I suppose I should start this noticeboard off with a self-review on one of my own actions.

Today, I removed the rollback flag from User:Robvanvee. My reasons are given at User talk:Robvanvee#Removal of rollback where I quoted several lines of WP:ROLLBACK policy, explaining why I thought it was necessary. There is also a note on WP:ANI here. To explain a bit further, when a good-faith edit is reverted using the rollback option, the user will look at the relevant links in the automated edit-summary, and get the mistaken impression their edits were vandalism or disruptive, which leads to an unhealthy environment. As this user has just gone up to the limit of WP:3RR and narrowly avoided a block, I don't trust them to use the permission responsibly at this time.

However, I am conscious that this might be overkill for this situation, and there is not necessarily a solid consensus for this. I am also mindful of this last time I did this, on User:Abelmoschus Esculentus, the user immediately retired and never edited Wikipedia again - even though my administrator actions were not criticised by anyone (if anything, they were endorsed). (Looking at my logs, I notice I also removed it from User:Freshacconci in March 2019 but self-reverted a few minutes later as "draconian", and also removed it from User:CLCStudent in August 2020, who is now indef-blocked for sockpuppetry).

So I'm bringing this action here to review to see if the community would endorse or not endorse this administrator action. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• The reason (vanilla) rollback should only be used to revert vandalism is that it provides a generic edit summary only (per WP:ROLLBACKUSE) -- both edits you link to on his user talk ([1] and [2]) do provide informative edit summaries due to the way WP:REDWARN works. While he did violate the letter of WP:ROLLBACKUSE, I don't think he violated the spirit of it. (Perhaps this is just a case of the guideline not taking into account "technological advances"?) This is not to say that the reverts were correct (and I believe that poor reverts can be cause to revoke rollback rights), but rather that they should not be treated as evidence of rollback abuse. 15 (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Is a bolded opinion necessary or can general comments such as the one above also be made? 15 (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

    @15 general comments are welcome. If you wish to be clear on whether you ultimately endorse or do not endorse the decision having that bolded vote is best. If you are comfortable letting the closer interpet your response when deciding on consensus a general comment works. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with 15, although I don't think Robvanvee even violated the letter of WP:ROLLBACKUSE, which explicitly states that "[i]f a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting." (If that were not the case, half of all RedWarn users would have their rollback privileges revoked this instant.) The edit-warring concerns are certainly more legitimate, but since the editor in question seemed genuinely confused and apologetic, I wouldn't jump immediately to revoking rights unless the problem became a pattern. I suppose that means I'll !vote overturn and hope that Robvanvee treats this as a warning to be a bit more circumspect with reverting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • To wax philosophical: one of the questions that this new forum will need to decide is how much deference we're going to afford to those whose actions we're reviewing, or put another way what our standard of review will be. It doesn't matter so much in this case since Ritchie has asked for us to review his actions (thank you for bringing this here!), but soon we'll be dealing with tough decisions where no easy answer is apparent. In such cases, I think it's important to avoid substituting our own views for the relevant administrator's judgment. Second-guessing tough decisions discourages people from making them in the first place, particularly when a motley crowd of non-admins (like me!) is trying to interpose its view for that of someone whom the community has trusted to make tough decisions independently. The question for us at XRV should be more along the lines of "is this the sort of action that a reasonable administrator might find necessary" and not "I personally would make a different choice". (In other words, we want clear error review, not de novo review.) Just as DRV is not AfD 2.0, so too XRV is not administrative actions 2.0. I don't think this distinction is too relevant here since, again, Ritchie has been thoughtful enough to open this up for community comment himself, but it's an important thing to think about more generally. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• overturn - the question for me is if this is a suitable thing to be reverting. In my eyes, they are suitable reverts, regardless of what the tools used to do them were. They did leave an edit summary, so in my eyes that seems fair. To me this seems like a knowledge gap, that a quiet word would be better than removing the tools themselves. The edit warring deal is bad, although they are simply removing uncited material. I'm yet to see them act uncivilly, nor do anything that they wouldn't have done the same without the tool. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Would it not have made more sense to bring your concerns with the editor first? They've not made hundreds of thousands of edits but they are close to the first hundred. Or at least wait for them to say something before asking for a review. Since your first followup to revoking rollback is to ask for review, my opinion is that it would have been better to have asked for the review of Rob's use of rollback instead, after a discussion with them. Also, I noticed an error in your explanation at Rob's talk page. This diff argues notability because (i) the section is titled "Notable references in popular culture" (ii) Notability is absolutely one of the considerations in adding to lists. It is in fact one of the principal criteria used to prevent lists from growing unmanageable or contra WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Finally, as above, my understanding is that rollback policy only applies to rollbacks made without custom summaries. So, if there's nothing more, I'm leaning not endorse. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the interpretation of WP:NOTEVERYTHING; the notability guideline says "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." and using it in another context is misleading. Also, notability is not necessary for a list; the guideline page says, "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". I also do not think it is correct to refer to a difference of interpretation of policy as an "error". Regarding, "Would it not have made more sense to bring your concerns with the editor first?" Well yes, in hindsight it would; it's just I saw the user had been warned at ANI and narrowly avoided a BOOMERANG, admits on their user page they make lots of mistakes, and their contribution list show a lot of rollbacks that aren't clear and blatant vandalism, at which point I thought "okay, this looks like a bit of a 'bull in a china shop' case, looks like I'll have to be tough but fair on this one". Anyway, that's my thought process on this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You and Rob had a difference of interpretation of policy regarding whether notability can be a criterion for items in a list. I am on Rob's side (WP:CSC, but also WP:LISTCRIT and WP:LISTPEOPLE; it is how I've always seen lists work on Wikipedia) but, regardless, invoking in an edit summary a policy interpretation you don't agree with can't be one of the examples of rollback misuse. I said "error" in that sense. But if "error" is imprecise for the situation, I apologise (English is only my third language). The "I make loads of mistakes" part probably should not be a basis for sanction; it reads like self-deprecating humour to me. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn The reverts in question seem to have edit summaries that refer to the use of Wikipedia:RedWarn. This is not an obvious use of rollback to do a quick-and-dirty revert w/o explanation. While we are all responsible for the tools we use, I wonder if RedWarn is really using "rollback" or if it's merely being tagged as such. If this is going to cause similar issues, should RedWarn really be piggybacking on rollback (if that is indeed the case) instead of using standard revert technology? In any event, the presence of an edit summary does not make this a clear-cut violation. Finally, WP:ROLLBACK advises that admins should allow the editor an opportunity to explain their use of rollback before taking any action – there may be justification of which the administrator is not aware (such as reversion of a banned user).—Bagumba (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

One factor in reaching the decisions I did was this comment from an IP that went unanswered. If that message had been replied to, I might have thought "well he communicated okay so I'll have a word first". And I certainly think it's a bit odd that RedWarn (something I haven't heard of until today) tags edits as "Rollback" when they don't need to, and fixing that would help things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not what's happening. The tool does use rollback, and it provides an edit summary while doing so. The API documentation is at mw:API:Rollback and shows the existence of a "summary" parameter that was used by the tool. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Rollback by default doesn't include edit summaries; that is why there are limitations set on what you can rollback (only those reverts whose reasons are obvious without an edit summary). If you use rollback using additional tools or workarounds that let you use custom summaries, there are no limitations (you can use it for any revert). RedWarn happens to be one of those tools. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Surely then the problem is with the software? Let's fix (or deprecate) rollback so you have to give an edit summary when reverting any edit. I don't think the 0.5 seconds it takes to type "rvv" when reverting somebody putting obscene images on a high-traffic article is going to be an issue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

That's basically just undo, then. As I understand it, the purpose of the rollback link in the MediaWiki interface for those who have the rollback permission is to allow reverts without having to enter an edit summary. isaacl (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

That and that it's much faster, faster than when you rollback with twinkle (even one that doesn't ask you for a summary). I think it processes the request server-side. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Bagumba Redwarn uses pseudo-rollback (replacing the current revision with an older one) by default, rollbackers can enable Redwarn to use rollback, which makes reverts slightly faster.15 (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I'm not an admin or a super experienced user, but if I were in Ritchie's shoes, I likely would have given Robvanvee a stern warning about how rollback is properly used, and established that any further significant issues with the use of the tool would lead to permission being revoked. Unless Robvanvee has been warned about misuse of rollback in the recent past, say within the past year, in that case I would have also revoked permission to use rollback. The diffs identified by Ritchie were absolutely improper uses of rollback. The question I have is, are these isolated or part of a pattern? If Robvanvee takes into consideration the concerns with these improper rollbacks, and pledges to only use rollback as appropriate (reverting obvious vandalism) going forward, I'd support having their rollback perms reinstated, perhaps on a trial basis for a month. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn. On use of rollback and RedWarn, my take on this is that it is irrelevant whether a revert is tagged with "rollback" or not, or how it is technically performed, only if it is justified (either by obviousness of the reason or by providing a good reason).
  It is important that rollbackers can be trusted not to edit war. Ritchie333 gives an ANI link to a discussion where the user is unfamiliar with the difference between edit warring and 3RR (extremely commonplace across Wikipedia), and has edit warred. The user doesn't quite seem to understand edit warring after they are first informed, as they said, I have no intention of continuing the edit war, or violating any Wikipedia policies for that matter. Never have in all my years here. Except they did just violate a Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Edit warring, through their edit warring at Taylor Gang Entertainment. They have a very calm and positive attitude towards the ANI thread, so what is needed here is not sanctions, or removal of tools to prevent disruption, but an explanation. I've made a comment to this effect at ANI. — Bilorv (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• "The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary [...], then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting."^[3] As RedWarn works without rollback too, just not as performant, revoking the permission does not prevent further use of RedWarn in the same manner as before. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn I don't think going straight to removal is justified in this case. WP:ROLLBACK states Standard rollback is a fast way of undoing problematic edits, but it has the disadvantage that only a generic edit summary is generated, with no explanation of the reason for the change. Robvanvee did not use standard rollback. They used a script which allows them to replace the generic edit summary with an explanatory one. I don't think there is any way the editor being reverted could "get the mistaken impression their edits were vandalism or disruptive" as Ritchie states above. There is nothing wrong with reverting good faith edits with rollback if the generic edit summary is replaced.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the root problem here is that the historical use of rollback has made some of the policy confusing, particularly "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool.". This then only clarifies what "standard rollback" means later on. But we don't sanction editors for simply reverting without an edit summary, So there's some inconsistency that needs to be tightened up. To be honest, with the popularity of Twinkle and automated tools, the concept of rollback is outdated and not really helpful, and I think it would be worth considering deprecating the feature. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

These days, rollback is basically used as a whitelist for Huggle etc. That said, I use software rollback via RCP etc (it's better than Twinkle rollback in those situations IME; I can ctrl click to rollback and still stay in RC.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I've never understood why we need tools to deal with vandalism, but then I've got a block button so I guess that's why I'm completely clueless when it comes to the existence of these tools. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, 60-120 edits per minute need to be filtered somehow if we intend to go through them live as humans. The first tool in the line is ORES, which is used by Special:RecentChanges or Huggle to filter contributions by intent. We then need to revert multiple revisions by the same user while ideally specifying a reason, and then we're supposed to place a warning on the user's talk page. You can do all of this manually, if the number of recent changes patrollers is high enough to cope with the flood of edits. It isn't, so tools are used to automate the repetitive, non-editorial part of the process. Very few people technically need a vehicle to commute; most can walk by foot. The inefficiency of walking to work, in most situations, justifies the use of vehicles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn The idea of rollback atm is really the concept of reverting edits without a reason provided. The use of software rollback with summary is not really rollback; see WP:ROLLBACKUSE which says Standard rollback is a fast way of undoing problematic edits, but it has the disadvantage that only a generic edit summary is generated, with no explanation of the reason for the change. For this reason, it is considered inappropriate to use it in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected. Rollback may be used... Since both the quoted edits actually include a summary, this is just a complaint about the use of technical rollback with summary, apparently via RedWarn. That's functionally equivalent to using undo. Not a violation of policy in letter or in spirit. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment — From what I can see from a quick glance it appears Ritchie333, made an innocent mistake. Sysops are merely human and are not infallible. I do not see why this is prolonged. I’m saddened when ample time which could have been used in true pertinent productivity is used up in gobbledygook. In my opinion, this should be closed & Rob given his perm back. I haven’t read all the entries thoroughly because I have no interest in gabfests, but from a quick glance, it appears one of the fundamental problems is R3 didn’t initiate a dialogue prior removing the perm, if that is the case I believe they know now to initiate a conversation with any given editor before they remove perms from editors. I’m not sure nor do i know if or not this discussion has a time frame in which it must run before it is closed but with the sheer numbers of overturns I’ve observed thus far, I think it’s safe to close this as one would close an AFD with a speedy keep if the number of keep !votes are overwhelming. Celestina007 (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I implemented the RedWarn rollback feature in its current form. Enabling rollback simply speeds up reversions. There is no difference between using rollback and not using rollback for reversions other than speed.
  I have said several times both on and off wiki that the current WP:ROLLBACKUSE guidelines are confusing and don't apply to the main use and reason why people request the rollback permission, that being to access more powerful tools such as Huggle, and the current and past RFP/R page reflects this. The current rollback guidelines only really apply to rollback links ("standard rollback", this wording in and of itself is confusing too), with a small note saying that there's an exemption if an edit summary is applied. If anything, "rollback" as a user right in its current form simply is a flag that administrators apply to show that a user is trusted enough to use these more powerful tools. The rollback policy should be edited to reflect this, especially as stated on the page itself, the rollback behaviour is easily replicated by tools like Twinkle and, in this case, RedWarn.
  Also, Ritchie333 is not the only one to make this mistake. On the RedWarn talk page there have been several confused users and editors who try to reference this policy incorrectly. It is clear that this policy is confusing and irrelevant to the core uses of rollback in its current state and should be rewritten. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 01:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  Have any editors who are confused by this explained what's confusing about If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting.? How could that be written any clearer? Levivich 01:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  Trying to stay on topic here, but that's not really relevant to the point I'm making. The policy as a whole is confusing, and many of those just skimming rarely notice that line since the policy is practically dedicated to using the rollback link.

  An example of this: say somebody said, "I used rollback on this edit".

  So trivia time, did the editor:

  A: use the rollback link (also known as "standard rollback")

  B: use a "tool or manual method" which actually doesn't count under the rollback policy, rather the reversion policy (because of that line you mentioned), but they still technically used rollback because the tool you were using uses the "rollback" API and the tag on the edit links to an irrelevant policy for the edit they just made

  C: did they not use "rollback" at all and just used a rollback button (which acted as a glorified undo) in Twinkle or RedWarn?

  Answer: None of this matters, because the outcome is the same. Edits were reverted.

  The rollback policy in its current form is confusing and redundant to the reversion and disruption policy in the vast majority of cases. If an edit was reverted with no summary, as would occur with rollback links, there are times where that would be appropriate and inappropriate, and any user, rollback or not, would be expected to stick by the reversion policy.

