's historic "I had nowhere else to put this so I'm putting it here" function. Which is a bit ironic, considering a major point of agreement here is that admins do not have a special role in determining RfC outcomes. Now we have WP:DFD, that might actually be a better place for them. – Joe (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, AN is the designated place for close reviews. There was no consensus to start a separate venue back in December. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy close, not a deletion-related reopen, there's nothing to suggest the rollback was intentional, and this is not the place to bring WP:ADMINCOND cases. RAN1 (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Also, to quote the instructions: Before listing a review request, try to resolve the matter by discussing it with the performer of the action. The filer did not wait for a self-revert. RAN1 (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    This was actually extensively discussed in the aforementioned AN close review. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    There isn't a word in policy that suggests that an RFC close revert is an admin action, and I don't understand why Seraphimblade thought deletion reopens were relevant, and I'm surprised nobody challenged that either. Likewise, it doesn't seem to have occurred to any of the participants to ask Seraphimblade if the rollback was an accident. RAN1 (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Despite the name, this board is not solely for review of admin actions but also "other advanced permissions", but given the action was asserted to be an admin action it is definitely on-topic here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Except nobody disputes that the revert has nothing to do with WP:MOPRIGHTS. RAN1 (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    The review asks us to examine the overturning of the close as a whole, which was asserted to be an admin action, not just the use of rollback, and this board is explicitly not limited to reviewing only admin actions. Whether reviewing use of rollback is within the scope of this board has been discussed multiple times without clear consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    Isn't that covered by Special:ListGroupRights § sysop? RAN1 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
    @RAN1: They don't need to ask, he already said it was; I believe it, and maybe I should have done sooner. ——Serial Number 54129 19:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The unilateral "overturning" should be reversed and Seraphimblade warned. One editor doesn't get to decide that. This RfC is still legitimately closed by S Marshall. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Pretty astonished that SB complains that SM is involved, !votes in the discussion, and then (having quite unambiguously made themself involved) goes on to revert the closure -- seems like a striking lack of self-awareness, at a minimum. --JBL (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Do not endorse although I don't like the terminology, it feels clumsy but I'm not sure what would be better. Some of this is my own opinion, that we've moved too far in the direction of NACs and have more bad closes and more wasted time on close reviews as a result. Anyway, Seraphimblade makes some good points on the WP:BADNAC problem. Anyone could see that an RFC like this is likely to be controversial, and letting an admin do it would have been easier. I followed the RFC, because I thought it might be another one that goes months without anyone else willing to close it. I do think there are legitimate issues with the close itself as well.
    However, S Marshall is known as an experienced editor and closer who has a reputation for making difficult closes. It wasn't an emergency that had to be summarily vacated to prevent imminent harm, like vandalism or bots actively implementing the close result. The right thing to do would be to show S Marshall some respect, discuss the close on its merits, and let the community work it out.
    The rollback was also inappropriate, though that's a more minor issue. Undo or Twinkle revert with an edit summary would have been better. Seraphimblade says it was a misclick and that's a reasonable explanation; I've done the same and it's an easy mistake when the buttons are next to each other. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Do not endorse the use of rollback, which was out-of-process per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. However, as Seraphimblade has already stated here that the use of rollback was wrong and offered an apology for using the rollback, I do think that we should close this discussion as the central item has been resolved. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I agree with multiple colleagues above that we have gone too far toward NACs; even when permitted by policy, in contentious areas they inevitably draw challenge on the basis of being NACs, and consequently waste more community time than they save. That said, there was nothing about this closure so inappropriate or urgent that it required reversal while a challenge was in progress. The reversal would therefore be inappropriate even if the original closure was found to be a mis-reading of consensus. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Well, I deplore this credentialism. If someone feels there's something wrong with a close, then they can articulate that and we have a reasonable, objective, logical basis for discussion. If someone feels there's something wrong with the closer, then we what we have is an ad hominem fallacy.—S Marshall T/C 21:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The preference towards admin closures of RFCs has always been because admins tend to be veteran, respected editors. Somehow this has morphed into the idea that BEING an admin somehow qualifies you to close contentious RFCs. This is the cart leading the horse, and further entrenching a strange divide between users and administrators, for seemingly no benefit. S Marshall is is probably more capable of closing discussions like that than a lot of administrators with no experience doing so. The idea that BADNAC applies to editors like him is frankly ridiculous. Parabolist (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
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.

Blocked for no good reason

The following discussion 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.


This dude (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker%3ARonaldB?wprov=sfla1) blocked me on this page (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindaan?wprov=sfla1) for no good reason. The page contains false information which I cannot correct because of the block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C3C:7F01:9B00:C177:5805:7BF6:945E (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

We can do nothing about a block on another Wikipedia. You will need to address that there using whatever process they have to do so. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
As 331dot says, you'll need to address this on nlwiki. I would note however, that most of RonaldB's blocks are of VPNs and open proxies. If that's the case, you might want to look into disabling it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
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.

Permanent ban of Hocikre

Action: Log ID 164025646, the blocking of user Hocikre at 05:43, 25 August 2024
User: Graham87 (talk · contribs · logs) (prior discussion)

I agree with @Graham87 @331dot that the adding of headings to large numbers of stub articles by @Hocikre was unnecessary and disruptive, however, the action taken is excessive. Hocikre was permanently banned. Not asked to stop their actions, not warned formally, nor even given a temporary ban of 24 hours to make them stop while communicating the reasons why they should not be doing this. While the actions of Graham87 and with the backing of 331dot were taken in good faith without malice or bias, their actions are a mistake that should be reversed. If Hocikre is reinstated I will undertake to educate them about the whys and wherefores of good layout and checking the MOS rather than relying upon other editors to say "no". 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@MtBotany, I think you're misunderstanding what "indefinite" means. It isn't permanent. It means that the editor is blocked until they can reassure an administrator that the problem(s) that led to the block will not recur. Schazjmd (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You say Hocikre was permanently banned. All I see is an indefinite block; WP:BLOCK vs WP:BAN. Please clarify. --Yamla (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, you are correct. I'm almost never involved in these sorts of discussions and I should have been more careful in selecting the right term. If allowable should I correct the request? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) :Just clarifying, "indefinite" doesn't mean permanent, it just means that there is no automatic expiration date. And a block is not a ban in Wiki terms. But at first glance it does seem too severe as a fist step. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I think it would have been helpful if someone had told Hocikre flat-out "no more headings", but looking at the edit history, it appears that an admin noticed the disruption and made a block to stop it (then spent a lot of time cleaning up weeks of edits that had gone unnoticed). Schazjmd (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
An indefinite ban without warning does seem wildly excessive, especially when the subject is then treated to the sentence "Right now you're a net negative to the project". There are kinder ways to deliver the message that a user is making a big mess of something, and I personally would rather be greeted by the traditional solution, and failing that, I think a week-long block would've gotten their attention just fine. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I thought that was actually a pretty mild comment, I'd rather be told that than "you made a big mess that others had to clean up". 331dot (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm surprised. I find the latter (a description of what happened) much less insulting than the former (a judgment of the editor's worth). Floquenbeam (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Personally I find "you made a lot of unnecessary work for other people" more of a judgment. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Surprised again, but I guess there's no point in discussing this particular thing further (de gustibis non est disputandum...). I'd hate for this to turn into a vote of which is more judgemental. I certainly don't think you were trying to be mean. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Might be a cultural difference? I very much fall on floquenbeam's side here --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Could be, additionally all of us 8 billion humans react to things differently. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I can see how an indef block might eventually have been needed, but a warning first - even just one! - would have been much better. The message under the block notice and the unblock decline seem unnecessarily harsh to me, too. I understand that good faith disruption is, by definition, disruptive. But let's not forget that it's also, by definition, good faith, too... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    Also, unless someone can point me to actual English language problems, it was kind of questionable to say "I see you're from Uganda, you should try your native language Wikipedia", when (1) English is an official language of Uganda, (2) I see no evidence they have an English language deficiency, and (c) believe it or not, people that don't live in English speaking countries are still capable of speaking English. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    +1 Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    True, the follow-up language was mean. Schazjmd (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    My intention was not to be mean. As I just told Floquenbeam above, I find what I said milder than "you made lots of work for other people and wasted their time". Maybe that's just me. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Graham87 's decision might turn out to be right, but I think Hocikre should be given a chance at least. Looks like they were blocked without any real warning. A block of one week might have been better. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • This edit was described as "particularly ridiculous" on the blocked user's talk page, but at first glance I am not seeing the problem with that edit. Just to double check, am I missing something? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    • @Novem Linguae: I haven't encountered a heading titled with a word in the past tense for many years. I have no objection an unblock in principle, but I would also like this user to stop making random paragraph adjustments. On reflection some of what I said was probably too harsh. Graham87 (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
On reflection, I've decided that an unblock would be the wisest course of action here so I've reversed my block. Graham87 (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I think this can be closed with no further action. Graham87 was obviously at the end of his tether but has now reversed the block. Is there a way to make it even clearer that indefinite ≢ permanent and that an indefinite block can (as in this case) be shorter than any timed block? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Rager7

  • If possible, as it's a similar case, is there any input on the appeal of User talk:Rager7? They were blocked by Graham87, who was rightfully irritated by the errors being made that needed clean-up, but with little warning and straight to an indef. I'm extremely hesitant to apply WP:ROPE when the blocking admin disagrees with an unblock. A bit more input would be helpful.-- Ponyobons mots 17:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    Rager7 should probably be unblocked as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    A little more context: I don't mind a whole lot if someone is a little quicker than many to block. I don't mind if it is indefinite right off the bat, as long as it is clear to the target of the block that indef doesn't mean permanent. But then you have to be willing to unblock when a semi-decent unblock request is made. Any two of (a) quick to block, (b) straight to indef, and (c) requiring a perfect unblock request can be reasonable for a good faith editor making a lot of mistakes, but the three together is too Kafkaesque. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
    I have come round to the position - although I would welcome your opinion on this - that blocks of registered users should be indef ie pending a block appeal and an explanation or apology - with timed blocks reserved for IPs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
    Perhaps I'm missing context at User_talk:Rager7#Blocked, but it seems like an indef for an MOS issue on using contractions, of which they received only one prior warning. I support MOS blocks, but indef seems rash if its not malicious disruption and the block log only has a vague "disuptive editing" without prior escalating warnings on specific points of improvement. Concur with Floquenbeam about needing to be more lenient with unblocks if one is going to be quick(er) to indef. —Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
    OK I've gone and applied the rope myself, just because it's the best way to find out how sincere they actually are even though I still have an ... off feeling about this user. It wasn't only the contraction thing but also, among other things, the overlinking and the use of the word "are" to describe a long-since-past event; they'd been explicitly told about part of our guideline about overlinking before I came along, but not the bit that applied to the edit that brought them to my attention. I normally do accept unblock requests when brought to my attention by other admins, but this one was ... really odd to me. Graham87 (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
    You could be right, though I hope not for their sake. Personally, I err on the side of wanting a few warnings for MOS-related issues before resorting to a block. And MOS is so vast, I try not to lump all MOS violations together, if feasible. There's the AGF factor, but doing so also minimizes reports here to begin with if the thought process is more obvious to outsiders who look at the blockee's talk page. Thanks for the background. —Bagumba (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Page Mover, out-of-process technical move

The following discussion 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.


