Wikipedia:Administrative action review

Administrative action review (XRV/AARV) determines whether use of the administrator tools or other advanced permissions is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Any action (or set of related actions) involving a tool not available to all confirmed editors—except those covered by another, more specific review process—may be submitted here for community review. 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, or to quibble about technicalities.

To request an administrative action review, please first read the "Purpose" section to make sure that it is in scope. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Administrative action review may be used to request review of:

1. an administrator action
2. an action using an advanced permission

Administrative action review should not be used:

1. to request an appeal or review of an action with a dedicated review process

   For review of page deletions or review of deletion discussion closures, use Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV)

   For review of page moves, use Wikipedia:Move review (MRV)

2. to ask to remove a user's permissions:

   Permissions granted at WP:PERM may be revoked by an administrator if XRV finds them to be misused.

   Repeated or egregious misuse of permissions may form the basis of an administrators' noticeboard or incidents noticeboard report, or a request for arbitration, as appropriate.

3. to argue technicalities and nuances (about what the optimal action would have been, for example), outside of an argument that the action was inconsistent with policy.
4. to ask for a review of arbitration enforcement actions. Such reviews must be done at arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"), at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"), or directly to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment requests page ("ARCA").
5. for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioural problems; use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ("ANI") instead
6. for serious, entrenched or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking; use Wikipedia:Arbitration ("ArbCom") instead
7. for a block marked with any variation of {{CheckUser block}}, {{OversightBlock}}, or {{ArbComBlock}}; Contact the Arbitration Committee instead
8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias. Such requests may be speedily closed.

Instructions
Initiating a review

1. Before listing a review request, try to resolve the matter by discussing it with the performer of the action.
2. Start a new discussion by clicking the button below and filling in the preloaded template.
3. Notify the performer of the action of the discussion.

   You must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. You may use {{subst:XRV-notice}} for this purpose.

   Use of the notification system is not sufficient.

Start a new discussion

Participating in a discussion
Any editor in good standing may request a review or participate in discussing an action being reviewed. Participation is voluntary. The goal of the discussion is to determine whether the action is consistent with Wikipedia's policies. Contributions that are off-topic may be removed by any uninvolved administrator. You may choose to lead your comment with a bold and bulleted endorse or not endorsed/overturn, though any helpful comment is welcome. Please add new comments at the bottom of the discussion.

Closing a review
Reviews can be closed by any uninvolved administrator after there has been sufficient discussion and either a consensus has been reached, or it is clear that no consensus will be reached. Do not rush to close a review: while there is no fixed minimum time, it is expected that most good faith requests for review will remain open for at least a few days.

The closer should summarize the consensus reached in the discussion and clearly state whether the action is endorsed, not endorsed, or if there is no consensus.

After a review
Any follow-up outcomes of a review are deferred to existing processes. Individual actions can be reversed by any editor with sufficient permissions. Permissions granted at WP:PERM may be revoked by an administrator.

Closed reviews will be automatically archived after a period of time. Do not archive reviews that have not been formally closed.

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

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).

-

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)

• 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)

• Endorse per BlackKite and Kovcszaln6 . User should concentrate on fixing their own conduct issues that led to the block..-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  • You are the one to whom Bbb23 made disparaging remarks about me, in consensus discussion, prior to them blocking me.Isonomia01 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Isonomia01: Really? I don't recall. Got a WP:DIF for reference? And that in no way changes the validity of my opinion. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:12, 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)