  If the user used a more powerful tool that requires the community trust (Huggle, Rollback Links, SWViewer, etc.), therefore requiring rollback permissions to be granted to that user, and the user was misusing the tool and causing disruption, the user has violated the communities trust and an administrator should revoke the rollback right to prevent disruptive use of that tool - the same as any other form of disruption mitigation such as blocking, topic banning, etc. That is the current and predominant use of the rollback right, and the policy should reflect that, i.e. rollback as a user right is a sign of trust within the community to use more powerful tools, and approval to use said more powerful tools may be revoked at any time in case of disruption. Everything else should be covered in the wider reversion policy. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 02:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's good that we restrict use of no-summary rollback to vandalism and a few other situations. No-summary reverts are generally a bad idea outside those situations to begin with, and so if we're going to be giving people a tool that (without modification by scripts) only does no-summary reverts, it makes sense to enshrine that norm in policy. So I like where we currently draw the line: treat default rollback specially, treat custom-summary rollback as the same as any other kind of revert. If there's a concern about MediaWiki:tag-mw-rollback and the wording of Wikipedia:Rollback, those are a matter distinct from how editors use the tool.
  What I don't think anyone's discussed, though, is the fact that all rollbacks are minor edits. Making a nontrivial revert with custom-summary rollback is still an issue as a violation of best practices regarding minor edits. (It's fascinating that after 20 years we have all sorts of policies and guidelines on absurdly niche things, but nothing more than an infopage on minor edits.) But I'm sure everyone who uses RedWarn or custom-summary rollback scripts has on occasion used them for edits that weren't really minor, myself included. If something is to be done about that, it would be either a change to Wikipedia:Rollback or a change to the software, not action being taken against any individual rollbacker. Overturn. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. 15 said everything that I could possibly say but better.
  Rollback abuse does happen, and I recently got into a spat with a user who more blatantly violated WP:Rollback than Robvanvee has here (not mentioning names since they aren't being reviewed-- and either way it was just a one-off thing from them). My preference for these things is normally to just start with a warning before escalating, but I think a simple discussion would've been better here (Hindsight is obviously 20/20).
  Regardless, I do think Ritchie has done a wonderful service by opening up his action for review. It's been helpful setting the tone for this board which is honestly rather critical to whether or not it will work in the long term. Hopefully it stays this way? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Editor warned my account instead of people who deleted my edits without showing any source.

Editor warned my account instead of people who deleted my edits without showing any source. on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warringHsynylmztr (talk · contribs · logs · block log) performed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · logs) (User talk:EdJohnston#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring)

I provided historical sources for my edit but 4 editors kept deleting my edit without showing any sources. I reported them but EdJohnson warned me instead of them. Which is more important for Wikipedia, actually having sources or having more people to back you? Hsynylmztr (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hsynylmztr, this is about a comment/warning made by an administrator and not about a use of tools, which is what this page is for. Quoting from the top section: Any action involving a tool not available to all confirmed editors—except those covered by another, more specific review process—may be submitted to XRV for community review. – anyone can warn another user, and so this is out of the scope of this noticeboard. Regards, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 12:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit own talk on User talk:Walter Görlitz performed by Vanjagenije (talk · contribs · logs) (User talk:Vanjagenije#User talk:Walter Görlitz)

I was blocked for edit warring in September. As with previous 3RR blocks, I continued to monitor my watchlist. I informed editors via my talk page when clear vandalism was occurring. I also informed editors when pages they had worked on were subtly changed. Vanjagenije revoked the ability for me to edit my talk page. The rationale was "Being blocked from editing means that you are blocked from editing. That aslo includes proxy editing, i.e. using your talk page to direct others what to edit." When my block expired, I responded with "how were my edits to this talk page either inappropriate or disruptive? While I am blocked, I can communicate with other editors. I can go to their talk page and click on the "email" link. I could do so even when you blocked my talk page editing. I can see how you might think this is looking for meat puppets, but in the past, I have been praised by admins for alerting talk page stalkers about unconstructive edits so this block came as a surprise. The other annoyance is that I would have gladly discussed it with you, but you were a bit overzealous and refused to enter a discussion." Vanjagenije responded to that question with "I think my explanation above is very clear. I have nothing more to add." I am simply looking for rationale as to if this is appropriate, and if a warning is not first merited. I am not looking for action against Vanjagenije so this may not be the correct forum. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• A discussion on Rich Farmbrough's talk page regarding precisely the same issue (except, perhaps, by the sheer amount of times it had been noted: ~100 in nine months) came to the opposite conclusion, and a number of admins including sitting arbs tied themselves in knots defending the same use/misuse of a talk page. FYI. ——Serial 22:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  Well two sitting arbs were present on that talk page: me and Worm That Turned and I don't think either of us felt particularly tied in knots. Speaking only for myself, I was the one who suggested talk page access should be revoked if proxy editing requests continued to come. When I received feedback from Hammersoft and Beetstra that they found that too strong an action I said I wouldn't do it. I still think there is a line somewhere between 1 edit not about the block and 81 edits I counted Rich having made that would warrant revocation of the talk page. I look forward to seeing what the community thinks here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  Regarding my feedback, I will ask the question: what exactly is removing talk-page access preventing if an editor is just using it for notes-to-self, thank yous and single-sentence replies to questions. I can see that you are preventing disruption when the editor is having long diatribes with other editors about policy/guideline/ongoing RfCs or other discussios, or when the editor is continuously pinging other editors to discuss or perform edits for them (excluding asking to revert vandalism), or is continuously asking to be unblocked. If it is not that, it almost looks like 'you are blocked, no STFU'. I have my concerns, and I understand there is a large grey area inbetween some commenting/notes-to-self and continuously pinging, but gheesh .. RF did 81 edits in 9 months, some TY-notes or polite answers to remarks/questions, some notes-to-self (or to whoever read them and decided by themselves to act on it), but when he pinged someone because he noticed some vandalism to revert the discussion turned to consider to silence him completely. Also there, I do not understand what it was supposed to prevent. If you don't want to see it, unwatch the talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see the value in reviewing already-expired admin actions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

In regards to this, I am generally okay with reviewing expired admin actions. Firstly, because it doesn't mean the admin may not have made a mistake worth noting, and b, because otherwise the community tends to view sanctions as "sticking", which they wouldn't if reviewed and overturned. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Nosebagbear here, I have seen two different approaches from different admins to the same behaviour, and since emailing is still permitted, I would like to make mine the last block for this sort of action unless there is clear community consensus to prevent it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• So this question of "if you don't specifically ask a specific editor to make (permissable) edits, is it a breach of proxying warranting TPA removal" is one that's led to multiple huge discussions. Currently the Community hasn't gone clear-cut enough for an admin act along these lines to either be ruled in or out of scope. In effect, we're in judgement call territory. You can make a strong argument for either (if a specific example is otherwise neutral) side. As such, I wouldn't rule the admin's actions as unreasonable beyond the bounds of legitimate discretion. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Has this been evolving? The reason I ask is that in the past, I have actually been praised for continuing to edit constructively even though I was blocked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Blocks are preventative (to prevent the cause of the block), not punitive. If Walter Görlitz is blocked for edit warring but wants to continue watching his watchlist and commenting on his talk page, he should be permitted to do so. Nobody is alleging that his talk page comments are attempting to continue an edit war. That said: please don't edit war. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• I don't like the tone of edits like this and this, and on a practical level you must know you are playing with fire to be writing comments with an attitude when you are currently blocked. When you are blocked/sanctioned, you are owed an explanation, not explanations every time you ask, so Vanjagenije is within their rights to explain at the time of TPA removal and then refuse to discuss further.
  However, I am failing to see how their interpretation of WP:PROXYING is valid (rather than simply being commonplace, which I think it is). WP:PROXYING prevents non-blocked/banned editors from making edits/actions that they have not independently ascertained to be constructive. In this case, I would AGF that the editors who followed these suggestions independently verified that the actions needed to be taken.
  TPA removal would be valid if blocking policy was that blocked users can only use talk page access to discuss unblocking. However, this is banning policy. I can't see a problem with someone making constructive edits on their talk page while blocked, either logically or legally (by the letter of policy/guideline). Blocks are not punitive and there was no prevention of disruptive behaviour by TPA removal. — Bilorv (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that blocked users should retain full access to their talk pages until and unless that action is disruptive. Asking other editors to make appropriate edits is absolutely not disruptive. Agree with Bilorv's distinction drawn between blocks and bans. For example, if an editor was topic banned and blocked, but used his or her talk page to propose changes prohibited by the topic ban, then yes, revoking write access to the talk page is appropriate. Removing talk page access for a series of non-disruptive edits is problematic at best, even though the wisdom of talk page editing while blocked instead of simply taking a break from Wikipedia entirely is debatable at best. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• I personally believe that talk page access and email access for blocked users are meant to technically allow block appeals, not circumventing a site-wide block by asking others to edit on the blocked user's behalf. The ability of well-connected blocked users to continue editing through their friends creates a two-tier system of editors: Those blocked with friends, and those blocked without friends. The term "unblockable" comes to mind. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Nothing about the block process prevents, nor does policy forbid, off-wiki communication with other editors. What, exactly, is gained by allowing off-wiki communication, but denying on-wiki communication, again assuming that the communication and edits would be appropriate absent the block? Jclemens (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • But your personal belief, ToBeFree, should be written down somewhere in policy/guideline if it is to be enforced without warning by talk page access removals? Or is this not an endorsement of the admin action here? — Bilorv (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

    The closest I can offer is WP:BE (and WP:BMB, but that's for bans) with its prohibition on "proxying". This is too vague to say I'm right and my interpretation is the only correct one, of course. It does perhaps justify voicing my interpretation, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks for the clarification, ToBeFree; I think I understand your comment better now. — Bilorv (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

    No worries – I should have provided a link to WP:BE in the first place, and I am unsure how relevant my personal views on it are for the review as well. It's a case of "I understand the action taken, am perhaps even thankful for it, yet can't point to a policy that directly specifically justifies the taken approach." I wouldn't have performed the action either, I think, as I would have expected it to be controversial. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• (I don't work in user-conduct areas, so this is an outsider viewpoint.) What this seems to come down to is whether, in practice, medium to long-term blocks of editors (not IPs) are intended to have a punitive element. Observationally this seems to often be the case, even though policy clearly states the reverse. I don't think Vanjagenije's actions are at all unusual, nor do they fall outside what is generally interpreted as admin discretion, but I'd love to see a broader discussion of what longer blocks of potentially productive editors are intended to achieve. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
• In terms of reviewing Vanjagenije's actions and tool usage, I don't think a case can be made for abuse or misuse because they fall within accepted levels of admin conduct and discretion. That doesn't mean I agree with his interpretation and understanding of policy or the conclusive measures he implemented thereby, I tentatively do not. I do agree with Espresso Addict that a broader discussion would be quite useful as, in my opinion, a bit more clarification coupled with a bit less discretion would ultimately be a good outcome (in these regards). If this were an ongoing action, I would suggest it be undone with the blocked user's ability to edit their own user talk page restored.--John Cline (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
• There is no bright line rule regarding this. As a matter of policy this falls within administrative discretion. I've seen some admins do this in ways I found a bit heavy-handed, and other times I've seen it permitted for what I thought was far too long. I understand the compulsion to alert others to vandalism and so on, but really, the point of a block is that the user go away for the duration of it, not spend the whole time trying to get proxies to do their bidding, regardless of their motivation for doing so. And I think there is also the matter of WP:IDHT behavior from this user (seventeen edit warring blocks with a handful of other blocks for other objectionable behavior) that may lead admins to not have a lot of patience for such things. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• I would not endorse this action. Without faulting Vanjagenije, because it has become a relatively common practice to yank talk page access for a range of undefined offences, I can't find any basis for the idea that a blocked users talk page is only there for unblock requests in existing written policy. The blocking policy says editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of their user talk page, or when the user has engaged on serious threats, accusations or outing which needs to be prevented from reoccurring—I think we can all agree that pointing out vandalism is not abuse Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block says that talk pages are left open so that they are not shut out completely and are able to participate at least to some degree in Wikipedia. Blocks (and this is a rare case where the block vs. ban distinction is not just pedantry) technically prevent a user from editing for a certain time; they don't exile them from our community. We encourage the idea that almost all blocked users can find their way back to editing. Walter may not be the best example of a blocked user using their talk page productively, but still I think it's unfair to impose additional sanctions on them that can seem punitive and that don't have a basis in written policy. Otherwise, how are people supposed to know what not to use their talk page for? A good outcome here would be for us to come up with an explicit policy on when talk page access should and should not be revoked. – Joe (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I have just reviewed the history of Vanjagenije's talk page and do not see where he was notified of this discussion. Walter Görlitz, that's hugely not cool! I've taken care of the notification[4] and will open a thread on the talk page with further discussion; we need to better ensure that the performer of actions being discussed on this project page is aware of the discussion.--John Cline (talk) 10:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @John Cline: Why is my asking for clarification here uncool? I expressly stated in my initial request that I sought no action against the admin. The admin made it imminently that they felt they explained their actions sufficiently and had nothing more to add. I will assume the admin is a hypocrite if they actually comment here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Sounds to me like you are arguing that you don't want this action reviewed but actually want to have a broader policy discussion. That being the case I would suggest this simply be closed and you open the policy discussion at WP:VP. Beeblebrox (talk)
      • Correct. No action requested and yes, I wrote that "this may not be the correct forum". Although village pump doesn't seem the right place either as it doesn't nicely fit into any of those topics either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Not trying to be snarky at all, but our de facto policy on this is that if you're a new account without friends, you aren't allowed to use your talk page for what you did, but if you have friends you can ignore the unspoken rule that you shouldn't be using your talk page to have your friends edit around a block either because admins don't feel like dealing with the fallout, or because your friends will take it to AN or here. While I agree with Beeblebrox that VPP is probably the best forum for this discussion, I also can somewhat confidently predict that the outcome will be no consensus meaning that the status quo of having two different applications of the policy depending on whether you're established/politically liked or not will probably continue. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• I made the original block, but as towards the revocation of TPA, what Espresso Addict is getting at one of the tensions of the blocking policy WP:BLOCKDETERRENT is part of the blocks are preventative policy, and typically long-term blocks are made with the intent that time away from the project will both 1) deter future behaviour and 2) prevent more blocks during the time period from repeated behaviour. The policy explicitly allows for this with the following lines: Blocks should be used to[...] deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. People doing the exact same thing they would do if not blocked non-stop, just on their talk page, doesn't really go in line with that. I think there's a difference between a few edits here or there, and non-stop review of watchlists and talk page posts. This isn't the only editor who is regularly blocked who does this, and he's certainly not the only one with friends to oppose TPA being revoked, but I think this is typically within discretion and in this case would have been justified as in line with the explicit language and objectives of the blocking policy quoted above. So, yeah, I endorse as within discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• The purpose of the block was to stop the edit-warring. It worked: happy days! This editor was using his talk page to fight vandalism, which is a reasonable use of a talk page even for a currently-blocked editor. Fighting vandalism is everyone's job. I can see how revoking his talk page access harms the encyclopaedia, and I can't see how it helps anyone, so I'd overturn. And I'm not one of the alleged friends of Walter Goerlitz, my edits have never intersected with his to my knowledge.—S Marshall T/C 13:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  Stopping the edit-warring didn't technically require the applied block duration nor width (site-wide), so either you're challenging these as well, or you're overlooking something that led to the duration and width choice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly. This is a tension in the blocking policy. Blocks are preventative, not punishment, but the policy also states Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur. They are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project and other users from disruption and inappropriate conduct, and to deter any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conduct.