Action: Tamara (given name)Tamara (name) round-robin (Special:Diff/1250968295)
User: Maliner (talk · contribs · logs) (prior discussion)

In 2011, administrator JaGa moved "Tamara (name)" → "Tamara (given name)". With 13 years and 330+ edits since, "Tamara (given name)" is cemented as the most recent stable title, per WP:RMUM / WP:TITLECHANGES. This week on 11 October, Rosguill did a bold move "Tamara (given name)" → "Tamara (name)" (as a proxy action for The Blue Rider, who attempted the move by cut-paste); I promptly reverted to "Tamara (given name)". At this point, the process of renaming requires an RM discussion; WP:RMUM: if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again.

Instead, The Blue Rider took the request to WP:RM/TR, where Maliner moved it again to "Tamara (name)"; their justification is that Rosguill did the "revert" step (of JaGa's 2011 move). Of course, it is not a revert when "Tamara (given name)" is the long-term stable title. WP:RMUM: If the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move; "Tamara (given name)" has been in place for a long time: Rosguill's move is not a revert, but a new bold move.

Procedurally, the article should be restored to the most recent stable title "Tamara (given name)". From which point, an RM can determine the consensus for a title change. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Why have you not attempted to discuss this with Maliner before bringing it here? Thryduulf (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
There's a prior discussion link. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Please relax. There is no need to make a mountain of this. In your prior discussion link, Maliner makes it clear why they moved the page. Maybe they were right, or maybe they overlooked something and are wrong. Don't take it personally. Did the objection noted in their response occur? If so, just take the suggestion and have a full discussion. There is no misuse of admin tools here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
I am here to utilize the forum #Purpose: review if the action was inconsistent with policy. Simply that. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:XRVPURPOSE#1 subpoint 2, this should not come to XRV because WP:MRV is available. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
MRV doesn't mention speedy moves at RM/TR are accepted, and only XfDs and RMs that have formal closing processes. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The question at the heart:

Well... no, but that's a leading question, isn't it? Why not just start an RM discussion where the page is now? That will sort this out. -- asilvering (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Maliner's move away from the stable title over objections was pretty clearly mistaken, and while I understand the "just start an RM" line of thinking, I also understand the frustration and am uncomfortable with just allowing a fait-accompli move to stand. Ultimately our only job here is to figure out whether this was an appropriate use of page mover (MRV wouldn't be the right place for that), and I don't think it was, so overturn. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Overturn: Since Rosguills move was reverted, it clearly was no longer uncontrovertial, so Maliners move should not have happened without a discussion. Nobody (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The correct title would be Tamara (name), and I hope we can get to that outcome with the minimum possible bureaucracy.—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's nearly that straightforward: if Category:Feminine given names is any indication, there's a fairly strong WP:CONSISTENT argument for the longer title, if nothing else. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
      Additionally, WP:APOAT (it's a good page) explains that the difference isn't even stylistic but denotes the scope of the anthro page, with "name" (as opposed to "surname" and "given name"), being reserved for "the article covers both, or is ambiguous" case, which is an exception. The page starts with "Tamara is a feminine given name ...", there's a list of people whose given name is Tamara, and ends with the template {{Given name}}. —Alalch E. 03:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
      As an example, Abigail (name): "Abigail is a feminine given name. ... It is also a surname." Three people with the surname Abigail are listed. That's why the title has "name" as opposed to "given name". Without Francis, Peter, and Robert Abigail, the tile would have been "Abigail (given name)". —Alalch E. 03:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn: I understand the “this isn’t that big a deal, just do an RM” feeling, but this board is just to determine whether to maintain or overturn an action using advanced tools. I think it will be quicker and more painless to just get to that. OP presents a pretty obvious case. Just overturn because Maliner’s move was out of process. If anyone on either side of the dispute want action taken against someone, that’s for somewhere else. —Floquenbeam (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Floq. Seems like an honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. – Joe (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn per Floq, others. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Everyone agrees that the eventual outcome should be decided by consensus from a discussion. It doesn't matter what title this is under while it is being discussed. This discussion can only serve to prolong that process. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Overturn per nom. Incorrect action. Mover should not have accepted The Blue Rider's request.—Alalch E. 02:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose any action from here. This is out of scope. This forum must not be allowed to subsume other forums. The solution is to use WP:RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    A mover volunteering at WP:RM/TR needs to know when to refuse requests, and needs to know how to reverse course when they've made a mistake in accepting a request they shouldn't have. —Alalch E. 03:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    Did you possibly mean WP:MRV, not RM? -- asilvering (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    No. A simple reading might see someone send it to MRV, but what is MRV going to do? There’s disagreement, so start an RM. Appeals should start at the bottom, not the top. 1. Ask the mover, maybe they’ll revert. 2. Start the RM that is in hindsight needed. 3. If the RM is done or closed wrong, go to MRV. If an admin blocks you for asking tricky questions, maybe that is a path to XRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Out of scope XRV is for things where another review board is not available. Administrative actions to (un)delete and (un)protect protect things are reviewed at DRV all the time, so a move done with administrative tools should accordingly be reviewed at WP:MRV. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    WP:MRV is explicitly for a contested close. A speedy action like RM/TR has no close. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    So fix the language. Where would this have gone before XRV was created? MRV. Jclemens (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    AN. Page mover using privilege incorrectly, not recognizing and not reversing a mistake, and needs correction to ensure that they use it correctly. —Alalch E. 13:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    Get the page-mover people to sort it out. If they choose to overturn, the person who did something incorrect will get the message. This page is for later, if messages are not received and there is a pattern of problems. Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    Without weighing in on this specific scenario, this venue isn't for patterns of problems. It's for a review of an administrator's decision, without assigning blame. Patterns of problems continue to be handled in the same venues as before. isaacl (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    I would totally agree if we were discussing one block or one page deletion. However, this is a techo thing that really doesn't matter except to the people who specialize in titles. It should be discussed at the usual place like all the other inappropriate/contested moves. Is this page going to be used for all future contested moves where an advanced permission has been used? Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
    This is not just a techo thing. Whether the word "given" should be in the title is that. But this XRV is not about whether the word given should be in the title, it's the fundamental concept of knowing when it is appropriate to use advanced permissions. The specific means by which that knowledge (or lack thereof) is expressed is irrelevant.
    And overturn. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know enough about the various move processes to have formed an opinion on where this particular case should be discussed. All I'm saying is that this venue shouldn't be used to discuss patterns of problems, as it wasn't designed to handle that type of discussion. isaacl (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Do not endorse. This is at the very least the correct venue to challenge a use of advanced permissions, and this advanced permission was used inappropriately. I hope Maliner absorbs that feedback. I'm neutral on whether to overturn, since it seems like an RM is likely going to start soon regardless. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
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.

Abuse of authority

The following discussion 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.


- Action

Admin participation in ANI discussion: [11] Admin reasoning for block given in ANI discussion: [12] Initial 24 hour arbitration enforcement block: [13] Initial block changed to regular block: [14]

- Editor

Elli

- Discussion

Initial reply: [15] Initial appeal: [16] Request to copy block notice to other noticeboards and discussion: [17] Second request to copy block notice to other noticeboards and discussion: [18]

- Reason

The administrator imposed a particularly strong block and did not follow the appropriate protocol involving copying the block notification to administrative noticeboards, preventing any administrative oversight. I attempted to appeal the block using the given template, which includes the request to copy the block notification, and was met with consistent resistance. The administrator then changed the block to a normal block and continued to dismiss my appeal.

I strongly believe that these actions were an abuse of administrator authority and not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. As detailed within WP:ADMINGUIDE/B WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE WP:BLOCKP and WP:CDB, blocking should be done “to protect the encyclopedia from harm”, not to punish or “cool down” an editor.

I did not vandalize, demonstrate gross incivility, harass, spam, edit war, sock puppet, attack or threaten.