  When someone has 17 edit warring blocks, and was last blocked for a month, the last escalation possible beyond indefing someone is usually 3 months, and that absolutely serves both a deterrent effect (in the this really is your last chance way) and in saving admins time from having to monitor user talk pages/noticeboard for potential disputes that would show a user wasn't heading the warning and continuing to edit war. Both of those rationales are allowed by the clear language of the blocking policy. Like a few have said above, when to revoke TPA is a discretionary thing, but it can absolutely go in line with these portions of the blocking policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  I'm confining my review to the appeal this user has made, so I've spoken only about the revocation of talk page access, not the scope of the block. This user's problem behaviour was edit warring in the mainspace and revoking talk page access doesn't help manage that.—S Marshall T/C 16:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Vacate. Administrative close /Struck overturn !vote after realizing that the block had expired at the time of appeal. Not a proper use of the venue./ /Unstruck after considering procedural arguments further below/ Unnecessarily restrictive. No real benefit, as it is not clear why what Vanjagenije characterizes as "proxy editing" in this context is something bad. Proxy editing is just one way of seeing it, and it's more of a figure of speech, as it is really not editing. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• Move to close. I don't think we should've had this discussion here at all, as the filer states they are not looking for any actual action to be taken, and it is not possible to overturn the action anyway since the block was already expired when the discussion began. This is turning into a broader policy discussion, which is not the purpose of this board. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think we have to be able to review decisions that have already expired, because otherwise we'd never be able to hear anything about a 31 hour block.—S Marshall T/C 22:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  @S Marshall: We could agree that the expired action was inappropriate but we wouldn't be able to overturn it because it had expired. Maybe the procedural result in such cases could be worded as "nominally overturned". — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  The antonym of "endorse" would be "deplore".—S Marshall T/C 13:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  How about "censure"? Edit: it would be stated clearly in any number of places that what is censured is the action not the editor. "Action censured" shortened to "censured". — Alalch Emis (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  How about these three possible outcomes: affirm, reverse, or vacate? Vexations (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think the concept here is clear, and I hope the closer of this discussion sees this as consensus that this revocation of talk page access is reviewable in this forum and should not be closed without action merely because the revocation has expired. We can discuss the exact wording for the concept on the talk page and I'll begin a discussion there now.—S Marshall T/C 17:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked editors have full use of their talk page for anything they could do when unblocked. Asking people to make edits isn't the same kind of Proxy editing that we normally block or remove TPA for. If you make edits on behalf of a banned editor, that is clearly in violation of policy. If I make edits that are recommended by a blocked editor, and I take full responsibility for those edits, that is fine. This all assumes the blocked user is acting in good faith. I don't get all the confusion here. I've heard several admin say that this isn't allowed, but it has been and still is. A temporary block is not the same thing as BANNED. I've done this for a blocked editor, and I will do it again. Never for a banned editor, but someone riding out a month of block but needs to correct a couple of things, sure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Decline of a G10 speedy deletion on Adan Santiago Goc-ong Igut performed by Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · logs)

(see User talk:Fram#Adan Santiago Goc-ong Igut). I had tagged this article (since deleted by another admin) as a G10, as it was unverifiable in general, and worse contained explicit claims about [redacted] the subject, [redacted]. These claims were "sourced" to an article which didn't even mention the subject (obviously). While Barkeep49 agreed that the article contained statements so bad that they needed suppression, he didn't agree that the article should be G10 deleted and this simply removed the deletion nomination and left it at that. This is extremely irresponsible behaviour, which they wikilawyered around because not all of the page was negative apparently, and there was an IMDb source (yeah, an unreliable user-generated site-, so the page wasn't totally unsourced either. That's good news for the people wanting to vandalize, harass, or otherwise attack people: just make sure that you first create some "source" elsewhere, and your page is immune from speedy deletion no matter how outrageous the BLP claims in it are. Fram (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy close. Not in scope. Review in deletion matters is at WP:DRV but as no deletion had taken place, even that would not be the right venue. Instead, the right venue is AfD. Edit: AfD had taken place and resulted in deletion. There's really nothing to talk about here. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

So if an admin does the wrong thing and another admin does the right thing afterwards, this isn't the right board to discuss that first wrong thing? That seems bizarre... Fram (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fram: Hypothetically if an admin had done the wrong thing pertaining to speedy deletion and another admin did the right thing, there's categorically nothing to talk about. Whatsoever. If there was a persuasive pattern, then maybe. But still, not here. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That makes no sense (the nothing to talk about: that it may belong at AN instead is of no concern to me). An action doesn't magically become better, worse, invisible, or not worth discussing because someone else made an action. If I were asking the first admin to overturn his action, yes, then that would be silly. But asking for a review of what happened, of what they did or refused to do, is not "nothing to talk about" by definition. You may consider the initial issue unimportant on its own merits, you may completely agree with what the original admin did (though, not being able to see the page involved, I wonder how you can), but the action of the second admin has no bearing at all on the possibility of discussion of the action of the first admin. Fram (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It has eminent bearing. If this was a mistake that was quickly corrected by another administrator (in tandem with the AfD process), this means that the process is working excellently and we need not concern ourselves. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I sure am not going to concern myself with you any longer, what a waste of time. Fram (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It's going to be hard for most people to weigh in on this because I suppressed some information prior to the page being deleted and so will be neutrally alerting the oversight list of this discussion as they are able to see all information and offer a complete review of my actions in-line with that groups practices. However, administrators should see the version I edited which removed the information Fram is concerned about. I believe that action, and accompanying revdel (or suppression) request rather than G10 is and was what remains appropriate. I look forward to considering the feedback offered by this review. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This matter was settled at AfD. Rehashing here is a waste of time. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be totally out of your depth here. Fram (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not about the version that was at AfD, so perhaps just shut up about the bloody AfD which is not related to this at all? Fram (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

In regards to Fram's comments above, I explicitly noted when declining to G10 it that I had not considered other CSD criteria. Liz who ended up deleting it did so under G4 which seems appropriate. I also noted on Fram's talk page that removing the troubling content and requesting revdel of suppression for those edits, rather than deleting the entire article, is what our PAG calls for and in the case of an experienced editor like Fram, I would expect that to have been considered before going to an option like G10. As to whether or not this is the right forum, I don't believe DRV handles a decision to not speedy delete something and so this seems like the right place. But if DRV is the right place that's fine too. I agree with Fram that one of these two forums is within scope to review this decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

As there was nothing in the article worth keeping (even ignoring the G4 issue which I wasn't aware of), with an editor adding fake references to the suppressed info ut also to most of the remainder, no, I didn't consider any of the other options better. Deleting the whole article as soon as possible was the only appopriate reaction to such a terrible article. Perhaps, as you were aware that I am an experienced editor and so on, you could have considered that I don't use G10 lightly and that it may well have been warranted? If you have an article with suppressable material, with no better version to return to, with an editor adding fake sources (sources used to "verify" something but which don't even mention the subject), an editor with no history of good edits, whose other articles were similar hoaxes or problem articles (and now deleted as well), then there is not a single reason to actually keep any of it a second longer than necessary. I don't know when you suppressed the information, it certainly was still there when I had to G10 it a second time since you refused it in the first place without any indication that you planned to take any action. Fram (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This will sound like a rhetorical question, but it's an honest straightforward question, as I haven't been here before. Is this new forum intended to be used to review single, isolated CSD declines? Especially ones that have basically been made moot? If this is just a one-off, seems like not a good use of everyone's time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

If it is serious enough, I think it is. This refusal to delete the page was so outrageous, and the wikilawyering because "not everything was negative" and "it had an IMDB source" so appalling, that simply ignoring it because another admin deleted it afterwards seems wrong. Fram (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Not outrageous, not wikilawyering, and more importantly not within the scope of this venue. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

As shown above, you have no idea what you are talking about, so please drop it. Fram (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Dial the aggression down or you'll be blocked from this page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Deal with the one responding all the time without knowing what he is saying instead perhaps? Or is it still the old case that civil disruption is allowed, but getting fed up with it is a problem? "This matter was settled at AfD. Rehashing here is a waste of time." was the "informed" opinion of this editor, I guess it needs applause instead? Fram (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

They are not required to be perfect. "Being as smart as Fram" is not a prerequisite for posting here. They made one mistake in understanding, everything else they've said is a pretty main-stream opinion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

We are reading different comments I guess. Fram (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm actually finding the clerking a bit annoying myself. —valereee (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Should removal of a CSD tag be reviewed as an admin action? Couldn't any editor, besides the creator of the page, remove the tag? Firefangledfeathers 18:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It shouldn't. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy close. This forum only deals with disputes "involving a tool not available to all confirmed editors", and removing a speedy-deletion tag is something that any editor can do. While I suppose Barkeep49 made the choice not to delete the page, this is administrative action review, not administrative inaction review. I also agree with Alalch above (who does know what he's doing) that deletion-related matters aren't really within XRV's scope. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Alalch, who thinks this is about an AfD? Right... If this isn't the right venue, then please move it to AN or ANI instead. Fram (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I support a move to AN. Are there ani objections? Firefangledfeathers 18:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the concerns below about focusing too much on process, but this is a case where I think following the process also yields the best substantive outcome: the only thing this discussion can do is draw more people's attention to very sensitive deleted/oversighted information, which is precisely the opposite of what WP:BLP says we should be doing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × many) Still thinking about the substance, but can we drop the procedural arguments, please? There is no dedicated forum for this besides ANI, and this is likely a better venue than the cesspit. Can we just examine the actual dispute? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Why would we drop the procedural argument if the procedural argument is the most conducive for the project as a whole? This is the wrong forum and WP:AN could be the right forum, if only the appeal was about something not totally trivial. Speedy deletion means speedy mistakes. It's a routine thing. If, hypothetically, one administrator made a speedy mistake in this highly routined process which was superseded by another administrator making a better call, there's categorically nothing to talk about. Not only would that be business as usual, it would be business going great. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

G10 speedies of this kind (where the material needs suppression) are hardly so routine. Removing G10 normally means that I wasn't allowed to readd the tag (but IAR), and that I would have needed to nominate the article for Prod or AfD instead (not being aware that it had been AfD under other titles). This situation is not "business going great" at all. Fram (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. Theoretically, if a sitting Arb made a serious mistake, it ought to be made clear to them it was a mistake. To your first point; because community time is our most precious resource, not office space at WP:AAR. Arguing about minutia at this level is pointless, and in keeping with that principle, this is the last I'll say about it. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 what's the connection to Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Administrative Action Review is what I meant. I didn't check the damn shortcut, apologies...though we really ought to claim it for here. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering if maybe it was some variation on WP:TROUT that I wasn't aware of. I mean, getting slapped with a fish is unpleasant, but I imagine getting slapped with a crocodile would be even worse. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: undergoing RfD ... — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is inherently routine. It's speedy. immediate. A sitting Arb is not a guru of CSD. They didn't become that because they were infallible at speedy deletion. They can comfortably make a number of such hypothetical suboptimal calls. We aren't doing brain surgery here. Take a real world perspective for a second. It's inconsequential for the project, and this instance merely proves it. That's why there are thousand plus administrators, and not one. The process has worked wonderfully here so far, resulting in a reaffirmation of the fact that problematic content can be deleted in a timely fashion. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the place to review actions, not processes. If a rouge admin deletes the Main Page and someone else reverts them, would you say "the process has worked wonderfully" and leave it at that? NebY (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say that the process of fighting vandalism has worked wonderfully, and I would fault the editor for vandalism. Is making a suboptimal call on a CSD vandalism? — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that the version of the article that was nominated for speedy deletion under G10 did not contain the inappropriate claims about the subject as Barkeep49 (properly) removed them. That leaves a garden-variety G10, yes? If yes, then I agree with those who say that declining a speedy deletion isn't within the purview of this board or, really, any board. Is there more here? Mackensen (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The version that was nominated for G10 did contain inappropriate information about the article subject, such that I think that removal and revdel and/or suppression would be appropriate; that is not in dispute. My contention is that that removal should have happened. Fram's contention is that given the remaining content after that was removed (and which is visible to anyone who can see deleted content) that the article qualified for G10 rather than merely revdel/suppression. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec)Uh, how did you come to that understanding? I nominated it for G10 before Barkeep49 was active on the article, I nominated it again for G10 after they had refused to enact the G10 but before the suppression (I can't check this, there is a possibility that when I was the article after the refusal the suppressed material was still there, but when I saved my second G10 it was already suppressed: I have no access to the article, the oversight logs, ... to check this). Fram (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(Jesus, that's a lot of edit conflicts) Non-Oversighters can only see Barkeep's very last version, where any reference to sexuality had been removed. It sort of appears that it was this second edit by Barkeep (after Fram's readding of the G10 tag) where Barkeep removed this reference, but I can't be sure. I also can't see what Fram included in the G10 tag; whether it was just a bare ((db-g10)) or if there was more info; in particular, I don't know if Barkeep knew about the made up references, or whether they saw the sexuality material the first time they declined it, and whether they were just looking at it thru a G10 yes/no filter. If A4 hadn't applied, and if I didn't know about the fake referencing, and with the sexuality stuff removed, I think I would have deleted it anyway, but I think it would have been a bit of an IAR deletion. A reasonable case could be made that G10 no longer applied. Based only on the limited info available to non-oversighters, I'd say Barkeep's suppression and tag removal was within admin discretion. If I'm understanding the timeline correctly, not removing the sexuality stuff the first time they declined a G10 was a mistake, but an understandable one, and remedied after it was pointed out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Fram, you refer to the article's "explicit claims", to the subject's name and age. Your complaint here reposts the same claims suppressed by Barkeep49. Words fail me. Cabayi (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Whatever. Suppress away, block away, I don't care. Apparently everyone is fine with wikilawyering, editors making constant ill-informed comments, sitting Arbs and UCOC writers letting problematic articles exist, and so on, but I somehow have to discuss this without indicating what the issues are. Please tell me how you would have formulated this incident in a way that showed the extreme obviousness of the G10 issues, but without actually saying anything at all. Go ahead, I'm too disillusioned by all this to really care. Fram (talk)
    • WP:ARB, WP:OS, m:Trust and Safety all have mailboxes to handle confidential info. I believe you're acquainted with them? Cabayi (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• (About 7 edit conflicts later): I offer no opinion on the content I can't see, but I want to say that I think this discussion should not be closed yet. Barkeep49 declined a G10. OK, we could quibble whether it amounts to an "action", but there's been an administrative decision that we can review. We could also argue with somewhat more substance about whether it belongs at DRV, but if it does, we should move it there. Wikipedians have a really nasty tendency to terminate discussions because we think they're in the wrong place, when it would be far better to decide where the right place is and then move the discussion over. Let's all stop trying to shut this down as out of scope and instead think it through.
  In general I'd tend to say that sysops should decline speedy deletions they aren't sure about.—S Marshall T/C 18:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Out of scope for XRV - Declining a CSD is an edit, and as such is outside the purview of Wikipedia:Administrative action review as the "edit" action does not require advanced permissions. The CSD policy already lays out how to handle this situation: If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used., so the argument remaining would be that the edit was not in good faith - which is a conduct question, outside the remit of this venue. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Now pointless Since everything, including the version that Barkeep49 didn't think was a G10, has been oversighted, practically no-one can advance an opinion anyway. Close this. (It should have been at ANI if anywhere, btw). Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Having read through this multiple times now, here's my two cents on the substance. FTR, I'm an OS and see everything. First off; if I had my way, I would delete (with the option of suppressing) any and all unsourced content about minors: I think they deserve that level of privary, regardless of whether they post the content themselves. Unfortunately neither policy nor common practice agrees with me. The CSD criteria don't cover all such material, and they are intentionally narrow in what they do cover. Information about a child's sexuality reasonably falls under G10, as it can have the effect of an attack page even if it's not intended that way (and it often is). The rest of the content was not attack content. It's not disparaging in any way. It was covered by G3 as a hoax, since the references were fake; it was borderline covered by A7, again, because the claims to significance were bogus; but determining that required reading the sources. It was also covered by G4, but knowing that required knowing of an AfD at a different title, and it was covered by G5, but knowing that required an SPI.
  The timeline I see is as follows; Fram tags and blanks at 17:06, Barkeep reverts the tag at 17:16, Fram reverts at 17:18, Barkeep suppresses bad revisions at 17:21, and reverts in a version minus the suppressed content at 17:23. Any argument was after that. I'm going to AGF here that Barkeep was intending to delete and suppress the information about sexuality when Fram reverted him. I also don't believe we expect admins patrolling G10 tags in particular to examine all the sourcing in a tagged article. Given that, I don't see what Barkeep49 did wrong here. He could have done what Liz later did, or checked the sourcing and determined it was a hoax; but we're a volunteer project, and if checking the G10 is all he had time for, we shouldn't be telling him not to do it. The same goes for Fram, too; he could have checked the sources, added multiple CSD tags, and noted with the tags that the references were fake; but he didn't. I suspect this would have been resolved far quicker if Fram had taken a less belligerent approach; I don't think Barkeep would have declined a G3 if it had been politely pointed out that the references were fake. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'm also an Oversighter and was about to post a timeline when I saw Vanamonde93 had already done so, and I endorse everything they say. Declining the G10 speedy deletion was correct, as only a small part of the content was plausibly harassing - G10 requires the page to "serve no other purpose" and CSD generally requires there to be no viable alternative than to delete the whole page. Given that the page could be (and Barkeep did) edit the page to remove the supressable content and lave a neutral biography, the requirements of the criterion were not met. We do not require admins assessing speedy deletion requests to evaluate the page to see whether it meets other criteria, nor do we expect them to be aware of every previous AfD and every SPI case, but I would have also declined G3 and A7 nominations for the article as it makes a clear claim of importance, and without a close review of the sources it is not possible to know the page was a hoax meaning it did not meet those criteria either. I also note that I am extremely disappointed that Fram apparently chose to quote inappropriate content (here and in an edit summary at the article), drawing more attention, directly contrary to the WP:BLP policy. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I quoted in the edit summary the actual contents for which had Barkeep had refused the G10, and had at the time done nothing to remove it or indicated that they were going to. Apparently they did nothing wrong leaving the text in the article, but I have "extremely disappointed" you putting the exact same text they should have instantly deleted in an edit summary. Well, well, what a surprise... Fram (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That´s two times now, Thryduulf, that you try to take revenge for my small role in your failed Arbcom run. I hope there won´t be a third one, as it doesnnt become you. Fram (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