Necessary background information: I shifted my focus from editing articles/discussing article edits on talk pages to discussing the reliability of sources at WP:RSN so as to not disrupt talk page discussions with more in-depth source analysis. My initial discussion there was inappropriately non-admin closed, and then reopened during the aforementioned ANI discussion which the administrator participated in prior to issuing the AE block. Rob Roilen (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  • As the administrator who enacted the block here, I stand behind it. I encourage other editors to review this section at ANI (pl) as well as some of their behavior at other discussions (this makes up ~all of their recent edits, so I'm not linking to any particular one) to get a sense of why I blocked. Also, noting that I did initially enact an AE block, but switched to a regular block on suggestion of ToBeFree. Apologies for any confusion that may have caused. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I gotta say, you got off pretty lightly. Please move on already. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I've noticed Rob Roilen's contributions when dealing with a page protection request, had a look at their user page and deleted it as an attack page. Rob Roilen has voiced their unhappiness and a lack of surprise about this action. As the page content was quoted in Special:Permalink/1253946907 by Trulyy, it's still accessible to anyone. While I think it did qualify for speedy deletion under WP:G10, it doesn't qualify for revision deletion. Anyway: Because of their userpage content and their contribution list that appears to be focused entirely on political disputes, I wasn't surprised to see the block, only about its short duration. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    With respect, I also feel very strongly that the deletion of my user page was inappropriate and not a proper use of WP:G10. My personal mission statement that declared my intent to counter intellectually dishonest editors was by no means intended "primarily to disparage or threaten its subject" since there was no singular subject, and stating intent to debate, especially in the context of editing an encyclopedia, is not disparaging or threatening anyone.
    I am not a single purpose account. Before my recent edits, the grand majority of my edits were about the 737 MAX, and I even achieved consensus on a fairly substantial edit within that article. I would even argue that my recent edits were high quality and contributed to the integrity of the encyclopedia, since many of them still remain on the main article pages. Rob Roilen (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    I see exactly four edits at the bottom of your account's contribution list that may fit the description "edits about the 737 MAX". Four edits. What am I missing? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    Ah, I forgot that I had not yet created an account when I made my most significant edits. I made those edits using the IP 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:B430:C623:2BCB:6882. Apologies for any confusion.
    You can see an extensive discussion I began here Rob Roilen (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    Okay, Special:Contributions/2603:6080:5A07:C24C:7DCB:6F5B:8ED0:FC63/64 is indeed huge. That's 121 contributions including edit warring ([19] [20] [21] [22]), warnings and a block ([23]), a concern being voiced about single-purpose editing ([24]), a DRN thread ([25]) and an accidentally logged-out contribution to a contentious discussion ([26]) that displays the "me against the others in Wikipedia's community" spirit from your user page.
    My main concern is still whether letting the block automatically expire after 24 hours was a mistake, or if you can disengage and find ways to contribute time to the project rather than causing the community to spend it on dealing with your requests and behavior. The Task Center and the community portal contain ideas, and there are probably about 6 million articles that allow you to collaborate with their authors rather than attacking them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    You're right, those very first incidents were my first edits on Wikipedia and I did not understand the policies surrounding edit warring. As you can hopefully see, I went on to remedy this and succeeded in making high quality edits, even achieving consensus with the editors who disagreed with me or even referred me to administrators.
    Regarding the accidentally logged-out contribution, I still believe that it is "intellectually dishonest to use mainstream media headlines as sources", do you disagree? I believe the proper context is very important, since what brought me to this recent string of edits was noticing an abundance of absolutely non-neutral edits to the Tony Hinchcliffe article within the immediate aftermath of his set at the MSG rally.
    And again, I'm trying to point out unambiguously that I specifically went to WP:RSN to do exactly what you're saying: move in-depth, contentious discussion out of actual article talk pages. Rob Roilen (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    It's already established that headlines are not reliable sources per WP:HEADLINES. I think most regulars at RSN are already aware of this but in any case it's not something that needs discussion and definitely not whether it's "intellectually dishonest". In fact it's unlikely to ever be worth discussing whether something is "intellectually dishonest" on a community board. Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC) 19:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • (non admin, involved editor), this is yet another example of what I mentioned on the ani (well it may well be archived now) about not listening. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Looking at the deleted user page, and glancing over just some of this mess, I would say you got off pretty easy. It's a good thing a less patient admin didn't stumble by, or you would still be arguing from your talk page. You don't understand policy as well as you think you do, so you will do better if you stop trying to wikilawyer people here. Dennis Brown - 12:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    I do not appreciate the aspersion, and interestingly enough I see a statement with similar intent on your user page albeit couched in different terms. Rob Roilen (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    What about the aspersions you cast when you created a user page saying Hello, I'm Rob. I'm here in an attempt to counter the unfortunately large community of Wikipedia editors who have absolutely zero intellectual integrity. Too bad there are enough of them with authority at this point that people like me get banned for arguing too much. Followed by My last user page was deleted by the very people I thought would delete it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I do believe that there are many editors here who are not acting in good faith and abuse their authority or understanding of policy in an attempt to tilt articles and discussions in their favor. I see in your user page that you express a similar goal to spread the truth and verify it.
    Have you considered that we are actually on the same team whether or not our personal opinions align? Rob Roilen (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    So to be clear if other people say "Rob Roilen doesn't understand policy well and should stop wikilawyering", that's an aspersion, but if you say "many editors here abuse their authority and don't understand policy" that's ok because you believe it? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    Which policy am I misinterpreting? I am genuinely asking for an example. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    What kind of answer is that? The policy you are misinterpreting is WP:THERE IS NO SPECIAL EXEMPTION FOR YOU, PERSONALLY, TO VIOLATE ALL OF OUR BEHAVIORAL POLICIES AND GENERALLY BE UNPLEASANT AND BATTLEGROUND-Y, JUST BECAUSE YOU, PERSONALLY, BELIEVE YOU ARE CORRECT. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    I am disappointed by your dismissal of my good faith attempt at discussion. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    I am disappointed by your dismissal of the great many attempts at good faith discussion by a great many editors in this thread and elsewhere! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    I will ask my question: why is "Rob Roilen doesn't understand policy well and should stop wikilawyering" an aspersion but "many editors here abuse their authority and don't understand policy" is ok? Is there any reason other than you said one of these things and the other was said about you? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    Because the former is an opinion unless an uninvolved administrator would like to definitively point to a specific violation of policy, and the non-paraphrased version of what I stated on my user page is something I expect many editors - who hold wildly varying opinions but a similar goal to maintain neutrality - would agree with after spending considerable time here. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    If you act like a professional, perpetual victim, don't be surprised if people don't take you seriously. Some might see it as dramamongering, which is a sign of not being here to build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 23:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • A 24 hour block? Elli was very lenient. I would have gone longer and think indef should be considered by a non-involved admin. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I think now we are well into wp:tenditious territory. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    Please explain how I am "partisan, biased, skewed" and not maintaining "an editorially neutral point of view" by trying to discuss the reliability of a source on the very specific noticeboard for that purpose. I am genuinely asking. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    You are not genuinely asking, because the question has been repeatedly answered on that thread and you simply ignore what everyone else is telling you. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • The only thing I don't support by Elli was marking such a short block as an AE action, given it makes all appeal mechanisms rather pointless (as they require consensus to overturn, which just ain't happening in 24 hours). I think the ongoing conduct has shown that the block was correct, or potentially too short, and therefore support the block/oppose this review. Daniel (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    I find it interesting that you mention how it is not possible to reach a consensus within 24 hours when the RS discussion that eventually brought me here was closed before a single day had passed. Rob Roilen (talk
    He didn't say it was impossible; he said it wasn't going to happen. There's a significant difference in visibility between these types of discussions. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • The 24-hour block was appropriate and lenient. This request looks like a continuation of the same WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that resulted in the block. (After seeing the block, which looked appropriate to me at the time, I commented on a talk page discussion about an edit made by Rob Roilen, so I'm involved at this point.) Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • (Non-admin, uninvolved comment) It's 24 hours, it's over. I believe the block was justified per aribtration enforcement and Wikipedia:Civility. Takipoint123 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Seeing as your block has already expired. It's likely best that you drop this action review & move on. Best not to protest too much. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    Respectfully, no. I believe an admin acted inappropriately, the length of the block is not the issue. And is this a vote or ...? I'm starting to find the amount of uninvolved input a bit strange. Rob Roilen 23:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    It's advice from a veteran editor, of over 19 years experience. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    As another veteran editor of over 19 years experience, I too advise you (Rob Roilen) to either WP:DROPTHESTICK or prepare to be on the receiving end of WP:BOOMERANG. The purpose of this page is to get uninvolved input, and the amount you are receiving is not unusual. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    The whole point of this noticeboard is to get uninvolved input, which you are getting. Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    I was under the impression this was for input from uninvolved administrators, who are better versed in admin policy, to decide whether or not another admin used their privileges improperly. Rob Roilen
    From the top of this page: Any editor in good standing may request a review or participate in discussing an action being reviewed., but multiple people responding to you (including me) are administrators. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
    At my count, @Rob Roilen, seven admins have chimed in, and the only disagreement with the block (stated explicitly by the majority of those admins) is that it was too short. I urge you to step away from this dispute and work on something else for a while. -- asilvering (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse (uninvolved): Clearly a reasonable action given the apparent battleground conduct here and elsewhere. Would support an indefinite block. C F A 💬 23:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • At this point it seems like it is administratively impossible for me to even begin a discussion on the reliability of a source that has a green name on RS/P. If someone disagrees with me and closes the discussion early, and I try to appeal it, I'm accused of battleground behavior. Then if I try to defend my position, the accusations, block threats and insults continue. My genuine, good faith effort to discuss something very specific that greatly impacts the integrity of the encyclopedia is met with such incredible resistance that it actually boggles my mind.
Surely you all must understand how your mentality towards a minority dissenting voice can be used against you someday? Surely I'm not the only one who sees how this group mentality has very high potential to affect the neutrality of the encyclopedia? I don't have any fancy WP links, I'm trying to appeal to your rationality. Rob Roilen
  • Wikipedia works on consensus. If you are a "minority dissenting voice" in a discussion, then obviously by definition consensus is going to be against you. That doesn't mean those opposing you have a "group mentality", merely that they disagree with you. Black Kite (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I understand and mostly agree. But I also think it's important to note that the official policy on consensus mentions that consensus requires common sense. This isn't to disparage anyone, but this entire discussion stems from my RS/P discussion where editors plainly did not display common sense: they either did not understand or refused to acknowledge clear rhetorical speech and instead interpreted it literally. Like taking the phrase "walk a mile in someone's shoes" literally. What is an editor supposed to do if they are met with this behavior? It's not my job to educate adults on concepts like that but an understanding of them is essential here. Rob Roilen
And those comments sound to me like a borderline personal attack on the other editors in that discussion. I advise you to strike those comments before some admin less cautious than I blocks you again. - Donald Albury 02:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
...What? Are you reading the correct discussion?? "Borderline personal attacks"? Where? Please feel free to copy the diffs here, I genuinely have no idea which parts you're talking about. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#CNN Rob Roilen (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
hello[27] soibangla (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
For clarity I'm fairly sure Donald Albury was referring to Rob Roilen saying editors "did not display common sense" and other things like "educate adults" which are clearly inappropriate things to say about other editors just because they did not agree with your perspective. Nil Einne (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Also just to emphasise, while determining consensus is not exactly vote counting, I think anyone with experience here will agree that there is basically no way a discussion with quite a few experienced editors disagreeing with the interpretations of a solitary inexperienced editor is going to be closed as consensus in favour of that solitary editor because they were the only one who displayed "common sense". It isn't even going to be no consensus. It's going to be consensus in favour of all those other editors. Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse block, which has already expired. Having looked at the deleted userpage, and OP contributions...I get a strong feeling of battleground mentality paired with pointiness. OP got away lightly. Lectonar (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse. As an attempt at prevention, this attempt was too weak, because the underlying nature of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior calls for something other than a WP:CDB (and a one-day block is always that). Ultimately, the preventative effect wasn't really achieved. But the effort by the blocking admin to make things better isn't something that should be "not endorsed", as that wouldn't help anything. Agreed with Muboshgu.—Alalch E. 12:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
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.