    I don't know where you get the idea that I have, or have had, any desire for "revenge" or anything similar? I told you last time you brought it up that your comments on my arbcom candidacy were completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, the same is true now, and if I ever feel the need to criticise your actions again in the future it wont be revenge then either. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from casting aspersions about my motives in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

    Regarding the actual matter at hand, you quoted content you believed to be a BLP violation in an edit summary affirming that you really believed it was a BLP violation. You then quoted the material here after it had been suppressed and you knew it had been suppressed, yes that is extremely disappointing conduct. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Speedy close removal of a CSD tag is not an admin action, nor one requiring any advanced permission. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Seems like the next uninvolved admin who sees this should consider closing it, rather than commenting further. Fram has received the feedback he was looking for, and things are unnecessarily personal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Use of rollback on Yat Siu performed by David Gerard (talk · contribs · logs). (Talk:Yat Siu#Where was the consensus to redirect this page to Animoca Brands? and User talk:David Gerard#Talk:Yat Siu#Where was the consensus to redirect this page to Animoca Brands?)

David Gerard used rollback in this edit to revert one of my edits. He also used rollback here and here to revert two edits from IP addresses. Following the suggestion of two editors at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 4#Yat Siu that the use of rollback should be reviewed in this venue, I am opening this discussion to ask the community whether these uses of rollback complied with WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'm one of the two editors who proposed at DRV that the rollback be reviewed at this forum. It strikes me as straight misuse -- the edits weren't blatant vandalism or spam, and the first rollback was 'straight rollback' with no edit summary. There is a grey area in that the article being restored was quite stubby on a subject matter often checkered by promotionalism. I would myself have been hesitant to see a longstanding -- if unilateral -- redirect restored to create an apparently promotional article, although Cunard is an extremely tenured editor who knows what he's doing, which should have been a sign to pause. That said, even after the switch from straight rollback (clearly inappropriate) to using edit summaries, the edit summary in question was not supported by an actual underlying consensus that either Cunard or anyone at DRV has been able to find, which is...also questionable (if not in XRV's scope as much as the straight rollback). Vaticidalprophet 09:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• I have undone a previous close of this thread which offered the following closing statement, as it was clearly mistaken in what this page's purpose is:

Wrong venue, rolling back is not a function limited to admins (altho it is also bundled in with the admin tools). This is just an edit war, and an attempt at a discussion via edit summaries which is not ideal. Best way to move forward here is to restore the previous stable state of the article and send it to WP:AfD, which I have now done. Take the behavioral issues -- which are around edit warring not use of admin tools -- to WP:ANI if you really want to air that part out. Herostratus (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, that sure sucks. Undoing closes should not be done lightly, User:Usedtobecool. Particularly if you don't exactly know what you're doing. You don't know that this is a good venue, User:Usedtobecool. Because it's a new board. We don't really have case law on that, yet. Herostratus (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Herostratus: it was definitely intended that XRV could also handle other advanced permissions (and currently lists rollback in the nice green box). More generally, speedy closes should be of a higher standard than undoing speedy closes - if the case law is unclear on if something does fall under XRV (and I'm absolutely positive there will be discussions on just that), then it should be discussed first before shuttering discussion Nosebagbear (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Since the action has already been reversed, this thread is moot. WP:ANI is the venue to discuss everything else, such as... this article's history is not the only recent example of David's misuse of rollback (this was seemingly done without even looking, this, this, this). If fact it seems that misuse of rollback is more common than valid use (I only found one or two examples of proper use in the same timeframe). There are also other issues involved here (including citing non-existent consensus, edit-warring and failing to engage in discussion over content issues, and not following policies and normal processes if they can be viewed as "optional" in any way), some of which seem to happen all too frequently in David's contribution history. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The bigger issue I see here is the slow edit war by David Gerard. After the redirect was reverted the first couple times, editors should've have either discussed the article on its talk page or sent it straight to AfD, where the broader community could try to find a consensus, instead of reverting it six more times. David Gerard should be reminded that rollback shouldn't be used to edit war. Isabelle ^🔔 14:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Break

So, here's what I think is happening here. Here, we have a new board -- important board. New thing! Just as with Marbury vs Madison, we're going to have to figure out how this new thing works, where its boundaries are.

So. Anybody can rollback. I can rollback. You can rollback (if you can't, just ask; thousands of non-admins have rollback privileges, and you can too if you're reasonably experienced and sane I think). I don't even hardly use mine, because "restore previous version" works just as well. Rolling back is a nothingburger.

We know it's a nothingburger because regular editors immediately undid it. Deleting, blocking... regular editors can't undo those. That's what this board is for. If it's just (basically) an edit that an admin made, but not (really) using admin tools, it's not for this board.

If people are insistent that we have to resolve the bad behaviors here (I'd let it lie, but whatever), WP:ANI is the place to go. I mean, I mean, three editors (at least) -- User:David Gerard, User:IceWelder, and User:John B123 -- are involved in one side of the edit war, and only [[User:David Gerard] is an admin. Doesn't that make it a bit awkward, to either 1) Deal only with User:David Gerard and not the other two, or 3) include the non-admins for potential scolding or sanction here, even tho they're not admins? And that's not counting the editors on the other side of the argument, who for all I know are behaving badly also.

This whole thing has has been a comedy of errors. It's liable to continue since User:Usedtobecool decided to blow thru the stop signs, but what I suggest is that editors agree that this is not the right venue and to not discuss the non-meta aspects of the situation here, but deal with the merits of the content issues Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yat Siu, and the behavior issues (if you feel the need to) by opening a thread at WP:ANI.

As to the Marbury vs Madison issue -- what, exactly, are the parameters, limits, powers, and uses of this board as opposed to ANI and other boards -- that is worth discussing, IMO.

It might be that the Wikipedia has been missing a kind of "Here'a an admin we don't like, let's look thru his history and see what's what, even tho he's not actually misusing any admin tools" board. Maybe! In fact, I personally think we should, which is why I support admin re-confirmation (admin recall if you will). That's never going to happen, but not because it's not popular. So, I see can editors wanting to take the opportunity to turn this board into that sort of a venue. Should we? I dunno, but that's whats really on the the table here, I think. Herostratus (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Herostratus has, for some curious reason, decided to split his personal referendum on the purpose of XRV-slash-yelling at Usedtobecool for listening to the explicit stated purpose of XRV across multiple fora. This is the highest-profile one, so I'll just directly copy my post on his talk: "Trying to precisely define the scope of a new board is an important, even laudable thing for the exact reasons you note. That would be why XRV has been explicitly defined from the very outset as including non-admin-specific permissions such as rollback (see specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools and explicit reference to permissions granted at WP:PERM at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Proposals, repeated at WT:XRV, plus repeated reference at WT:XRV to permissions all over the adminship scale) -- specifically to avoid misunderstandings like the one you just made. (Substantial modern-era precedent also exists for the reviewing of rollback specifically for admins specifically, e.g. the GiantSnowman arbcom case.)" I am unsure that there is a point to this...point-making?...in general, but inasmuch as there is, it strikes me as a fundamental disagreement to "XRV is the place to discuss disputed use of rollback", which is stated right up there in XRVPURPOSE, affirmed in the discussions that led to the creation of XRV itself, and consistent with pre-XRV discussion on both admins and non-admins using rollback. Vaticidalprophet 11:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Per the top of this page: Administrative action review may be used: ... to review an individual action of someone using one of the following advanced permissions ... Rollback. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Not everyone can rollback. I explicitly never had it until it was given to me as part of sysop. So that initial statement that anyone can do it is wrong and because it has to be given out at PERM and its use is not covered by another review board, its use, per the RfC which established this forum, should be reviewed here when there may be an improper use. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

And regarding the argument that it is such because you can just ask for it - large numbers of individuals have rollback requests declined at PERM. In fact, in terms of numbers of declines, it'll be one of the highest. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Herostratus: How is making a single edit on an article edit warring? --John B123 (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Wrong venue. This isn't an admin action. WP:ANI is where this would belong. This board is exclusively for review of admin actions that require the bit, not just any action an admin takes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Dennis Brown:, why do you think that? The close of the RfC that created XRV specifically notes Finally, we note that the process as proposed is not just about the evaluation of administrative actions, but about all advanced permissions, and thus also applies to non-administrators - it's specifically not just for admin actions that require the bit. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Then I stand corrected. This is a new board, and as you can see, there is already a lot of confusion about the scope. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

      Do you think there's wording in the header that could help clarify this? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

      • I initially was confused by this myself. We should definitely make it more clear that this board is not just for reviewing actions by administrators, but the use of any advanced permissions in general, which includes many non-admins. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• My apologies to Cunard for the use of the rollback button here - being editorial, the edits should have been by loading the previous version, editing and saving, the desired effect. I'll endeavour to be more mindful of this in future - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  It was okay regardless. In BRD pertaining to restoring redirects back into articles, when reverted, one needs to discuss on the talk page. If the restorer doesn't agree with an edit summary they can seek an explanation on article talk. If the reverted/rollbacked restorer thinks that the summary was not substantive and that WP:STONEWALLING could be taking place, they still need to discuss it with the reverter first, and not edit war by reverting the revert. After a revert of the revert had occurred, restoring the redirect needs no further explanation. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Formatted discussion

• Endorse. The use of rollback in the instances cited in the appeal was not inconsistent with WP:ROLLBACKUSE because the rollback was used to revert edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear. The reason was absolutely clear because this is clearly a dispute about whether restoring the redirect is warranted. In the given situation, analyzing the edit history, one can not think anything other than David Gerrard being of a view that the redirect should not be restored and acting on this by reverting—using rollback or not, under these circumstances, it doesn't matter. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

For me, the only tentative problem here is reverting a single edit using rollback. The meaning of rollback is being entrusted with the added convenience of reverting multiple, successive, edits where an edit summary is not necessary, in a single click. I would disallow using rollback to revert only one edit. Strictly. But in ROLLBACKUSE this is not even mentioned. So this is just my subjective view. Edit: @David Gerard: acting in the spirit of your apology, you could propose or support this addition to the guideline governing rollbacking; I really believe you'd agree that this is the root problem. Edit2: actually I'd disable rollbacking in the software when only one change can be rolled back. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think more instructions on subtle differences to the various editing interfaces is unlikely to substantially help anything in the general case, and only make discussions on pages such as this much longer without really helping a lot - David Gerard (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. See the part of my comment starting with "Edit2" though :) — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The vast majority of actual vandalism is done with a single edit, often to many different articles consecutively. It would be incredibly counterproductive to prevent rollback from functioning based on requiring multiple changes. I'm relatively certain that such a change would never gain consensus. The litmus is, and should remain, whether or not the vandalism is unequivocal.--John Cline (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse - no actual misuse of tools requiring special privileges. I can see Cunard's POV here, but the problem was too many editors editing too quickly: the normal comedy of cross-purposes that afflicts editors without elevated privileges. — Charles Stewart (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• overturn I disagree that things were "absolutely clear". New sources had been added, promotional text removed. Rollback shouldn't be used in such a case--it remains unclear why the editor thinks the edit should be undone. I'd claim that the later claims of "previous consensus" (which as far as I can tell have never been explained) are also problematic because they appear to be false (or at least no one seems to know what it is referring to). But this is the wrong forum for that. Hobit (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn. Per my comment above, this was a clear misuse of rollback ("Use of standard rollback for... reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool"; in addition, rollback edits are marked as minor and this was obviously not a minor edit). The other issues should be discussed at ANI. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• FWIW, I already said I shouldn't have used rollback here, and apologised and will endeavour to do better in future. I guess that's the perpetrator saying it shouldn't have been done. Was there a specific desired outcome? - David Gerard (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  While not rollback related, I know I'd appreciate you explaining what you meant by previous consensus when you reverted after the rollback. I believe you've been asked in at least three places (twice with pings and once on your talk page) and I don't think you've responded to any of them. Hobit (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Agree the comment above. The "perpetrator" of the potentially incorrect use of rollback has apologised and said they'll do better in future. If this was AN or ANI (or even just usertalk) that would be the end of the matter. However in deference to this being a new noticeboard, can anyone please point to what further outcomes might be expected here? -- Euryalus (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  The only "future outcome" that I anticipate, and hope to see, is David Gerard never being seen here again for using rollback in a manner inconsistent with policy (and that would be a great outcome). While this venue for review only evaluates tool usage in singularity, against existing policy, it does not, in and of itself, desire the role of a sanctioning body. Nevertheless, if the same user is repeatedly found, in future singular instances, to use the same tool contrary to policy, grounds may arise to impose sanctions which would necessarily have to be sought elsewhere, for example: ANI or ARBCOM. In so far as the performer admitting an error was made while expressing the good faith intention not to repeat the error, I would consider the matter resolved and, if not for the tentative requirement that an uninvolved administrator perform the close, might/probably would have closed it myself. Nevertheless, I don't see where the closer could possibly find difficulty with closing the discussion as it stands. I don't know if this helps in answering your question, but it's my best answer (if I understood your question properly) in accordance with my understanding of this forum. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, yes. Two things in passing: I don't know if the RfC actually mandated this but closes shouldn't be restricted to admins only, especially if the outcome doesn't require admin tools. Any experienced and uninvolved editor should be fine. Also the listed requirement for 7 days of discussion seems a bit long. Appreciate this doesn't seem to be being applied (eg. the thread below this closed in less than a day?) but some "unless resolved earlier" wording might be worthwhile.I see these have been discussed on the talkpage. Can't say I agree with the reasoning there, but this thread isn't the place for it. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

block of indefinite duration on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Neo-Nazi Propaganda and South AfricaDesertambition (talk · contribs · logs · block log) performed by Ymblanter (talk · contribs · logs) (User talk:Ymblanter#I performed it myself, no need to discuss with myself)

possibly controversial block for community review Ymblanter (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec) I have just blocked Desertambition for accusing their opponents in neo-nazi propaganda in this AN thread. This not the first time and not the first venue they raise the issue, and I do not have in principle problems with the issue being discussed, however, I dfo not think we can tolerate neo-Nazi propaganda accusations without very specific and targeted diffs showing that this is indeed neo-Nazi propaganda. I, in the same thread, told the user in no uncertain terms that this must stop, and it they do not I block them. They doubled down and I blocked them. Since the block can be seen as controversial I prese4nt it for the community review.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

If every possibly controversial action is brought here, it will kill the forum by choking it with unworthy cases. Wait for a substantive objection or complaint that you can’t answer to their satisfaction. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Last time the block which I have made escalated to ArbCom within, I believe, 8 hours, and nobody at ANI was not even interested in my explanations. This is something I would like to avoid this time. The blocked user already disagreed with the block.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok.

It’s his first block. Why is it indefinite, and not, say, 8 days? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Half of his edits, over 7 years, were in the last week. I think it is the “indefinite” part only that seems harsh. I think WP:CBD could give better advice to you. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Cosmetic bot day...?! SN54129 13:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. WP:CDB. Cool down blocks. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven’t found a particularly singularly offensive post (a link to one would be helpful), but he has been working himself into a frenzy. I think escalating warnings and then escalating blocks measured in days would have been better. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Unworthy nomination. There is no evidence of dispute over your block. This is meant to be a high level review forum, not a water cooler. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This could be a possible outcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocking policy at WP:WHYBLOCK says "After placing a potentially controversial block, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review." I think it's perfectly reasonable for Ymblanter to have chosen to bring it here instead.--John Cline (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse I think the right thing was done for the right reason, WP:NOTHERE is absolutely correct. You cannot go complaining about alleged racial bias in Wikipedia without specific links and then go and compare a whole ethnicity to the Nazis. Even on the RM discussion at Talk:King William's Town, they were happy to promote their own sources but accused those presenting sources supporting the argument against a move as "cherrypick"-ing. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Respect SmokeyJoe's view but disagree. Obviously Desertambition considers the block unfair, so it's not quite true that there's no evidence of a dispute. Mildly, we also just had a day and half debate over a single use of rollback, so am not sure why an indef block is not worth considering. On the specific topic: the block looks fine to me in the context of Desertambition's previous disruptive comments, and their general approach as outlined by The C of E in the post above. But other views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Desertambition has been repeatedly warned about this, but now claims I was not told I would be blocked^{11:35, 8 January 2022}

• 22:43, 31 December 2021 by Toddy1
• 17:45, 5 January 2022 by Vanamonde93
• 09:32, 8 January 2022 by Ymblanter

By the way, I know how he/she feels. I once got a DIGWUREN warning and was told that if I did the thing I was warned for again I would get an instant indefinite block. But unlike Desertambition, I was willing to listen. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - My feeling is that a long block is justified, but an indefinite block for what appears to be just unapologetically uncivil behaviour might be excessive. What about a 12-month block? Running into a brick wall and having to face it for a year is a thing that can force attitue readjustment. If s/he is still committed to BATTLEGROUND editing with all incivility guns blazing a year from now, we can reach for the indefinite block then.

This is not a suggestion that the indef block is contrary to policy, rather I am wondering if something like 'endorse defensible indef block but shorten to a year' would be a good outcome to this XAR? — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment -- I prefer indefinite blocks over time-limited blocks, but only when the block notice is accompanied by a clear explanation for what the user needs to do to (in their unblock request, presumably) to become unblocked. This user is obviously frustrated and doesn't know how to express the frustration in a productive manner. There may be a few points that the user is making which WP would do well to consider, but obviously the choice of bludgeoning and forum shopping is doing the argument no favors. A clear explanation of what the next steps should be would be helpful as it may feel to the user right now that indefinite=infinite. jps (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse Desertambition appears to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and has gone entirely too far in attacking other editors they get into disagreements with. I don't doubt some articles in this topic area have issues with things like bias, but the way Desertambition went about it, accusing their opponents of being nazis (and implicitly calling an entire ethnic group such) is fundamentally unacceptable. Their recent behavior has not been compatible with a collaborative encyclopedia with a global base of editors and readers. If I were in Ymblanter's shoes, I would have blocked them too, but I'm not sure I would have gone for an indef immediately. That said, there should be a path given for this user to be unblocked and return to editing, provided they are willing to abide by our policies. It's up to them if they are willing to do so. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse — Desertambition had been insisting on renaming towns in South Africa, per the dispute reviewed in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive339#Bias Present in Articles Regarding Renamed Places in South Africa. The tone of his words there suggested he was on Wikipedia to right great wrongs. That view is also supported by a look at his user page. I wouldn't support unblock unless he expresses willingness to give up his crusade, which he could still do, by a proper unblock request. A time-limited block would just be postponing the inevitable. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse Both use of this NB and the block itself. Screaming 'Nazi' is unlikely to lead to civil consensus in a contentious area that has apartheid as a backdrop.Slywriter (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse. A time-limited block will not serve here, as Desertambition was repeatedly told their conduct was problematic, and they didn't course-correct. As Toddy1 notes, I left a warning myself, telling them that they needed to abide by both our procedural and behavioral guidelines. I don't think they should be unblocked until they commit to that. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Moot - If you don't have at least a few people complaining (besides the blocked party), then it shouldn't be here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse: the indef block was the most preventative action per Bilorv. Overturn (and convert to a long block) per Charles Stewart. A long block as opposed to an indefinite block seems sufficiently preventative. /struck prev. as not what I really think upon reflection and reading all the others' comments/ — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse: the dispute here seems to be that the block was indefinite. To consider this an infinitely more stringent block than, say, a one month block is to make the common confusion between "indefinite" and "infinite". The indefinite block can be easier to appeal than long time-limited blocks. The key is that time-limited blocks allow for a user to simply wait out their allotted time and then resume the unacceptable behaviour. Here, the behaviour was not acceptable and the user showed no signs that they would not continue it in the future, so what we need for an unblock is some evidence that the user will not continue the behaviour and is interested in building an encyclopedia. That could take 24 hours, much better than a year-long block whose appeals are declined.
  This being said, I do sympathise with the user as the internet does contain a huge amount of white nationalist propaganda about South Africa, I've not seen anywhere where they accuse specific individuals of inserting/supporting white nationalist material and their heated Afrikaner comment appeared not to properly convey their actual opinion. I've given them some advice that I feel was missing. — Bilorv (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment/observation I've been editing articles on Rhodesia and the Apartheid-era South African security regime. The South African articles are generally pretty good and reflect the recent literature, which indicates that Wikipedia doesn't have a systematic problem here. The same unfortunately can't be said for articles on Rhodesia, many of which repeat blatantly racist clap trap. As a result, Desertambition's concerns may have some merit, but the way they have gone about raising this is clearly unhelpful. Regarding the process applying to this review, I really, really, don't like the idea of admins self-reporting a use of the admin tools for review unless concerns have been raised about it. Nick-D (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I already mentioned this here, but last time someone had concerns about my use of admin tools, I was taken to ANI with the message "either you unblock now or I take you to Arbcom to remove the tools", and in 8 hours (which were mostly my nighttime) I was taken to Arbcom notwithstanding. This is an experience I would like to avoid in the future. If consensus is that this is not appropriate venue for self-reporting AND its use is not obligatory, I will not take any actions which could be seen as even remotely controversial.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't mean that as a criticism of you. I'm more worried about the establishment of a norm with this very new process where admins might be expected to self-refer themselves if they make actions that could be potentially controversial. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse The block seems entirely consistent with policy and well within administrator discretion. More importantly it is a good idea. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse I'm perplexed by the idea some people put forward above that a time-limited but exceedingly long block would be better in some way. If you are blocked indefinitely, all you need to do to be unblocked is to demonstrate that you understand the problem, and undertake convincingly that it won't happen again. You coukd be unblocked within a few days if you do that. A time-limited block is identical of course, except that you have the option of not accepting that there was a problem and not undertaking not to act in the same way again. Let it time out, and you can resume editing after a few days/weeks. But a year? If you want to edit here, you will request unblock before a limit like that has expired (hell, the standard offer for banned users is six months), or you'll create a sock and hope that nobody notices. Telling someone that they're on the bench for a year isn't helpful - better to tell them what was wrong, what they need to change, and that they won't be allowed back until they change it, then welcome them with open arms if they agree to do that. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think this is probably misunderstanding of indefinite vs. time-limited blocks and how experienced admins (should) use them. It sounds to someone who doesn't have a lot of experience like the equivalent of a life sentence, so a yearlong block sounds less draconian. When actually the opposite is true. I've lifted an indef after just hours because the person said, "Oh. I didn't realize it was that serious a thing. Sorry, I've read the policy now and I'll be more careful." valereee (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  This is exactly what I wanted to express in the first paragraph of my comment, but much better put. The key is that blocks aim to prevent specific problematic behaviour, not to punish people. — Bilorv (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse The reason for indefinite blocks (rather than time-limited) for users who don't seem to be willing/able to get what they're doing wrong is that in order to get unblocked, the user must show they understand the reasons they were blocked and how to avoid being disruptive in future. Time-limited blocks don't do this; editors can simply wait them out without making any behavioral changes. Indefinite does not mean infinite. valereee (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse Ymblanter's decision to indef. screaming or calling someone a Neo-Nazi without cogent proof to substantiate this, is an egregious violation of WP:PA. The editor themselves are WP:NOTHERE as they basically are engaging in WP:TE. Furthermore I’m echoing Valereee. Celestina007 (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Yeah, endorse. The need is to protect Desertambition's targets and prevent further disruption, and this sanction is an appropriate and proportional means of doing so. We need an environment of collegiality and camaraderie so we can work effectively together.—S Marshall T/C 12:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I just saw this article at CAT:CSD tagged with ((db-g12)). As the Earwig tool reported "75% violation likely" I concluded the G12 tagging was correct and deleted it. However, I've since discovered that there has been a dispute between Fram and Jimfbleak on this draft which I was unaware of at the point at which I deleted it, making this deletion (apparently) controversial. In general, I take action on G12 deletions as soon as I spot them, as I believe they can cause legal repercussions to Wikipedia if they are not immediately deleted. So I would like the community to conclude whether all the administrator actions taken so far have been appropriate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Jimfbleak's admin action here was inappropriate. The draft should not have been restored and "The tool will advise you if the level of matches are acceptable" is not good advice. Content that is largely copyright violation should not even be refunded by email, because the correct thing to do is not to rewrite the content, but to start from scratch. Taking a piece of text from elsewhere and changing it is a recipe for creating close paraphrasing and other types of copyvios. You must write each sentence from scratch in your own words for it to be your own writing. In some sense, Earwig gives a lower bound (apart from quotes and sources that copy Wikipedia), as there can always be sources that it does not have access to which material could be copied from. But 75% does not mean "it's 75% of a copyright violation", and 0% or 9% can still be a copyvio. Something either is or is not a copyright violation as we define it on Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse Ritchie333's action. Copyvio is copyvio, no matter in which namespace it is, and should always be removed at sight, either via removal of the infringing text and revision deletion or if it beyond saving, G12. Jimfbleak's restoration here was a inappropriate action. Had the editor rewritten the text we would A) be in danger of close paraphrasing, as noted by Bilorv above, and B) the infringing content would still be there in the page history, meaning it would still need cleaning up. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Once again, we have a thread that is currently indistinguishable from ANI. If that just can't be prevented, then there is no point in having a separate noticeboard. I was under the impression that this board would never have an outcome other than "admin action endorsed" or "admin action overturned". If that is true, all the other stuff about Jimfbleak, Fram, and Kwesi Yema does not belong here. Someone who really cares whether or not this board takes spark should do some clerking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Floquenbeam, would that mean that Ritchie's redeletion belongs here, but discussion about Jimfbleaks actions belongs at ANI? That would not be a good solution either. Or that we can discuss Jimfbleaks deletion/undeletion, but not the accompanying advice they left? I'm not quite clear on which parts you see as acceptable here and which not, but if it would result in dividing the discussion of the same situation over different noticeboards then it doesn't seem workable to me. Fram (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    • The whole mess probably belongs at ANI. This board, in bullet number one, is for review of a single admin action. This is just a typical ANI free-for-all with a smaller audience. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Also (and I'm less confident about this), this is about a deletion, which this board is explicitly not supposed to handle. DRV is that way --> --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

      The best part is even if the admin action isn't endorsed by a smaller audience, it still has to go to ANI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Block

Block on Ytpks896 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) performed by NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs · logs) (discussion with blocking admin)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092#Disruptive_user_keeps_reverting_without_valid_reason

A sock-puppet investigation was opened against Ytpks896 in 2020, but it was dismissed because the evidence was insufficient. Fast forward a year and a half, NinjaRobotPirate blocks Ytpks896 as a suspected puppet of the same sockmaster, without providing evidence (the admin also has CU privileges but the block was not a CU block). I asked them on their talk page about the evidence used, but after a brief exchange I was simply told to "go away".