Bbb23's block, revocation of TPA of, and aspersions about Isonomia01

The following discussion 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.


TLDR:

  1. Bbb23 issued a 7 day block on a newbie for a second revert, after the newbie had stopped engaging in reversion and had went back to discourse. The newbie had previously tried to engage in content discussion on the talk page, and the other user was ignoring this and making false statements on the user's page.
  2. It is argued that Bbb23 was involved in the content dispute.
  3. Bbb23 made false and disparaging remarks about the user they blocked to try to influence the opinions of other administrators, advocated that the user should be blocked indefinitely without justification, and attempted to influence content consensus discussions with aspersion about the user both before the block, and while the block was in place.
  4. Bbb23 accused the user of "refactoring", the user asked for clarification and was ignored, and then Bbb23 revoked TPA for the user while the user was blocked.
  5. Editors should not have to worry about administrator tools being applied excessively and over content disputes that can and should be / have been resolved through discussion, without unnecessary drama.

Note: Statements supported by references have (ref[#]) attached. These references can be provided on request, to diffs.

1. Abuse of Administrator Tools

a. Blocking me over a content dispute

To distill the facts as much as humanly possible, I was blocked(ref1) for two reasons (even though only one of these was mentioned in the block justification): (1) a second revert, after which I stopped; after that a warning was issued on my page, and then I was blocked even though I had made no edits, and (2) a frustrated response to the warning template in which the user made false accusations against me and distorted the facts (specifically, the accusation of "disruptive edits", and that I was not engaging in consensus discussion were not just false, but also applicable to the user issuing the warning template). I can't identify anything else significant or remotely relevant that I've done.

I maintain that I had reached consensus properly, and that the talk page should have been utilized by the other parties (this is not incompatible with that I shouldn't have reverted the second time).

I was blocked over a content dispute, where the other parties are choosing not to engage in consensus discussion, and instead resorting to the use of administrator tools, and aspersion, in place of consensus discussion.

The block was issued *without* discussion (or rather subsequent to cursory discussion **without me making addditional edits**), and in spite of my willingness and receptiveness to discussion and to be educated about the rules. It's not like someone told me "a second revert can be considered a breach of the rules in a case like this" (and I continued reverting) prior to the block.

The block was for 7 days, which is an overly long period of time (7x customary(ref2)) for a "first offense" for actual revert warring (bit of a stretch from what I did, considering that I stopped and no discussion or warnings took place prior to me stopping, before blocking me)(ref3).

b. Revoking TPA Improperly & Willful Violation of WP:ADMINACCT

Bbb23 accused me of "refactoring"(ref4). I had no idea what they meant, repeatedly asked them to clarify(ref5) (even quoted the rules that require them to answer my request for clarification(ref6)), and reviewed the edits in question and openly asserted that I am challenging the truth of their statements, and that I am allowed to strikethrough my own text(ref7). They refused to clarify. Again, I have no idea what they were talking about.

I submitted an unblock request, which was declined by Administrator Asilverfox. Their justification for rejecting the unblock request literally has a reply button. I couldn't use reply buttons while I was blocked; I had to edit pages to reply, so I assumed (after I checked the template for indications not to and saw nothing) there was no problem with replying to the rejection (which had a reply button), and did so (within the adjudicated unblock request template).

Without discussion or any attempt at clarification or anything, my TPA was revoked by Bbb23(ref8).

-

2. Lying

a. Indicating that they didn't delete content that I had added(ref9)

I argued in my unblock request that Bbb23 shouldn't have blocked me because they had recently deleted content from my user page(ref10) (in addition to making disparaging remarks about me personally to others during content consensus discussion on Drmies' talk page(ref11)), therefore constituting a content or other dispute / "involvement"(refs12). I made this argument several times(refs14) and it is not reasonable to believe Bbb23 didn't know about this argument. They finally responded to my question, but stated that they had *not* deletete content(ref15). They used the phrase "from this page" (the talk page, as opposed to the userpage). It is unreasonable to believe that they did not know that they had deleted content from my userpage, and it had been specified repeatedl, so their phrasing in their negative response is irrelevant.

b. "Refactoring" and "Distortion"(refs16)

As I stated above (in the Revoking TPA section), Bbb23 accused me falsely of refactoring (the second accusation notwithstanding as petty and irrelevant -- this is about the first accusation) and "distortion"(refA, refB). Their accusation was challenged. They openly refused clarify, and have continued to make this accusation (after being challenged and refusing to clarify), and that I "distort the facts", with no examples or support(ref17), and which I dispute the truth of. As I mentioned in the above section, I reviewed the edits they referred to and all I did was strikethrough my own text, which I'm allowed to do.

-

3. Entangling and discouraging content consensus discussion with personal attacks, aspersions, and their use of administrator tools

During consensus discussion over the content, an Administrator named Cullen (who has stated "It's too emotional for me", and other indications that they no longer want to be involved, so it's not my intent to involve them further) chimed in to the discussion. First Cullen provided Drmies with one of the links(ref18) that I had already provided to Drmies(ref19). They then expressed, and later reiterated, their dissatisfaction that an article was permanetly deleted, and expressed that they didn't know it was up for deletion, and is against its deletion. The article was on the same topic as one of the three sections of my edit, and was made under the content consensus discussion topic that I started on Drmie's talk page (since the article's talk page was being ignored by people deleting content). I had mentioned Cullen's statement on my talk page.

Bbb23 confronted Cullen, and stated that I had mentioned Cullen's statements, and said that I "distort" facts, that me mentioning Cullen's statement was "insidious", that they have blocked me for 7 days, and had revoked my TPA for "refactoring"(ref20 A. and B). This was obviously an effort to influence Cullen's opinion -- *over the content dispute in question*. I have verified that every single part of what I said was precisely true and in context.

Please note that I don't know how to format this template correctly.

User: Bbb23 (talk · contribs · logs) (prior discussion)

Brief explanation of why this action is being reviewed, including why you believe the action should not be endorsed and any background information necessary to understand the action:

These actions are, I believe, contrary to literally all of the applicable principles of Wikipedia. Administrators should (a) not block editors over content disputes when those editors are willing to discuss the dispute and to wait until consensus is reached, (b) not use administrator tools in disputes that they are involved in, (c) set a good example, and not engage in personal attacks and disparaging remarks (i.e. aspersions), and have a non-zero degree of civility and courtesy for editors.