Why is this a problem? The policy requires sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny, but no evidence at all has been provided here. I know that sometimes admins block suspected socks on sight without indicating what evidence was used, but my understanding is that this is acceptable only for really obvious cases and when the suspected sock is a relatively new user. If a user has been around for two years, made several thousand edits, and had a previous socking allegation (that was backed up by a lengthy presentation of evidence) dismissed, then they certainly deserve better than to be suddenly blocked without explanation. – Uanfala (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've advised this user to use the unblock template after they posted a help message asking another admin to review the situation. Not reviewed the block enough to provide an opinion on this yet. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• [7] "Go away. I don't like passive-aggressive people. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)" is a WP:ADMINACCT failure. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• On reviewing the merits of the block, and subsequent handling of the situation by NinjaRobotPirate, I performed a checkuser of Ytpks896—I believe the behavioural evidence and legitimate concerns of sockpuppetry exceed the grounds for checking per policy. On reviewing the technical data, I discovered that Ytpks896 is  Confirmed to a number of previously confirmed sockpuppet accounts. I endorse NinjaRobotPirate's initial block, but would remind them that they are required by policy to "justify their actions when requested". For clarity, the route of appeal for a checkuser block is detailed at Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser blocks -- TNT (talk • she/her) 01:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  That would seem to be the logical outcome, then. I don't believe Uanfala's tone reached the level where not responding at that comparatively early comms stage was warranted (though for clarity, it was also not a great way of asking for review), but obviously the block judgement was reasonable. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• If someone politely asks me for evidence, I respond much differently than if some random person comes to my talk page with outright accusations of blocking people randomly for no reason, which is an aspersion. But it looks like this is considered acceptable behavior on English Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to TNT for re-examining the block and doing a CU: that makes the issue moot, and the case is over as far as I'm concerned. Just a few notes though. I agree that there was a failure of ADMINACCT, and I believe that an editor performing a significant action (especially an administrative one) should be accountable, and not just to the people who approach them in exactly the way they want to be approached. However, if my comments were felt to be passive-aggressive, then there was obviously a massive failure on my part as well. I would genuinely like to know, what should I have said differently to avoid such an impression? Here's the exchange:

Hi! I've noticed that you've blocked Ytpks896 as a sockpuppet. Is that a CU block? The most recent SPI case I can see is from 2020, it was against the same user but was dismissed because of the absence of evidence. – Uanfala (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Most of my blocks are not from SPI cases. But, no, it doesn't look like it was a CU block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I haven't kept up to date with how sock hunting is done nowadays, but my experience from a couple of years ago was that for an editor to be banned as a sock, there needed to be evidence, solid evidence usually. – Uanfala (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There has never been a requirement for a case at SPI before someone is blocked as a sock puppet. Luckily, Wikipedia's bureaucracy does have limits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if a formal SPI is required, but the presence of solid evidence certainly is. I don't believe you've just blocked this established regular editor on a whim? – Uanfala (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Go away. I don't like passive-aggressive people. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't want to ask right away "What's your evidence?", because that would have felt brusque. I tried to provide a few hints and nudges for something that would have been obvious enough. What did I do wrong? – Uanfala (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You're telling a longtime admin and CU that evidence is required--of course they already know that. If you're familiar with CU and SPI, surely you also know that CU evidence is not usually (or ever) shared broadly. I suppose NRP could have said a bit more about the evidence, and responded differently, but I can hear the passive-aggressive tone here, and Uanfala acknowledged that themselves in their response. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily sensing a lot of passive-aggressive behavior, if anything, Uanfala seemed perfectly polite and cordial in this request. On the other hand, Uanfala never really explicitly challenged this block and asked NRP to explain their actions, so I can't really see this as a complete failure of WP:ADMINACCT. It seems like Uanfala was attempting to be overly polite, and this was interpreted as passive aggression. Uanfala asked a bunch of questions that implied that there were questions about the block, but never actually came out and said, "please tell me what evidence you had to conclude that the blocked user is a sockpuppet." If you never ask a question, you can't fault someone for not answering it. NRP answered all of the questions that were actually asked of them (even though there was a fairly obvious implied question that went unanswered). Additionally, I know that admins that frequently work with sockpuppets are often hesitant to reveal all of the things they look at to identify sockpuppets, as that would allow these users to more easily evade detection in the future. I'm not sure if that was a consideration for why NRP didn't immediately explain all of the details about this block before even being asked to do so. In the end, it appears that the block was accurate, based on the CU evidence given above. So, my conclusion of this event is that it was a good block, I'd give a small trout for NRP for perhaps having a bad day and being somewhat rude, and I'd advise Uanfala to come out and just clearly ask the question next time instead of beating around the bush with side questions and implications. Apart from that, I don't see any other action resulting from this interaction. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I see no passive-aggressiveness or other problems in the way Uanfala raised the issue on NRP's talk page in the excerpt quoted above. I think "Go away. I don't like passive-aggressive people." falls below the expectations of admins explaining their actions. Also, NRP's comment here, "If someone politely asks me for evidence, I respond much differently than if some random person comes to my talk page with outright accusations of blocking people randomly for no reason, which is an aspersion." is problematic. Uanfala was polite. And they are not "some random person", they are an editor with 13 years experience and 57,000 edits. They did not make accusations of blocking people randomly for no reason, not outright or otherwise. Uanfala's comment, "I don't believe you've just blocked this established regular editor on a whim?" explicitly communicates that Uanfala believes NRP had evidence (Uanfala said they don't believe NRP blocked on a whim... which is different from saying 'I can't believe you've just blocked on a whim'). Bottom line, I see NRP expecting to be treated in a way that is far more deferential and cordial than how NRP has treated Uanfala here. Bottom line: seems to be a good block, but a poor response to the questions. Levivich 00:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Bottom line x3: I don't get why, after Uanfala's three posts, NRP didn't simply explain why they made the block. Maybe it's because I have the benefit of hindsight, but it just seems bloody obvious to me that Uanfala wanted to know why this user was blocked, and the blocking admin should have explained it, IMO, in their first response. Levivich 00:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Levivich. NinjaRobotPirate should have given an explanation, whether that was "This block is due to non-public information that I cannot disclose to you", "I'll email you some context privately", or a full on-wiki justification. I only think this was necessary after Uanfala's third comment, which makes the request unambiguous (NinjaRobotPirate did answer to the letter Uanfala's first two comments).

I understand why Uanfala's comments can read as rude; however, we need to be aware that expectations of conversational norms vary hugely on Wikipedia due to cultural factors, neurodiversity and other reasons (I'm not saying that any of those reasons apply specifically here). I don't think there is a way to ask somebody to justify a block that will not come across as rude, passive aggressive, confrontational or patronising to somebody.

From TheresNoTime's comment, it seems the block was justified and needs no further litigation. — Bilorv (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• In contentious parts of the internet, there's a method of insinuating offensive things using questions, sometimes called "Just Asking Questions" (JAQ). You frame your accusation in the form of a question ("Does X support the terrorists?"), and, for added passive-aggressiveness and deniability, you can phrase it as a negative ("X doesn't support the terrorists, does he?"). It's a frustrating method of needling someone. OK, community consensus says I overreacted. Fine, I'll be more forthcoming, even when I feel like the person is being rude, and I'll assume more good faith. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, NinjaRobotPirate, let's say you're enquiring why a CU (who you don't know well) has blocked an editor as a sockpuppet—what would be your preferred opening message? (No intended insinuation in the question; it's meant earnestly.) — Bilorv (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  How about "Hey [CU], I see you blocked [blocked editor], could you explain why?" That's pretty straightforward. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• So is this board going to be used to tone police admins now? My review of the talk page discussion is the same as Scottywong's - the first time that Uanfala asked NinjaRobotPirate to discuss their rationale for the block was on this page, not NRP's talk page. I may not have been as blunt as NRP but I would've told Uanfala to get to the point or stop wasting my time too. This isn't two pals socializing over a beer, it's the internet - if you want something, ask for it in plain language, don't dance around it and hope that the other party picks up on your "hints and nudges". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  • This is a review of a block, not tone policing. No explanation of the block was actually given until this review, so the review fulfilled its purpose. That people disagree with NRP's assessment of Uanfala's message, does not mean they are "tone policing". (I am grateful that NRP has acknowledged those concerns here.) It's funny you start your post by complaining about "tone policing" while the rest of your post is telling editors how to properly ask a question. I see a touch of hypocrisy there. Levivich 15:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, my messaging to you personally isn't exactly how you want it to be? Better open a post at XRV about me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Action: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Diff/224158314#Stilo72

User: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Johannnes89 (talk · contribs · logs) ([discussion])

I was completely blocked from the German Wikipedia with the reason "lack of will for encyclopedia building cooperation" by https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Johannnes89. The block was proposed by https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Succu who named this as their reason: "Has been bothering me since June 22, 2022 with his discussion posts about Miltenyi Biotec (see disc there)". This is truly surreal. I "bothering" him by answering his questions!

I was trying to add my section called Controversies (see English Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miltenyi_Biotec#Controversies and my German Wiki text: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miltenyi_Biotec&diff=223758204&oldid=223267749)

My section has 7 great sources from two countries, it was added after ONE MONTH of warning on the Talk page (I forced to do this by another user, now I know that forcing me to use the Talk page before adding content is illegal according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#Statements).

This user https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Succu promptly deleted my section with the reason "What is your problem?" and an admin called https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Nordprinz SUPPORTED this change. He told me to answer all questions. I did, I spent many hours doing it here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Miltenyi_Biotec Since https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Succu was obviously hostile to me for some reason, I ended up being a little emotional on his talk page (I asked him to stop deleting my messages, asked him why he is against these sick children and why he equates the words "Ukrainian" and "stupid" - it was his mistake, not mine. He is vehemently opposed to me.

However I acknowledge that I should not have gotten overly emotional and I promise not to do that again.

I only want is to add widely publicized information and I have spent a lot of hours defending my edits. Now https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Johannnes89 has blocked me completely from editing German Wikipedia, saying I don't have a desire to cooperate. If you are in doubt that I desire to cooperatively discuss things, read the talk page - I have been answering everyone for hours. Admin https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Nordprinz also says this: "The attempt to clarify the topic of the change in an article discussion has failed." What is to clarify here? I want to add TWO SENTENCES with very good sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miltenyi_Biotec#Controversies here they are, deleted with the reason "What is your problem?"

Please note the following key points:

1. I warned about my edits on the Talk page a month before I published them.

2. My section was deleted with the reason "What is your problem?" and an admin supported that.

3. My ban was initiated by the same person who deleted my section with the reason "Has been bothering me since June 22, 2022 with his discussion posts about Miltenyi Biotec (see disc there)". I was "bothering" him by answering his questions. And an admin supported that - I was blocked indefinitely, even from sending email and editing my own page.

Please note the following Wikipedia Blocking Policy violations:

A. Blocking policy violation: Blocking: Preliminary: education and warnings: I was not given a warning by an administrator. Only "users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning". My main activity wasn't vandalism. I only made a couple of emotional (non vulgar) comments on a user's Talk page, this was a mistake, but this wasn't my main activity.

B. Blocking policy violation: Blocking: Implementing blocks: Duration of blocks: "accounts used exclusively for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning;" - I was given indefinite block for "incidents of disruptive behavior" which "typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days, longer for persistent violations;"

C. Blocking policy violation: Setting block options: "Prevent user from sending email will restrict the user from accessing the Special:EmailUser function for the duration of the block. This option is not checked by default and should not be enabled when blocking an account except only in cases where either the blocked user abuses it, or uses it to harass, threaten, intimidate, or cause disruption toward other editors." ... "When enabled, efforts should be taken to ensure that the user's talk page remains unprotected" - I never used the Email function and should not have been blocked from it. Much less when my Talk page has also been blocked.

D. Blocking policy violation: "Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked, if checked, will prevent the blocked user from editing their own user talk page (including the ability to create unblock requests) during the duration of their block. This option is not checked by default, and typically should not be checked; editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of their user talk page, or when the user has engaged in serious threats, accusations or outing which needs to be prevented from reoccurring" - I am prevented from editing my own page, although I never abused my page or threatened anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stilo72 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't even talk to any admin on German Wiki, much less to the one who blocked me. I can't even notify him about this review. Is it fair to completely block a person because he has been "bothering" someone "with his discussion posts about Miltenyi Biotec"? I did not ask this user to come and delete my changes (which I suggested on the Talk page ONE MONTH before I published them) with the reason "What is your problem?". I did not ask for him to deny every proof that I have been providing on the talk page. Yet it was "bothering" him. Of course I got emotional, but are my emotions a reason enough for a complete block? Is a complete block without an ability to appeal an adequate punishment for a couple of emotional sentences on someone's talk page, after I have shown my good will by waiting one month before making changes and answering all questions on the article's Talk page in a civil manner? If it's not, then please, restore my faith in humanity (this is not a joke) and in Wikipedia and revoke this surreal decision.

NOTE: I CAN'T NOTIFY THE USER WITH XRV BECAUSE I WAS COMPLETELY BLOCKED FROM THE GERMAN WIKI, DO NOT PUNISH ME FOR THIS, THIS WAS NOT MY DECISION

Stilo72 (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Stilo72: It's outside of our scope. There's nothing we can do, since this all relates to actions on the German Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

But what can I do? Not even email admin works now. Please help me at least somehow. Stilo72 (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Stilo72: Your de.wiki talk page access and email access have been revoked. You'll have to find de.wiki's equivalent of Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. Es tut mir leid, dass ich nicht mehr helfen kann. Ich habe seit dem Gymnasium zu viel Deutsch vergessen. (I'm sorry that I can't help more. I have forgotten too much German since high school.) —C.Fred (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, thank you, I will try it. Please do not delete my request, I will need it for my Unblock Ticket. Stilo72 (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I've found this page and sent them an email. How long do I have to wait? (On English Wikipedia, at least) Stilo72 (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Stilo72: The English and German Wikipedias are entirely separate projects. We can't help you. – Joe (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

59 edit revdels and 1 edit summary revdel

59 edit revdels and 1 edit summary revdel on Hari Nef performed by Tamzin (talk · contribs · logs)

This is a self-requested review. An editor requested in #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect the revision deletion of several edits giving the alleged deadname of Hari Nef. She was never notable under this name, and so under MOS:DEADNAME it is treated as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. Some admins felt that revdel for such material was not explicitly covered under WP:CRD, but none went as far as to say that revdel was outright improper. After some discussion of applicable policies, I revdelled those edits and a few dozen older ones, for the following reasons:

1. There is a history of revdelling such material, for instance at ContraPoints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Laverne Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
2. RD2 covers (emphasis original) Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little to no encyclopedic or project value, or violates our biographies of living people policy. WP:BLPPRIVACY is part of the BLP policy. As trans people's deadnames are routinely used in "insulting" or "degrading" fashions, I feel that both that prong and the BLP prong of RD2 are met.
3. Even were they not met, application of revdel, like any other tool, should be dictated by common sense. I would submit that it is common sense that we not host material that is both personally identifiable and offensive—about trans people or anyone else—and that arguments against this are excessively bureaucratic.

However, since I took this action knowing that several other admins would not have, I submit it here for review, in hopes of establishing a precedent that such an action is a valid application of or revdel. If no such consensus can be reached, I will seek an explicit clarification to RD2, but in my opinion this is a straightforward application of the existing policy.

(Not mentioned above is this third revdel, the removal of an edit summary containing a slur, as hopefully that's noncontroversial.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse: Seems non-controversial to me. Editors may also be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Should wording be added linking REVDEL as a possible remedy for DEADNAMING? which was opened about this sort of issue a few hours ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  The report that led to that thread being opened is the same as what Tamzin chose to act on here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse obviously... who had an issue with this? Sigh — TNT (talk • she/her) 20:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse. In the case of a living subject, WP:BLP absolutely applies to suppressing the deadname. In the case of a deceased subject, I'd extend the offensive material criteria to apply there, especially in the case of an "aggressive" outing of the deadname. (I think revdel is probably a sufficient action to take, although there might be circumstances where the material needs oversighted.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse, but... - While I don't believe that BLP requires revdelling deadnames in all cases, it surely permits it in some cases, and it's really within admin discretion whether a particular case is one of those cases. I see no reason to second-guess Tamzin's judgment in this case. I say "but..." because this is a self-requested review, and the problem with self-requested reviews is that you'll almost always endorse because nobody is really making the argument against the action. So I'm also not sure who had a problem with this or why, and in the absence of knowing why, I think the action should be endorsed, but I don't think this really has much precedential value, because we're all only hearing one side of the argument. (For this reason, I don't really think self-requested reviews are very useful. If no one cares enough to actually challenge the action, consider it endorsed, it's probably not worth taking the time to discuss.) Levivich^[block] 20:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  What Levivich said. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse. I don't understand why this is at all controversial? Deadnaming someone can be a BLP violation (it was in this instance) and BLP violations can be revision deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse, but this should be oversighted: WP:OSPOL#1 makes clear that "non-public personal information" should be oversighted. Nef's birth name appears to be such a piece of information (let me know if it has been published somewhere with Nef's permission). The potential issues are identity theft and use for harassment. It is no different to publishing my birth name on Wikipedia, as I have not made it public. As such, WP:CRD#4 applies (so long as Tamzin has a reasonable belief that it may be OSPOL eligible, even if OSers end up rejecting oversight). However, even without this, CRD 2/3 apply. — Bilorv (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  If the deadname is given in a reliable source (and not just a newspaper that's generally reliable, but an article from a newspaper that is reliable), then I take back the above about oversighting. It appears that an article in The Philadelphia Inquirer may meet this condition, though I haven't seen it. — Bilorv (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse (as within discretion). Wikipedia should not be the place where a person’s personal information is first reliably published. Certainly this applies to the mainspace page, where it is considered reliable by most of the world, even if not by Wikipedia itself. This reasonably extends to the page history, which makes the revision deletion justified. I note at the birth name exists on the internet, but it is not reliably published, and that it is good that Wikipedia actively discourages primary source sleuthing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The Philadelphia Inquirer is unreliable? Then why did Hari Nef still cite it in three places? And the same article that was used to ref her deadname, no less? I mean, sure, we shouldn't include her former name, and hiding the revisions to make it more inconvenient for random driveby anons to put it back in is justified, but let's not fool ourselves that we're doing anything more than making it inconvenient to put it back in. —Cryptic 17:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

    I haven’t seen that source. It’s behind a paywall. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

    User:Cryptic, yes The Philadelphia Inquirer is a reliable publication. Are you saying that it previously posted an article noting Nef’s birth name? Can you verify that, from a reputable reliable source? If the newspaper redacted the online version, that is important information and Wikipedia should respect the redaction, unless another reputable source commented on the redaction. I would discourage Wikipedia citing a microfiche copy of a printed version. Why was it redacted? Was it wrong? Did the newspaper consider it like a BLP violation? SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

    See my recent edits. —Cryptic 00:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

    I can be slow at solving little riddles.

    If the subject’s birth name has been noted (is noted) in a reliable and reputable publication, then it is ok to include in the article, noting NOTCENSORED.

    If the subject’s birth name has never (but subject to redactions) been noted in a reliable and reputable source, then it should not be in Wikipedia mainspace, and subject to any admins discretion, may be quietly rev-deleted, subject to review (review by DRV or XRV or oversighters, I’m not sure, it probably doesn’t matter). SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

    If the subject’s birth name has been noted (is noted) in a reliable and reputable publication, then it is ok to include in the article, noting NOTCENSORED. WP:NOTCENSORED is never a reason to include something in an article (it is a reason not to exclude it) and WP:DEADNAME says If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page [...] even if reliable sourcing exists. (my emphasis). Revision deletion can be reviewed here, at AN or at AN/I but do note that doing so in a very high profile environment can be a poor choice for a (potential) BLP violation. Appeals and queries regarding oversighting can be sent to the Oversight team or to arbcom. Thryduulf (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

    I think you’re talking a technical cross-point at me. DEADNAME, as a mere MOS line, cannot be the basis for revdeletion. If you think it should be, get it written into a tougher policy, such at WP:BLP. An MOS “should” does not trigger deletion policy.

    The justification for Tazmin’s revision deletions comes mainly from the angle of preventing Wikipedia being (mis)used as the primary reliable source for the BLP-dubious information. If there were a quality source providing the information, revdeletion would be unjustified. Some justification comes from WP:DENY. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

    The revdeletions were consistent, although not explicitly covered, with multiple parts of WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME. The information revdelled is easily considered private information of a living person. The REVDELetion of the private and personal information was not covered by WP:CRD, but is covered by Wikipedia:Revision deletion#HIDINGBEFORESIGHT, and this difference is an oddity. I recommend that WP:CRD be expanded to include “deletion of a living person’s personal private information that is unsourced or sourced only to primary sources”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'd endorse this particular decision. What I do think is open to question is why, in 2022, the mechanism for anonymously requesting revision deletions is an irc channel?—S Marshall T/C 17:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  You can email the oversight team asking for revision deletion. If you don't want the request to be associated with your Wikipedia account you can just use a throw-away email (although it is best to check it until you get a response in case we have any questions about the request). Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Discretionarily permitted, not obligated, not OSPOL - Cryptic notes that it is included in the PI. Now, I don't see notability established so we shouldn't include it, but it doesn't appear to be an OSPOL case (however, some DEADNAME cases could be). Actually agreeing to have it published is not required - yes, we wouldn't allow say, a stolen set of information be included, but journalistic publications don't only post information with the subject's sign-off. But, I concur that it's with the discretion. However, I would oppose any standard viewing it as inherently revdellable. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Action: Dennis Brown's block of Levivich

User: Dennis Brown (talk · contribs · logs) ([prior discussion])

This seems to be a clear breach of WP:3RRNO and WP:BLPRESTORE. Contentious BLP material challenged in good faith must have consensus to be added if challenged. The block was for edit warring on Rania Khalek and they're is currently discussion on the talk page about inclusion of the material, and no consensus to include it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• Should be changed to an ARBPIA block. The BLP exemption would apply to only the removal of the parts that are poorly sourced. Is anybody seriously arguing that left-wing is poorly sourced? Levivich accepts it is not on the talk page. Is anybody arguing that the Jerusalem Post is not a reliable source for a well known journalist's view on Khalek either? Of course not. You cant just say BLP and exempt edit-warring, you can only exempt obvious BLP violations and only the removals of those BLP violations. But this should be logged as an ARBPIA block, thats the only change thats justified. The ONUS argument is not an excuse for edit-warring, the only valid exemption is BLP and that does not allow for the removal of the entire edit, as parts of it are clearly not BLP violations. 24 hours without an ARBPIA logged action is getting off easy for 3 reverts on a 1RR page. But this belongs at WP:AN if anywhere at all, I generally thought the blocked user is who needs to appeal it. nableezy - 23:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
• Looking at 3RRNO, the seventh exception says Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. The content claims that her views have been described as pro-Assadist and pro-Kremlin; this is clearly contentious material; I see on the talk page that some editors consider it poorly sourced, as well being potentially biased or libellous. As it does not currently enjoy consensus I believe that the exception Levivich claims does apply; I would support overturning this block. BilledMammal (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  You missed a bit in your quote, What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. Nothing at WP:BLP/N, and parts of the revert are clearly not contentious, and somebody just saying something is poorly sourced does not make it so. Again, you cannot just say BLP and use that as a shield, if it is not actually a BLP violation then the exemption is not valid, and with the sources cited this is not a valid claim of an exemption. nableezy - 00:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  The purpose of WP:3RRNO #7 is to ensure that contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced is kept out of BLP's until it is clear that its inclusion is warranted under our policies, particularly core policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V. This exception is not limited to obvious cases, and since outside of obvious cases we cannot determine until after the discussion whether it is libellous, biased, or poorly sourced we need to assess whether the editors belief that it was libellous, biased, or poorly sourced was reasonable - whether it was controversial is irrelevant to this.

  In this case, I believe it was; the discussion on the talk page suggests their belief was supported by multiple editors, and to label someone as "pro-Assad" or "pro-Kremlin" is contentious in the absence of very strong evidence and consensus.

  To put this another way, if a consensus for the inclusion of this material does not emerge then Levivich was indisputably correct to claim the exemption. Since we cannot currently determine this, then we instead have to consider whether it is reasonable to believe that such consensus will not emerge, and based on the talk page such a belief is reasonable. BilledMammal (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  if a consensus for the inclusion of this material does not emerge then Levivich was indisputably correct to claim the exemption is not true. If consensus that the material was a BLP violation then that is true. And let me state that I dont think it is at all possible that all of the removed material violates BLP, even if I dont think all of it should be retained. But material can be excluded for all sorts of reasons, and nearly all of them do not excuse edit-warring. This is not a valid BLP exemption claim, and it was edit-warring on a 1RR article. nableezy - 01:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  I can't think of many reasons it would be excluded that don't meet some aspects of WP:3RRNO #7; if there are WP:NPOV issues, it meets the biased exemption, if there are WP:V issues it meets the poorly sourced exemption. You are correct that there are some, but I don't believe any are applicable here, and none have been raised on the talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  It says “libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced”. It doesn’t say “contentious”. ANYTHING can be contentious if someone just chooses to make it so with a bit of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. The material in question is not libelous, not biased, and very well sourced. Volunteer Marek 02:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  It says contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced. It has to be both contentious and libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced; it is clearly contentious and looking at the talk page the belief that it is biased or poorly sourced is not unreasonable. BilledMammal (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  Theres twelve sources given, it is neither “biased” nor poorly sourced. Volunteer Marek 02:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

• This was a wholesale removal of content, which had more than a few valid sources and was too broad to be considered a BLP violation. Simply stating you are removing information for BLP reasons isn't a free pass to do 3 reverts in 24 hours on a 1RR article (or any article, for that matter). As the policy clearly says, what is exempt can be controversial and often it is better to go to the BLP noticeboard. In this instance, I think Levivich became overzealous but was well aware they were swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. Being "contentious" alone isn't enough to get a pass on a 1RR article, it needs to meet the other criteria, which it doesn't. Because he doesn't have a history of blocks, I did the mildest block I could, avoiding sanctions under WP:ARBPIA and instead doing 24 hours as a standard admin block. Given that there is a lot of heating going on, including Levivich filing a report at AE regarding another editor, and was well aware (or should have been) of the relevant policies, I feel the sanction is rather mild. That's all I have to say. Whatever the community decides is fine, but given the totality of circumstances, I feel there is no valid BLP exemption at play, and the block was the mildest sanction that could have been given. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• I am with Dennis on this one, sorry. It's another one of those awful BLPs that's all opinions and opinions on opinions--but "her work has been described as" is not a BLP violation, with this many sources. There's discussion on the talk page, but if this was such a big deal, then it should have been brought up at BLPN. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• What about WP:ONUS which states: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. It's one of our 3 core content policies coupled with BLP. When Lev removed the material, the onus was on the editor seeking to include disputed content, not the editor who removed it. That statement is very clear but when coupled with a potential BLP vio, it certainly appears to be a no-brainer. We just had a discussion about ONUS which is what brought this to my attention. Atsme 💬 📧 01:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
  • There is no BLP violation, and certainly not for the entire 4800 bytes. Besides, ONUS isn't an exemption for 1RR/3RR. It is irrelevant to the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

    Of that 4800 bytes, 147 is a statement that would be a BLP violation if unsourced, and the remaining 4600 are the sources that accompany it. If a revert was to be made, it's the entire 4800 bytes or nothing. Tazerdadog (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  Is enforcing WP:ONUS listed as an exemption to WP:EW? Or does it show up as an exception to WP:A/I/PIA#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions? nableezy - 01:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• WP:POT would have a little to say about that too. That others may have been wrong doesn't suddenly make Levi's actions ok. KoA (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse largely per the blocking admin's rationale A claim that is is BLP exempt doesn't make it so. The material may be contentious but it was well sourced, so it doesn't seem in bad faith or an obvious BLP violation. and Drmies addition. WP:GAMING of BLP to continue battleground behavior is part of the focus of a WP:BOOMERANG at Levivich's AE case right now too. Doubling down was not a wise choice for Levivich considering one could be technically correct on a BLP issue and still be disruptive and blocked. If you invoke the BLP exception, you better not be wiki-lawyering, and you need a very strong case rather than the nuh-uh or no backsies wiki-lawyering attitude they were showing on their talk page when warned about edit warring. They were creating more heat than light, but that wider discussion is moreso for AE.

Given the amount of sources though (each of variable suitability), the blanket reverts to entirely remove all the content at least would not fall under an obvious BLP exception. That's not to say those edit warring the content back in were correct either though. However, even a partial revert could be questionable in terms of the BLP exception too, so this action was really Levivich overextending their hand in an already disrupted topic rather than just testing the boundary. That was instead a matter to hash out on the talk page like a "normal dispute" or go straight to the noticeboard rather instead of jumping in to existing edit warring. It was pretty clear a block was needed to stem disruption and hopefully give Levivich a wakeup call to step back and realize what they're doing. KoA (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• I know basically nothing about this dispute, but just looking at the section Levivich removed: I think it's very relevant to bring up that the thing Levivich removed had ten citations, five of which were broken. That's such a suspicious edit I'm definitely inclined to say this ban should be overturned. Loki (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  Uh, even as someone uninvolved in the article or even the topic, I can click on each of those links. There wasn't anything really broken, they were just bare urls without citation templates that should have been filled in. Not ideal, but far from the point of jumping to WP:ASPERSIONS of suspicious edits or claiming they were somehow under WP:OVERSIGHT in your wikilink. Blanket reverting due to poor formatting is not an exception for edit warring. KoA (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, I meant WP:OVERCITE, not WP:OVERSIGHT.