"Administrators are not exempt from any of Wikipedia's established policies; they are expected to follow them[.]" WP:ADMINCOND Isonomia01 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment Pleas use the {{oldid2}} template to revise your submission with diffs. That is, each ref# can stay the same, but you can make it a link to the diff in question, which will help everyone evaluate your complaint. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I will provide key diffs tomorrow if I get time. Thank you. Isonomia01 (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I will also request that you tighten up your complaint and identify the users you are complaining about near the top of the post. Long rambling posts like the above tend to make my eyes glaze over, i.e., Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. Donald Albury 17:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I will attempt to rectify this tomorrow. Thank you. Isonomia01 (talk) 06:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I added a TLDR version at the top. I will add diffs to it later (within about 16 hours). Isonomia01 (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Endorse as there is no policy violation.
You can be blocked for edit warring even if you didn't violate WP:3RR. The length of the block is up to the blocking admin's discretion.
I maintain that I had reached consensus properly: No, you haven't. Per WP:ONUS, you have the responsibility to achieve consensus, and consensus was against your edits.
Please see WP:REDACT: if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment [...] should be avoided. Please also see the section below that: Persistently formatting your comments on a talk page in a non-compliant manner, after friendly notification by other editors, is a mild form of disruption. After you have been alerted to specific aspects of these guidelines[...], you are expected to make a reasonable effort to follow those conventions. Taking this into consideration, I believe revoking your WP:TPA was allowed by policy.
Upon request, Bbb23 has offered you a link to WP:REFACTOR: Refactoring is a redrafting process in which talk page content is moved, removed, revised, restructured, hidden, or otherwise changed.
WP:INVOLVED does not apply here: editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. Bbb23 was not involved in that dispute; removing WP:BLP violation from your user page is completely unrelated.
I'll note that Administrator Cullen also chimed in on Drmies' talk page, during the consensus discussion that I started there, regarding this edit specifically, and also indicated that he was also unsatisfied with the deletion of content without adequate discussion on this particular subject and stated specifically that he and others had spent a lot of work on content that had been permanently deleted without adequate discussion (other people I know personally are also shocked at the same deletion Cullen was talking about). This is incorrect. Cullen328 said I did not learn about the AfD until the article was gone. and from what I can tell, Cullen328 didn't indicate that the deletion was done "without adequate discussion"; see the AfD in question.
Administrators should (a) not block editors over content disputes when those editors are willing to discuss the dispute and to wait until consensus is reached You didn't wait until consensus was reached, instead, you reverted once and twice. Assuming you were right, you are still not allowed to edit war. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Editors are not required to "wait [indefinitely] until consensus is reached [with people who were tagged, and refuse to engage in consensus discussion]".
  • I waited 6 months for people to respond on the talk page and no one did. Magnolia had been tagged on Drmies' talk page and did not participate in the consensus discussion there, where consensus WAS reached (with Drmies). Magnolia's talk page is locked. So I reverted. See WP:PRESERVE.
  • I've apologized already for the second revert, however I will note that I consciously disengaged from the 'revert war' after that (unlike Magnolia677), did engage in dialogue (unlike Magnolia), and waited. I then received a warning with false accusations from Magnolia, in quick succession with an unjustified 7-day block from Bbb23. I have looked twice now, and I see nothing in the rules saying that a second revert is even against the policies, much less a blockable offense (correct me if I'm wrong). Some language about that should be added to the rule. A newbie mistake does not justify a 7 day block against a newcomer (see WP:BLOCK), and then advocating that they should be indefinitely blocked for no reason.
  • I provided 3 examples of Bbb23's involvement, not just 1, and the content that Bbb23 removed from my userpage (which I was using as a sandbox) was on the exact same topic.
  • Your entire 3rd paragraph is misleading. I did not do that. The page you link to (which does not construe itself as a rule, but rather merely an explanation and definition of the term) says outright that it's good to "refactor" in some situations. The rules specifically allow me to strikethrough my own text. I did not distort anything (as Bbb23 claimed repeatedly, while advocating that I should be indefinitely blocked, or to influence Cullen's opinion). People should stop trying to make it seem like I was somehow in violation of this. It is false, and constitutes aspersion. The TPA revocation was 100% arbitrary.
  • Bbb23 then made false and highly negative comments about me IN the primary consensus discussion to Cullen (as I explained). This discourages editors from even engaging in consensus discussion, and encourages further arbitrary deletions of well-sourced, notable, and ontopic edits under threat of false accusations, improper use of warning templates, followed by excessive use of administrator tools with what doesn't even amount to a lame excuse for the punishment.
  • Cullen stated that he and other editors spent 4 and a half years of work on that article, that it was deleted without his knowledge, and that he is unsatisfied with its deletion. My TLDR version was accurate, not verbatim.
  • The incivility and misrepresentations were not addressed in your comment. Isonomia01 (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • While the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is not mandatory, it is highly recommended that you follow it. You have the WP:ONUS of achieving consensus, and being reverted most likely means that consensus for those edits wasn't achieved.
  • Please see this comment by Drmies.
  • Please read the first paragraph of WP:EDITWAR: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. [...] Users who engage in edit warring risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable.[...] You could argue that a 7-day block was too harsh, but in my opinion, it's fine.
  • The WP:BLP violation might have been about the same topic, but it is still not the same dispute: editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. I think that single comment by Bbb23 doesn't rise to the level of WP:INVOLVED. I'm not sure what the third one is; I'd appreciate it if you could clarify that.
  • I believe Bbb23 was referring to you repeatedly and significantly changing your comments after you post them, and you modifying the reviewed unblock template. For the former, see WP:REDACT: Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes, which you didn't do. For the latter one, I believe a reasonable person would know not to modify the template.
  • I couldn't find anything that was false (please quote what you referred to).
  • The article being deleted without adequate discussion is still not what Cullen328 said. The only thing (unless I'm missing something) Cullen328 said was I did not learn about the AfD until the article was gone, which doesn't imply that the deletion was done "without adequate discussion".
  • I'm not sure what you're referring to. I would also like to advise you – generally – to please read WP:ASPERSIONS and provide proof for your claims. Thanks. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not going to respond to this at this time, due to certain messages left here and on my talk page. If I am free to discuss this openly and politely, I may respond later, and I will note that I believe I should be allowed to do so. Isonomia01 (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Again, I apologize for the second revert. I had read that a long time ago, and it was my understanding at the time that I made the second revert that what I did would constitute an edit war. I still think it is vague and subjective, given that the other editors did not engage whatsoever on the talk page (until much later). And I think when a second revert can result in a 7-day block should perhaps either be clarified in that policy (which I would predict that would be difficult), or find some other way of reconciliation.
  • It is my personal opinion that I should not have been blocked, because I was willing to hear people out, and because I had stopped reverting. Magnolia re-reverted after I stopped, and it is apparent from the time stamps that I then left discourse on the talk page, and that I waited. I was then blocked by someone who had not attempted to communicate with me.
  • You say "While the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is not mandatory, it is highly recommended that you follow it." You appear to implying that I did not do that (please correct me if I am wrong) -- and I do not understand why you are implying that. It should be clearly evident from a review of the Sonoma County talk page that that is precisely what I did. I have said this before: if someone had even left a comment on the talk page, I would not have reverted. I would have discussed the matter, and waited until there was community consensus.
  • The third example of Bbb23's involvement in the content dispute was his comment to Cullen, in which he stated that my statement was "insidious", that I "distort" things, that he had blocked me, and and that he had revoked my talk page for refactoring, either in an effort to influence Cullen's opinion, or knowing that it would influence Cullen's opinion, in the content consensus discussion.
  • I still don't know what you're talking about regarding refactoring. I believe that I did not distort anything. I certainly did not intentionally distort anything. I believe I copied and pasted the template from an above unblock request that had already been adjudicated and that's why it was formatted incorrectly (originally, not that I edited it later or something). The fact that I did not change it is evidence that I was not trying to distort anything and making an effort to leave the historical text in place faithfully.
  • It is my perspective that Bbb23's following statement, for example, was aspersion: "The user clearly is unable to edit Wikipedia in a collaborative manner. They distort the past to suit their own objectives and cannot be trusted to keep any [']promises['] they make about the future."
  • I'm not going to cite the rules at this time. I should be allowed to discuss this politely, and to cite the relevant rules. Isonomia01 (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I think we can agree that this dispute is complicated, it is different from the "usual" edit warring. You have made a good-faith attempt at discussing, although it could have been better (see this comment), and after the second revert, you did attempt to discuss. Taking this into consideration, a 1-week sitewide block does seem too much.
  • When I implied that you didn't follow WP:BRD, I said that because BRD states that upon being reverted, you should discuss, but you reverted twice instead, and only restarted the discussion after your second revert being reverted.
  • These two comments by Bbb23 1 2 are questionable. I'm curious about what others think about these.
  • I'm also unsure what Bbb23 was referring to as "refactoring". You repeatedly editing your comments might be a bit annoying, but I don't think it is grounds for revoking WP:TPA, and those two template errors do seem to be genuine mistakes. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Of note, the user talk page of the person who was reverting my edits is locked. Otherwise I would have put something on their user talk page (and waited for them to respond, without reverting the edit). This is the same person who was ignoring consensus discussion that they had been pinged in, and who issued the warning template on my page prior to me being blocked even though I had not made any edits after the warning. Isonomia01 (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse First of all, the block was certainly defensible, the OP was edit-warring against multiple editors. And there were three reverts, not two. Secondly, the OP says I argued in my unblock request that Bbb23 shouldn't have blocked me because they had recently deleted content from my user page. Yes, they did - they removed a flagrant BLP violation from it. This is an admin action and does not make them WP:INVOLVED ("an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area."). I've got as far as these two issues, and find nothing problematic. I may review the rest if the OP manages to format their complaint so that there are relevant diffs. Black Kite (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    • There were only two reverts without discussion and explicit consensus and alteration of the content addressing feedback. The first revert was justified because Magnolia677 was openly refusing to participate in consensus discussion, and their talk page was locked.
    • In hindsight, I shouldn't have made the second revert. I wasn't the only one who revert warred. I was however the only one making any effort to engage in consensus discussion, and I'm the only one who can credibly claim that I didn't know that what I was doing was a violation of (unwritten but apparently standardized) rules. The second revert was a mistake, not a violation of the rules. If there's anything in the rules saying that a second revert is against the rules, or justifies a block, please quote where they say it. Again, this was a mistake, not a blockable offense, and I shouldn't have been blocked per the language of WP:BLOCK.
    • I was using my userpage as a sandbox. Bbb23 involved themselves in the dispute by making disparaging remarks about me in the content dispute both prior to the block, and then again made disparaging remarks in the content consensus discussion, and was partial to another editor who engaged in revert warring worse than I did.
    • I will reformat with key diffs within a few hours. Isonomia01 (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • There were three reverts, because the first one (on 13th December) was restoring material that had been deleted. Two more reverts followed on the 16th. Meanwhile, a BLP violation is a BLP violation regardless of where it is, and any editor can and should remove it immediately. Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    • As I explained, the "revert" from 3 days prior was a significantly altered version, after explicit consensus, and I was told to "go for it", which addressed the concerns of the person who deleted the section (2 of the 3 sources were criticized as not meeting Wikipedia's standards; I provided at least 4 additional sources).
    • Just to be clear, the content that was removed from my userpage was sourced, and was accurate. And again, it's not just that that constituted involvement. There were two other examples.
    • I'll reiterate: a 7-day block over a good faith mistake (the rules don't prohibit it) (along with 1 single frustrated comment) was excessive, and clearly contrary to the language of WP:BLOCK. The TPA revocation was plainly arbitrary and punitive, and I (and editors in general) shouldn't have to worry about arbitrary misuse of administrator tools moving forward. There were multiple unsupported & false aspersions and personal attacks, along with advocating for an indefinite block (Bbb23's comment here is full of outright lies to try to negatively influence other people) for literally no reason / based on what were objective personal attacks and misrepresentations, in an effort to influence other administrators reviewing the unblock request. I disagree. I apologized for what I did wrong. People should not be defending misuse of administrator tools and personal attacks.
    • I'll reiterate that I'm now going to include key diffs, starting with points that warrant clarification the most. Isonomia01 (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I've read over this discussion, and looked into the editor's contributions. I didn't speedy close this - mostly due to WP:ROPE, and the hope that the editor will actually start to hear what the others on this page are trying to tell them. However, I'm going to leave a warning on the user's talk page that if they do not drop the stick, they are likely going to receive an indefinite block. And if the revert warring on Sonoma County, California, continues, they'll be blocked from editing that page, regardless. I'll note here that, after reading this discussion, I very nearly blocked them myself. But I really would like to give them a chance to re-read here and perhaps start to understand why their behaviour is problematic and disruptive. - jc37 22:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC) - Here's the link to the warning, which included subst-ing the warning template: Template:Uw-point. - jc37 23:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Well said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I've been watching this, but refraining from commenting, partly because I don't think it's necessary and partly because I had my fill of reading the lengthy comments from Isonomia01 on their Talk page; it's wearing. However, I'm here to point out that Isonomia01's hardly "dropping the stick": see this edit and this edit. Isonomia01 would do a lot better to work on improving the project with non-controversial edits to article space. This is a user who first edited last May. Since that time, they have made 334 edits. About half of those edits were to user talk space, 75 to article talk space, and 38 to article space. That's all I have to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse, for now, for a month, and let’s see how Isonomia01 (talk · contribs) develops from here. Ask Bbb23 to step back from Isonomia01 during this period. Dealing with aggressive newcomers is hard to reconcile with WP:BITE. Perhaps Bbb23 should have better blocked for 30 hours? It’s hard to know without hindsight. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse block, do not endorse length, which is a bit weird to say I think the block is right but the length is too much, but yes. Bbb23, blocking for a week seems excessive for a first violation with a singular warning, and sitewide even. Good block, but should have been narrowed to the page in conflict, and shortened in duration. 24 hours would have easily sufficed, a week is a bit much. But all the same, Isonomia really needs to drop the stick, because that talk page is a doozy of paragraphs. TPA revocation didn't come soon enough. EggRoll97 (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    There was not a warning. To be more precise, the user had already stopped reverting prior to the warning. The block was issued without regard for the fact that the user had stopped in the act of reversions. User is allowed to make unblock requests; unless there was something outside the scope of the rules the user did. Isonomia01 (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    You are certainly allowed to make unblock requests. You've mostly used them, I'm afraid, to repeatedly shoot yourself in the foot. Only 11% of all of your edits have been to article space. Please, get back to article space, before someone blocks you for not being here to build the encyclopedia. Leave Sonoma County alone and find something else to improve. I know what happened to you feels unjust. I'm willing to believe it was unjust. But absolutely no one is going to prove it and do anything about it while you're writing these giant WP:IDHT comments and doing nothing to improve the encyclopedia. That's what we're supposed to be here to do. You've got to get back to doing that. -- asilvering (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • It is my perspective that I was punished over a content dispute, which shouldn't happen. Editors shouldn't have to worry about things like that. The 7-day block, the literal instructions to file an unblock request, the promises of the rules (cited on my userpage), and then the aspersions against me have been, from my perspective, extremely disrespectful toward me, and of my time. From my perspective, it is worthwhile and productive to try to address this before moving forward.
    • This is not the correct venue for consensus discussion regarding the Sonoma County article, or to try to argue that I should not participate in that, at this point in time. There is literally only 1 single person who disagrees with me who either has not reached consensus with me, or with whom I have had a chance to discuss their concerns with. Furthermore, another administrator stated: "As a gesture toward good coverage of policing in Sonoma County somewhere on Wikipedia, whether it's the county's article or somewhere else, may I proffer some photos of the sheriff's department and Santa Rosa Police Department staging to intercept protestors during the George Floyd protests?"
    • Further blocks or threats thereof (without specific justification) continuously being put on the table, when my actions have been in strict compliance with the rules, is not appreciated. happen. Editors shouldn't have to worry about things like that. The 7-day block, the literal instructions to file an unblock request, the p
    • You are the one who refactored my usertalk page, deleting meaningful content from it, and accused me of refactoring in your edit summary.
    • All I did in the comment you are responding to is clarify that there was no warning prior to the block. Isonomia01 (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      Lordy. Well, I tried. For the record, regarding You are the one who refactored my usertalk page, deleting meaningful content from it, and accused me of refactoring in your edit summary., my sole edit to Isonomia01's talk page is Special:Diff/1264449314. -- asilvering (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      You made two edits to my user talk page. The first is when you declined the unblock request, the second was when you refactored the page, deleted my reply to your declination, along with other content. Can confirm on the revision history there are two edits from you. Isonomia01 (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      What are you talking about? Asilvering has only ever made one edit to your talk page, and it was declining your unblock request. C F A 16:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      I wonder if they're confused about Special:Diff/1264595348, which was by Bbb23, but mentioned me in the edit summary, since it restored to my edit. -- asilvering (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse - while we should encourage new users to learn the tools at their disposal and understand what acceptable behaviors they should follow, I see no issues here worth a AAR complaint. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Can someone please just indef Isonomia01 as WP:NOTHERE already. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    😲 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Pppery: Should we take your comment as an endorsement of the block in question? 🤦‍♂️ -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sort of. I haven't looked closely enough to see if the original edit warring block was justified. But even if it wasn't at the time that was overtaken by events. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Eeww. FWIW, I don't like "NOTHERE." Misused. WP:CIR or WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE are more fitting. To be clear, what I see in what I've seen of their edits is unrelenting WP:IDNHT, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:BLUDGEON, and WP:STICK. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is the third time you've encouraged escalation of drama. The first was on Drmies' talk page where you encouraged Bbb23 in his aspersions about me prior him blocking me. The second was when you encouraged JC here when he said he almost blocked me just by reading this. Now you're encouraging someone saying "can someone please just indef Isonomia01" here. My intent here is valid; I believe I was blocked primarily over a content dispute in place of consensus discussion, and then told outwardly that administrators can misuse tools without accountability with the TPA revocation. Regardless of what the consensus here is, I should not be attacked for my actions here, which are strictly allowed under the policies. Isonomia01 (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Deepfriedokra above. I'd include personal attacks. An indefinite block is warranted. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse: Editor has now been been blocked yet again. I had a conversation with them about their behaviour [28] and I wasn't satisfied then he would address issues with his editing and I'm definitely not satisfied now. I would personally be inclined to remove TPA since the user's siege mentality seems unlikely to change. Fantastic Mr. Fox 17:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Their unblock request has been declined by Acroterion. The editor has continued on their talk page, and I have responded here. - jc37 06:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • It is just amazing how much time this has taken up. The indef block is proper, IMO. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
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.

User:Amaury using rollback to revert constructive or good-faith edits without explanation

The following discussion 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.


Action: usage of the rollback privilege – diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6, diff 7, diff 8, diff 9, diff 10, diff 11, diff 12, diff 13, diff 14
User: Amaury (talk · contribs · logs) (prior discussion)

Honestly I don't like that I had to come to this, but User:Amaury continues to use the rollback privilege to revert constructive / good-faith contributions without any given reason, despite my clear warning on their user talk page (seen in the "prior discussion" link above, as well as on here additionally). They have not responded to either of those messages, and the fourteen rollback diffs above are from after I posted the warning message about rollback misuse.

Here's an explanation of each diff:

  • Diff 1: reversion of a correct grammatical change from 'girl' to 'woman', as the actress is an adult in their 30s now
  • Diff 2: reversion of a grammatical change of 'alternate' to 'alternative' which seems better for flow
  • Diff 3: reversion of the word 'fever' being wikilinked
  • Diff 4: reversion of expansion/updates to the cast list of an article about a TV series
  • Diff 5: reversion of a technically correct category addition to a navigational template
  • Diff 6: reversion of a new talk page post complaining about the NPOV of an article. While the message may have sounded rude or seemed like an off-topic rant about the person, I don't see how this isn't a valid post criticising the NPOV of the article
  • Diff 7: reversion of an actor name being wikilinked. The code of the template at the top may have become "untidied" because of VisualEditor bugs, but comparing the edit before and after the rollback, the untidyness of the code didn't seem to affect the output at all
  • Diff 8: reversion of the addition of producers to the infobox of an article about a sitcom. It may be unsourced / original research, but this is not clear vandalism to me
  • Diff 9: reversion of the addition of relevant-looking portal templates to the bottom of an article
  • Diff 10: same thing as diff 9
  • Diff 11: reversion of a copyedit / attempt to improve the grammar/spelling of an article's body text. The copyedit may have been of poor quality but this does not look like blatant vandalism to me
  • Diff 12: same thing as diff 11
  • Diff 13: reversion of 'Just Fine (2013 theme song)' being wikilinked. This one was a redlink, but to my knowledge there is no rule against adding redlinks that have a possibility of becoming blue in the future, and I don't think adding redlinks is vandalism either. The editor who added the link was even publishing a draft at that article title at the time
  • Diff 14: reversion of the addition of citations (re-used ones)

I fail to see how any of these fourteen total diffs meet the "valid uses of rollback" (e.g. obvious vandalism or highly disruptive edits) found under the 'When to use rollback' section over at the Wikipedia:Rollback guideline page. None of these 14 edits were made with a custom edit summary (point #6) either. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Amaury)

  • Number 6 looks like a WP:BLP violation that might need [[WP::REVDEL]] and would have merited a warning of some sort. (back to sleep.)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Diff 1 was a poor starting point for this report -- yes, the actress is in her 30s now, but the character (who is the subject of the sentence) is a girl, so I don't think you've characterized Amaury's revert correctly. And I agree with Deepfriedokra about diff 6. But you're clearly right to this extent: to comply with the rollback guideline, these uses of rollback would have required a custom edit summary. For this offence, I hereby administer to Amaury the frowny face and waggy finger of mild disapproval.—S Marshall T/C 12:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    ...and now I've seen Amaury's talk page commentary, I'll upgrade that to the raised eyebrow of that's-not-how-we-talk. A sysop can and should use their discretion to remove rollback for the time being, and that need not wait until this discussion is closed.—S Marshall T/C 13:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Do not endorse obviously, except for diffs 1 and 6. A few of the diffs are fair enough cases for rollback (see number 6, that's somewhat of an aberration in this report compared to the others), but what I'm more concerned about is them not appropriately warning editors. Diff 6 was actually a BLP violation, but the talk page of the IP is still red-linked. The other diffs resulted in no notification to the editor that their edit had been reverted or why, and that's something I think Amaury should commit to before this discussion is closed. Otherwise, yeah, like S Marshall says, waggy finger and a frowny face. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • The roll back issue has been going on for quite sometime, even without explanation of the reason behind the revert. I had issues a few issues with this user as I would disagree with this user reverts and it would get into an edit war without a reason behind the revert. I have also noticed this with other users as well and when other users or I would go to the talk page to ask why there would be no communication on Amaury's talk page. My issues where a few years ago, but still have them on and off every so often. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Amaury: could you respond here to these concerns? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I think this is more of an ANI issue than something for ARRV. AARV is generally for reviewing whether a specific action was appropriate (similar to DRV), while this clearly shows a chronic issue that has continued past warnings. Amaury was alerted of their inappropriate use of rollback, ignored it, and continued misusing the tool. C F A 21:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • The question here should be whether the diffs represent the use of an advanced permission contrary to policy.
    Associated questions are:
    • Was it raised with the user?
    • Was their failure to respond a failure of WP:ADMINACCT?
    • Does it really matter? Is Rollback an advanced permission above a threshold worth bringing here? Is rollback just an easier option than the Undo button? Is Rollback not different to Undo without an edit summary?
    • Is the documented policy out of step with policy-in-practice? Are the diffs representative of normal accepted practice?
    SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    CFA and SmokeyJoe are both correct. However, since AARV seems to me to be evolving into a somewhat less toxic version of ANI, it might be worth keeping this here. If Amaury says “feedback accepted, everyone, sorry and thanks” then we saved the world from an ANI thread. If the unexplained rollbacks continue, then ANI would be next. All that’s really needed is a recalibration of Amaury’s “obvious problem edit” criterion. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I've left Amaury a note asking them to address the concerns raised here.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • While I think the rollback issue isn't that big a deal, I'm more concerened with Amaurys response. First, they ignored the user when they wanted to discuss it on their talk page; now that an admin asked them again, they responded with a fairly bad reply. As if someone they don't know can't ask them about an issue also the Editcountitis excuse looks bad. It also looks way too much like ABF. Nobody (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Unless an adequate response is made here, someone will need to remove the rollback permission. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    My one time interacting with Amaury attempting to address their unideal editing decisions, was also met with immediate ABF, accusations of "stalking" and refusal to discuss further, so I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • There's now a response on the talk page, but it just explains the edits themselves rather than addressing why rollback was used. Do not endorse; I'm not especially fond of some aspects of our rollback rules, but I think everyone can agree that you shouldn't revert someone's good-faith edits without telling them why. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I think it's pretty clear that the use of rollback here is not endorsed, but providing that feedback is all AARV is really for, by design. The actual reverts themselves are not all wrong; if individual ones are wrong, they can be restored by anyone. Sanctions are explicitly not what happens at AARV. While the tone of Amaruy's response on his talk page was disappointingly discordant, I note that starting on about the 31st, they seem to have actually stopped with the unexplained reverting of good faith edits. I think this can be closed as "not endorsed". Any significant misuse of rollback in the future could result in an individual admin removing rollback, or an ANI thread (Amaury, everyone, let's try to avoid that). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't think that we should get too hung up on the specific tool that is used, but on the "revert constructive or good-faith edits without explanation" in the title of this section. Nobody should be reverting such edits without explanation, whether it is via rollback or undo or anything else. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Just a comment, though I've already made it clear above that I do not endorse these actions. Amaury has not responded here at all, despite receiving the required notification and another full thread on their talk page about this discussion. They have responded to an administrator, on their talk page, though they have failed to respond to the community at large. They manually archive their talk page, meaning they should reasonably be aware of this discussion. ADMINACCT states Administrators should justify their actions when requested, and this extends to unbundled subsets of the sysop permission. While I think Amaury is acting in pretty good faith here, I don't think they should keep an advanced permission if they are showing a failure to respond to the community, which responding on a talk page to a single person and simultaneously failing to respond to a community discussion they were made aware of, should count as. I would see this in a far better light, personally, if they just came by and said something, anything, to the community. EggRoll97 (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I expect someone with over 23k rollback uses in main space (according to Xtools) to know better, but their talk page seems to indicate a misunderstanding of when rollback is appropriate. Their mention of not appreciating a user who has far fewer edits than them bringing this up is also a ridiculous point to even mention.
I've read through the discussion on their talk page, and they're lacking in accountability and failing to acknowledge the extent of their errors. They're simply chalking this up to mistakes and being stalked, but this is too many in a short period of time. Good faith edits which are not disruptive shouldn't be rolled back. It's fine to disagree with changes, but it's not simply meant to be a generic quick undo button.
As such, due to their lack of accountability and focusing on the user who reported them, as opposed to the issue with their own actions, I would support removal of rollback perm. Their usage clearly meets WP:RBREVOKE from my perspective. However, I do recognize that a final warning may be more appropriate. Amaury, please take some accountability, seriously limit your usage of rollback, and take some time to self reflect. I almost actioned this report myself, but decided to comment with the hope you'd actually respond here. Not responding to this report directly also contributed to my consideration of removing the perm. Hell I still wouldn't push back if someone else wanted to do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Hey man im josh: Thank you for the ping. I literally did say on my talk page to Floquenbeam that I would use more care going forward with edits that appear to be good faith, but are problematic, and I definitely plan on doing that, especially since it was a concern from other users, as shown here, not just the OP. My problem with the OP, in addition to what I've already said, is that after only one message to me, they came here rather than to try to continue to resolve whatever or even go to an individual administrator talk page and ask them for an opinion. Unless it were something extremely serious, it would be the equivalent of a problem between two co-workers who don't get along at their job going straight to HR instead of trying to resolve it themselves or talking to their managers—either shift manager or the general manager—in hopes of coming up with something to resolve or help resolve the issue.
I still don't understand what potentially removing rollback permissions would do since, as Phil Bridger and SmokeyJoe mentioned, the same problems can occur using Twinkle, the generic undo button, or even just restoring an older version without having anything in the edit summary. And just to be clear so I'm not misunderstood, I'm not condoning reverting good faith problematic edits without reason, which is the topic of concern here, nor am I saying I am going to go on a spree of reverting good faith problematic edits without a reason using any kind of undo, but the problem can happen with any user using any kind of undo. If not me, it could be somebody else in this report. Removing specific permissions wouldn't stop the issue. I also don't personally see the need for a final warning since this hasn't been an issue since the report was made, as Floquenbeam also pointed out. And where were the level 2 and 3 warnings? However, I will accept the warning and use more care going forward, as I mentioned. Thank you. Amaury22:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I still, very strongly, feel that you're not acknowledging the breadth of the issues you're having using rollback, so I'm going to expand a bit further.
After going point by point over the diffs linked, on your talk page instead of here, in what I construed as an attempt to justify the usage of inappropriate usage of rollback as opposed to undo. So I'm going to pick out a few points that made me reply the way that I did above. The below quotes are from you within the last 24 hours.
  • Having said all that, I don't appreciate a random user who I don't know stalking my edits and trying to cause trouble by blowing a potentially small problem out of proportion, especially a user who not only has far less edits than I do, but has also been around for far less time than I have. – Inappropriate deflection over valid feedback. Since you want to discount their feedback based on their edit count, I'll mention that I have 3x the edit count that you do and that edit count is meaningless and I've surpassed your edit count in each of the last 3 years.
  • Unless I'm going around making severe personal attacks that require immediate attention, which I am not, they need to find something better to do with their time than to follow me around just to look for me to mess up. – No, this is perfectly appropriate, especially given your failure to recognize it as a legitimate issue.
  • AP was trying to make a mountain out of a molehill and it's pretty clear that they were following me around just looking for me to mess up just so they could have their five minutes of fame and make a report, at least in my opinion. – Inappropriate deflection again.
  • ...my almost 1,500 edits for 2024 that are potentially a problem don't show a pattern; otherwise, this would have been raised long ago. – It's being raised now, and it DOES demonstrate a problematic pattern in just this small range of time.
  • I do see the point you're making about looking at the edits between December 21 and December 31, but I feel it's also important to look at my edits as a whole. – You're right. Your rollback usage in many of these diffs was inappropriate, and, given that they were all between December 21 and 31, it sends a signal that there's likely far more. If there's THIS many issues in this short of a time, how many more are there that have gone unaddressed? You mentioned 1500 edits in 2024, this could be worth looking further into if it's this many errors in this short a time.
  • I can be more careful moving forward, but I also don't want to feel like I have to walk on eggshells in fear of, so to speak, AP reporting me again – You CAN be more careful? No, you NEED to be more careful. I don't walk around on eggshells about my rollback usage, nor do most others, because they don't frivously rollback edits.
Take accountability, your replies on the subject contain so much inappropriate deflection as opposed to understanding and acknowledgement of the errors. It's as if you just want this to go away without admitting wrong doing. Personally @Amaury, I want to see a commitment to adhering to WP:ROLLBACKUSE, because I feel confident, based on the limited timeframe for these diffs, that there's a much larger pile of misuse out there. I don't even care about the part about "what will it do to remove the perm?" because misuse of tools is misuse of tools, whether there's a way to get around it or not. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with you, josh. I have to be mindful myself about hitting rollback and explaining what I'm doing; as admins we may be inclined to think that whatever we do is right, and that when we hit rollback it's clear that the edit was clearly vandalism or whatever. But I just went through and revdeleted that comment about Laura Ingraham, and warned the user--so that user has a record of saying pretty awful things on talk pages, and should have been warned earlier. I'm a bit surprised to see the defensive comments, which didn't come until I think Floq left a message. So sure we're not actually reviewing administrative actions, but we are reviewing administrative accountability, and I would argue that as admins we should always walk on eggshells--and I know I've broken plenty of them, and I'm trying to do better. At least we saw that commitment from Aumary, which is great, but again, if a BLP violation is pointed out on December 31 and here I am, on January 3, removing it and warning a user, then Amaury has not fully reckoned with the edit (nor have any of the other admins in this thread!), though they commented on it--wait, they didn't: "were already answered by other users". Hmm. Answered, maybe; acted on, no. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I am not deflecting anything, I even admitted where I made a couple of mistakes. I said I would be more careful and also explained why I felt the way I did just simply to explain, not to deflect. I'm told that I need to comment here, not just on my talk page. Then it's still not enough because of the way I worded it. Respectfully, it's semantics nitpicking the use of the word "can," which is often interchangeable to mean the same thing as "will," etc. Now, having said that, I will be very clear here: I made a couple of mistakes, for which I apologize. Going forward, I will be more careful with my use of rollback, which I've already shown since after this report was created, any reversion of a problematic, but good faith, edit has had a reason attached to it instead of just being rolled back. Amaury10:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
In response to Drmies, my comments regarding two of the diffs already being answered by other users, namely S Marshall and Deepfriedokra, is that the explanation/answer I would have given for those diffs would have been the same as what they said, such as the character being a girl and not a woman. Amaury10:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
From a technical point of view, rollback has a higher rate limit of reversions (+10 reversions via rollback compared to normal undo), and bypasses the edit filter, if I recall correctly. From a practical standpoint though, the difference is that you are using a tool which was originally given only to administrators, and has been unbundled because it would be useful to non-administrators. It still receives the same scrutiny and accountability standards, though, that would be attached to any other unbundled subset of the sysop tools or even the sysop tools themselves. Even the rollback page itself states that administrators can be desysopped to remove access to the rollback tool. This is not the Wikipedia Human Resources Department. Your actions with the rollback tool, and even your edits as a normal editor, are subject to scrutiny and questioning by others, no matter what their edit count or usergroups are. Even an IP editor could come to your talk page and ask you to explain one of your actions or edits, and the standard is that you should be able and willing to explain it to them. It's the standard everyone on the site is held to, and my personal opinion is that it's part of what makes this place a collaborative environment. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
On "an IP editor could come to your talk page and ask you to explain one of your actions", unfortunately, no, they can't, because—due to an immature block-evading IP, [Amaury's] page has been indefinitely semi-protected. Newly registered users and IPs are not able to post on [Amaury's] talk page. For the last year. SerialNumber54129A New Face in Hell 07:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
This is still an ongoing issue with this WP:LTA, as seen by the history of User talk:YoungForever and other user talk pages. (See the summaries ending with "...next time.") Amaury10:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I think the point is that non-registered or newly registered users could request an explanation, rather than where that request might be made. isaacl (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I am troubled by the implicit elitism, as though non registered and newly registered editors are somehow inferior. I started as an non registered use, and all established registered users were "new" once, and there are non registered editors on Wikipedia that are very constructive and very knowledgeable. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Isaacl is correct. Also, though. How comes YoungForever hasn't had their talk page indefinitely protected? I guess we all suspect it's because if they asked, they would be told, sympathetically but firmly, that per WP:UT-PROT, User talk pages are rarely protected, and that A user's request to have their own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale by itself to protect the page, with the caveats. In the current state of affairs no IP or new user can request any kind of accountability. And a (seeming) refusal to communicate can't be a particularly suave look in the middle of a discussion in which poor communication has been highlighted. SerialNumber54129A New Face in Hell 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Equally, a countervandalist who's attracted a "fan" shouldn't have to put up with harassment.—S Marshall T/C 18:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Hah! I've a couple of those myself. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Do we actually think there's any harassment going on here though? This also isn't a case of a newer user going after someone who's been here a while. The filer has over 10k edits themselves and has edited each month since October 2022. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Not by the filer. No. I mean, when you deal with vandals and other problem people long enough, you're going to attract some LTA's. As can be seen by my user talk page history. I've had some humdingers on and off wiki. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Do not endorse, predominantly per nom. About these SmokeyJoe's questions: Is the documented policy out of step with policy-in-practice? Are the diffs representative of normal accepted practice? Not seeing evidence that it is and pretty clearly no.—Alalch E. 01:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I’m sensing that too, that the rules of rollback are to be taken seriously. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah. There was a time when becoming a rollbacker was seen as admin-lite. Nowadays we have other tools that do the same thing, so rollback is much less of a big deal, but the general principle that powerful countervandalism tools are to be used mindfully remains, I think, very much the community's view.—S Marshall T/C 12:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I hold that view -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Just a followup from the OP here. I rarely visit AARV and this is my first time posting here, so I didn't know about how exactly AARV works, that it is merely for garnering feedback on the use of advanced/admin tools and that preventative measures usually aren't taken here. I went here because the "Before posting:" part in the banner at the top of AN/I suggested that problematic use of tools shall be posted here and not on AN(I). Anyways...
    I understand that revoking rollback won't stop someone from still using other tools, like Twinkle, Redwarn or the Mediawiki 'undo' button to make quick unexplained reverts to good-faith edits. The outcome I'd intended for here is 'a recalibration of Amaury’s “obvious problem edit” criterion' as User:Floquenbeam put it. And if rollback were to be revoked, then I would've definitely hoped there was a turnaround of the unexplained reversions behaviour at that point.
    Regarding 'stalking' concerns: in the warning message I posted on User:Amaury's talk page before this AARV thread, I'd only sampled approx. two weeks of edit history, with an additional diff from many months ago after looking at the edit history of a page. I even presented some diffs where the usage of rollback was valid, to explain what kind of edits regular rollback is meant to be used for. Then, I left the user alone for about 11 days before deciding to check again to see if anything's changed.
    I have nothing personal against User:Amaury of course and I definitely think he is a great contributor and maintainer of film and TV related articles. I'm just a bit disappointed by all these constructive edits being reverted without an explanation in the edit summary or on the talk page of the user, and more so by the lack of response/change since the warning.
    [Stalking concerns cont'd:] One of the things I do on the regular here on Wikipedia is to help out with various different long-term abuse cases - I am very familiar with the Louisiana IP LTA who is responsible for User:Amaury's talk page being protected and that's how I knew about User:Amaury in the first place (I've dealt with that Louisiana LTA numerous times since early 2023). Sometimes when I'm bored but don't feel quite like doing patrolling, I like to go through the latest contributions of some vandalism patrollers I know well (Amaury included, but not just the only one) to look out for maybe further unconstructive edits that have been missed or for other LTAs to explore or take action on if appropriate. (Please let me know if this is an illegitimate use of another user's contributions. Anyways,) That day I sent the warning on the 20th December is when I incidentally discovered those constructive-looking edits by seemingly legitimate editors being rollbacked without explanation. I don't get alert by just one or two bad rollbacks as I acknowledge that everyone occassionally makes mistakes, but when I looked further, I only found more and more of them, to my dismay.
    I'm sorry that User:Amaury feels the way he does, I did not intend for him to feel harassed/stalked in any form, I just wanted to see a change of a habit that is potentially damaging to newbie editors as well as probably puzzling to third parties (other editors), that's all. My feedback is focussed on the usage of a certain tool, and isn't intended to be an attack at all. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Does this board have a scope or not? because it says pretty clearly up at the top: "The purpose of an administrative review discussion is to reach a consensus on whether a specific action was appropriate, not to assign blame. It is not the place to request comment on an editor's general conduct, to seek retribution or removal of an editor's advanced permissions..." This thread is basically ignoring every word of that. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 01:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think this is on the cusp of a consensus that some of the examples of rollback given were inappropriate. I read Amaury as in agreement. On the talk page there is the start of a proposal to limit the OP, or all, to 200-500 words, and this might help with your apparent concern of excessive tangential comment? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    My concerns are that the scope of this page is supposed to be single actions, not patterns, and it is explicitly not a place to even ask that permissions be removed, yet this thread is about an alleged pattern and some users are advocating for removal, hence why I asked if there is a scope here or not and quoted the exact material I felt was being ignored in this thread.
    I also reject the idea that rollback is a "powerful tool" when Twinkle and other tools do the same thing, better, and cannot be revoked. but I'm aware I'm in the minority in that regard from reasons I will likely never understand. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 07:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Another followup from the OP since I feel like we're kinda done here and there are concerns about the scope of this forum. I consider the 'issue' (the wrongful use of rollback) resolved, as User:Amaury has apologised and made a statement that they will be more careful with reverting constructive edits (or non-obvious problematic edits) in the future. And I don't think rollback needs to be revoked at this time either. In any case, if I notice a further problem that actually needs action, then I will go to AN(I) and not here. At the time of filing this, I could not make out the distinction between whether it's a simple misusage of a tool, or a more general long-term behavioural issue that involves using a tool, so I just went with what the top banner at WP:AN suggested.
    Although AARV may not have been the best place for this, I think this thread has still served its purpose - numerous users (incl. admins) have commented on whether/how the user's usage of standard rollback (i.e. with the default edit summary) was inappropriate when dealing with those good-faith and unobvious problematic edits, and the reported user has responded accordingly that they will change the practice.
    P.S. I admit some of the example diffs I provided were rather poor examples, especially diff 6, I did rush the initial report a bit due to a time constraint. Also I'm not so knowledgeable in entertainment-related subjects, my big wiki-interests are in technology and electronics stuff, though I still felt that diff 1 could've used some explaining instead of being given the silent revert-hammer. These diffs are sorted in a chronological order btw. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
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.

October 2023 Block by Graham87

Diffs/logs: relevant log entry
User: Graham87 (talk · contribs · logs)

This block of mine, on an editor who added redundant text, was unduly harsh and I would not have made it under the same circumstances today, even if I was still an admin. The affected user has sent several messages on their talk page. I'd be OK with this user being unblocked to give them a second chance, but I'd also be sympathetic to the argument that most of their edits have been reverted so far so if they continue their current editing pattern there might not be much point in unblocking them. I hope this is an OK place for this request. Graham87 (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I think the block there was perfectly reasonable, although I wouldn't have made it myself. If you really want another admin to push the unblock button I would oblige, but endorse * Pppery * it has begun... 04:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd be OK with whatever the consensus is here. Graham87 (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Also there subsequent edit on the Simple English Wikipedia isn't particularly promising ... Graham87 (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I do not think that the poor quality edits were bad enough to justify an indefinite block, and so I have unblocked Djunge123 with advice to do their best to comply with policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The last time I was here, we ended up discussing two of my blocks ... so it might be worth doing that now. This block is one I feel a bit guilty about, but I'd never seen someone try to add information about a completely different person to an article before. And unfortunately editing programs from her part of the world have had ... very mixed results. This is the only block of mine that I can recall that I feel might need review. My responses on her talk page were probably not the best either. Graham87 (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Definitely restore TPA as I don't think there was sufficient disruption to revoke TPA and that call should have been left to another admin. From a quick glance it looks to me like the block was reasonable but should have been finite in duration, so I guess reluctantly unblock now. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
  • My AGF tells me those broken unblock requests are most likely a result of the user trying to add the unblock template using the "Visual" mode of the 'New topic' function (try adding a template name with two curly brackets on each side in VisualEditor and you'll see what I mean). Unfortunately, although VisualEditor is meant to be newbie friendly, it has a lot of bugs that can inadvertently introduce various coding errors, spacing issues etc in articles which they'll have no idea of (unless they have experience with editing in wiki source code, which not a great proportion of new editors do). With that in mind, if I was an admin I would've let them know about how to correctly add the unblock template rather than instantly unplugging talk access for a honest mistake. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Their edits had some issues, but not to the point that a indef was necessary. I'd say endorse block, not endorse TPA removal and block length. Nobody (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)