  But yeah, I do think that a pejorative statement with ten citations, five of which are broken, is a presumptive BLP violation in a BLP. The problem with that sort of thing is the same as the reasons stated in WP:OVERCITE: adding so many citations doesn't show the information you're adding is strong and well-cited, it shows that it's weak and contentious, because if it was strong enough to stand on its own, you'd trust the ordinary two or three reliable sources instead of needing ten. And especially the broken citations show it was added in a hurry and without a lot of thought, which presumably means without consensus. In short, it's exactly the sort of thing that shouldn't be added to a BLP. Loki (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  None of the links are broken though. That they do not use ((citation)) templates does not make them broken. nableezy - 04:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  The citation formatting on many of them was broken. The links indeed were not broken, I agree. That distinction doesn't matter for what I'm talking about though. Loki (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• ONUS applies, and the material should be removed pending affirmative consensus (it's not even sufficiently mentioned in the body of the article). However, that's a separate question from whether violating 1RR was justified, and so kind of beside the point here. Regarding 3RRNO#7, it's not poorly sourced, so that mainly leaves us with "biased". I tend to read "biased" in this context as a particularly egregious form of bias like misrepresenting sources or adding something that's obviously WP:UNDUE. There has to be some line between, I don't know, run-of-the-mill disagreements about bias, and the sort of extreme case that creates an exception to edit warring rules. This seems closer to the former IMO, and probably within admin discretion. It's just a 24h block, and could probably even be converted to a 24h page-specific block without much of an issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  I would argue it is poorly sourced. Ten unreliable sources are not very good sourcing. Quality beats quantity here, and all of the sources are opinion pieces, many of which are in relatively poor quality publications. For a BLP that's really not great sourcing. I could source basically any politician you want as a baby-eater if you let me get away with sourcing it to random opinion pieces. Loki (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  False. All of these sources are reliable - WaPo, JPost, Haaretz, AlJ, Foreign Policy, Tablet, etc. None of them are “random”, whatever that means. Please stop making transparently false and ridiculous claims. Volunteer Marek 04:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  The sourcing perhaps is not good enough to include the material, and the framing is perhaps not neutral enough (attribution, nuance, etc.), but again we're not talking about whether the material should be included but whether this constitutes the sort of emergency that throws edit warring rules out the window. I don't quite think it is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Copied from Levivich's talk page:

There's some misunderstanding at XRV. What I removed (Special:Diff/1098031293, Special:Diff/1098031293, and Special:Diff/1098168196) was this content: Her views have been described as pro-Assadist and pro-Kremlin via her work for the RT television network and its subsidiaries. So the controversial content is pro-Assadist and pro-Kremlin, not "left-wing" or "far left". The first time I removed the content, it had 10 sources; the second time, 12 sources. The 12 sources were:

1. An opinion piece, labeled "Opinion", by Alexander Reid Ross in Haaretz: Ross, Alexander Reid (April 17, 2018). "How Assad's War Crimes Bring Far Left and Right Together - Under Putin's Benevolent Gaze". Haaretz. regular RT contributor and pro-Assad leftist Rania Khalek
2. A WaPo opinion piece, labeled "Perspective by Annia Ciezadlo", described as "a journalist who writes about food, politics and power in times of crisis." It calls her "far-left", not "pro-Assad" or "pro-Kremlin". Ciezadlo, Annia (April 11, 2017). "Why would Assad use sarin in a war he's winning? To terrify Syrians". The Washington Post. Retrieved 5 July 2022. 'We still don't know exactly what happened in Syria and who was responsible,' far-left writer and commentator Rania Khalek wrote on Twitter, 'but fact remains that Syrian govt gains nothing from a CW attack.'
3. Straight news from Jerusalem Post, but it doesn't say "pro-Assad" or "pro-Kremlin", in its own voice, it says "controversial journalist and activist", and it quotes Andrea Chalupa "asserting that Khalek supports 'Kremlin propaganda'". Frantzman, Seth J. (January 26, 2019). "Rep. Omar Slammed for Supporting Venezuela's Brutal Regime". The Jerusalem Post. Author and journalist Andrea Chalupa accused Omar of "amplifying an RT contributor," asserting that Khalek supports 'Kremlin propaganda'.
4. An opinion piece, labeled opinion, by Malak Chabkoun, described as "an independent Middle East researcher and writer based in the US", in Al Jazeera. It says Khalek is a "pro-Palestinian 'activist'" (with scare quotes) and that she has "joined in on the whitewashing" and "repeat[s] the [Assad] regime’s propaganda almost verbatim, claiming that what’s happening in Syria is a war against terrorists". That's not the same thing as "pro-Assad". Chabkoun, Malak (December 24, 2016). "Whitewashing Assad and his allies must be challenged". al jazeera. The regime and its allies' crimes in Syria have been whitewashed in several ways by journalists and academics alike. Bartlett, Beeley, Fisk and Khalek, for example, repeat the regime's propaganda almost verbatim, claiming that what's happening in Syria is a war against terrorists
5. An opinion piece, labeled opinion, by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, described as "Lecturer in Digital Journalism at the University of Stirling" and "a contributing editor at the Los Angeles Review of Books.", in Al Jazeera. He complains that Khalek visited Syria: "The modern form of disaster tourist is a pure mercenary, bereft of conviction, indifferent to suffering, driven purely by avarice. They are acutely aware of the regimes’ repressive character and the odiousness of their role. Both Blumenthal and Khalek have in the past acknowledged the Assad regime’s criminality and, in the case of Blumenthal, denounced those who serve as its apologists. Their embrace of the same role shows self-aware intention. Their flimsy attempts at justifying the visit are telling." He says Khalek was joined on the trip by "pro-regime Syrian Solidarity Movement" and "Ajamu Baraka, Jill Stein’s running mate, and various other pro-Assad conspiracy theorists". Ahmad, Muhammad Idrees (September 15, 2018). "Junket journalism in the shadow of genocide". al Jazeera. Retrieved July 5, 2022. Rania Khalek, a Twitter personality who produces viral videos for the Russia Today subsidiary "In the Now".
6. HuffPo piece by a HuffPo reporter, but it doesn't say Khalek is pro-Assad or pro-Kremlin, it says Khalek joined Tulsi Gabbard in making the case that armed opposition to Assad is dominated by extremists. And to quote WP:RSP, where HuffPo is yellow for politics, "In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics." Ahmed, Akbar Shahid (April 10, 2017). "Here's Who Still Supports Bashar Assad". HuffPost. Gabbard for years has argued that the armed opposition to Assad is dominated by extremists. While U.S. and regime policies have arguably made the extremists more powerful, this has never been fully true, according to experts. A coterie of left-wing writers and activists, notably journalist Rania Khalek, have joined Gabbard in making this case.
7. I mean, OK, it's labelled "News", but it's so obviously an op-ed by Lee Smith (journalist) in Tablet (magazine), who writes: "That even Khalek, a political activist and openly pro-Assad apologist, had some sense that this looks really, really bad does not reflect well on mainstream media organizations like The Washington Post, NPR, and The New Yorker." Tell me that's not op-ed. The opening is "Bashar al-Assad’s regime has pulled off a grotesque PR coup by corralling a number of prominent American journalists from outlets like The New York Times, National Public Radio, The Washington Post, and The New Yorker to participate in a conference designed to legitimize the rule of Syria’s genocidal head of state." He's calling a lot of people pro-Assad. Smith, Lee (October 31, 2016). "Assad Regime's Grotesque PR Conference in Damascus Uses 'New York Times,' 'Washington Post,' NPR, and 'New Yorker' Reporters to Whitewash War Crimes". Tablet. Retrieved July 5, 2022. Khalek...[an] openly pro-Assad apologist ... Khalek wrote against sanctions in an article for the Intercept, which was recycled by the Syrian press agency, SANA.
8. From Commentary (magazine), which is an opinion blog; it's by Jonathan Marks. He says Khalek thinks the media is tilted against Assad; that's not really pro-Assad, it's anti-media. Marks, Jonathan (November 1, 2016). "An Anti-Israel Activist in Syria". Commentary. Retrieved October 2, 2019. [Khalek] is in Syria to attend a conference in Damascus on 'The Ramifications of War in Syria.' It's no mystery why the organizers of the conference invited Khalek–who thinks the 'Western media narrative' is tilted against Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad–to speak on the effects of sanctions on Syria.
9. Another Commentary blog post, by Seth Mandel, executive editor of the Washington Examiner. [8]
10. Bellingcat, which is green at RSP, but has the notation "There is consensus that Bellingcat is generally reliable for news and should preferably be used with attribution." The piece is labeled news, and identifies Khalek as "a Russian state media personality who in 2018 was found to be surreptitiously on the Kremlin payroll" and mentions the trip to Syria sponsored by the Assad regime. Doesn't say pro-Kremlin (taking a payment is not being pro- the person bribing you) or pro-Assad (visiting a person is not being pro- that person). [9]
11. Foreign Policy opinion, labeled "Argument: An expert's point of view on a current event." By Jasmin Mujanović, "a political scientist specializing in the politics of southeastern Europe." It says "Most recently, so-called independent journalists such as Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek—both of whom have received funds from Assad regime lobby groups—have even toured government-controlled regions of Syria to whitewash the scale of the atrocities." That's not pro-Assad. [10]
12. From The Daily Beast, which is yellow at WP:RSP, and it doesn't say she is pro-Assad or pro-Kremlin, just that she worked at Sputnik and RT: [11]

What's most surprising about this is the number of editors (and administrators) describing this as "well sourced".

— User:Levivich 05:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of validity for content discussion above, that post where they claimed Dennis, you owe me an hour in the edit summary (as if Levi is owed for something they should have done in the first place) shows why the block was good. Before, they were mostly just piling on edit warring and going after VM, and after the block, they were at least focusing a bit more on content above. Blocks are there for when even good editors get myopic on winning a dispute and lose sight of the larger disruption they add doing so. KoA (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• I am always a bit dubious when I see "X's views have been described as Y..." as opposed to "X has expressed Y views" because the former almost always means that the sources are at least somewhat flaky and can't support it being stated in Wikipedia's voice. And when it's massively over-cited that's a second alarm bell - if you have one or two good reliable sources, why on earth are you padding it out with a load of op-eds? (Incidentally, the "left-wing" part is well sourced, it's the pro-Putin and pro-Assad bits that are dubious). Perhaps the RfC that's just been started should have been the first port of call rather than the last. Black Kite (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• Not endorse. Looking at the above, it seems that only two out of the twelve sources actually use the terminology that was sourced to them, making it a clear case of "contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced" (WP:3RRBLP). Once this claim was made by an editor in good standing, it would've been preferable if they were heard before being blocked. Other than that, I agree with Black Kite that this should've been resolved through discussion or an RfC, rather than by two editors repeatedly re-inserting the exact same content over the objections of five others. François Robere (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse. There was an edit war. Something needed doing. The block was within policy, and is highly defensible as proportionate. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• Some of you seem to be confusing "I don't think it should be in the article" with "clear BLP violation". Admin do not decide content, we can not use our judgement if the article is better or worse for the addition, that would make us involved. If the reverted content is not a clear BLP violation, then it is edit warring. Unless there is some obvious URGENCY to remove the edit, the editor must go to BLPN or other board. There is no justification for breaking 1RR twice in one day, even if you don't like the content he removed. The exemption is only for clear violations, not for content preferences or for debating the quality of sources that are generally considered reliable. Otherwise, 1RR/3RR are meaningless and impossible to sanction by any admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  While all the other edit war exceptions have "clear" in them, the BLP one does not. You can revert for any BLP violation, not just a "clear" one. There is no requirement in there that an editor "must" go to BLPN, only that they should "consider" going to BLPN.

  Yes, this does very much weaken 1RR/3RR on BLP pages in favor of removal of content, and that's by design. The whole point is that you should fight to remove possibly libelous content without worrying about an admin sanctioning you for it. Loki (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  You are misunderstanding the policy at a level that would take up too much room. In short: the default position is that 1RR violations lead to a block, and the exemptions for them are very, very narrow. This wasn't even close. You trying to use the letter of the policy to justify an action post-action, by intentionally missing the intention of the policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Loki here; even non-clear BLP violations can do genuine damage, and should not remain on an article for a month while we hold an RfC to agree they are BLP violations. In contrast, if the reasonable belief that a specific piece of content was a BLP violation was incorrect, then no damage has been done by excluding the content for a month waiting for a consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  Non clear BLP violations are subject to sanction, which is why they should go to BLPN instead of edit warring. Tony explained it best: if you have to go into detail to explain how something is a BLP violation, then it isn't exempt from 1RR. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse The content may be UNDUE or the text may be poorly worded, but it's not a BLP violation to reflect widely published views from credible sources. The ensuing fuss over this minimal, clearly explained, sanction seems to confirm that there was battleground behavior that needed a time out. SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse Was the content of the edits Levivich reverted of poor quality? Yes, certainly. Was it a BLP violation? Not necessarily, as reliable sources do cover these allegations. Considering the 2 other editors he was reverting are experienced editors, Levivich should have continued to engage (preferably positively) on the talk page, started an RfC, or taken it to DRN. Levivich had options on hand, and instead chose to edit war. Curbon7 (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Copied from Levivich's talk page by his request: @Dennis Brown: Why is "pro-Assadist" and "pro-Kremlin", in your words, too broad to be considered a BLP violation? Where is the basis in WP:BLP or anywhere else for the notion that a statement is capable of being "too broad" to be a BLPvio, and even if it's there, why are these statements "too broad" as opposed to, you know, specific? Regarding your statement, emphasis in the original, If the reverted content is not a clear BLP violation, then it is edit warring ... The exemption is only for clear violations ... Where is "clear" in WP:BLP, WP:3RRNO, or anywhere else? WP:BLPRESTORE says "good faith", for example. WP:3RRNO#7 doesn't have the word "clear" in it. Where are you getting "clear" from? Regarding debating the quality of sources that are generally considered reliable, some of these sources are yellow at RSP, so not generally considered reliable. Others are blogs, not generally considered reliable. Others are op-eds, same. In fact, this leads me to my next question: You blocked me on the grounds that this is well-sourced. I'm going to WP:AGF that before you blocked me for this, you looked at the diffs, and clicked through to all 12 sources. So, which of these sources supports the statement Her views have been described ... pro-Kremlin ...? Which source describes her views as pro-Kremlin? I see zero. Same question for pro-Assad: #1 and #7 say "pro-Assad", none of the others do. These two sources are op-eds from biased (pro-Israeli, anti-Assad) sources. Do you contend that, based on two op-eds from biased authors, it's BLP-compliant to state "Her views have been described as pro-Assadist"? If someone has a good-faith BLP objection, is that not enough to claim 3RRNO #7? Do you content that my objection was not in good faith? Thanks in advance for your responses, Levivich (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Most of this is answered throughout this page. Let me just address one example: Calling someone pro-Kremlin, etc isn't a BLP violation if you are providing sources. As admin, it isn't my job to decide if the sourcing is "good enough" or not, that is a content decision. I can look and see that there are sources talking about the subject matter, and if the inclusion was in good faith, and is not obviously a violation. That's all. Same for these false claims that "clear violation" isn't policy because it doesn't use the word "clear". This is absurd. It obviously implies that any exemption must be clear. Otherwise you make it so ANY edit to a BLP can be edit warred just because you claim it is a violation, even if it isn't clear. On sources, to say "well sourced" only means there were plenty of sources that appear to be reliable. I can not, and will not, read each and every source to verify that (in my opinion) the prose best matches the source. Again, unless there is a "clear" violation or deviation from the sources (even if they are wrong), it isn't an exemption. And again, again, if you allow such vague claims of BLP violations to be had, there would be no way for admin to enforce edit warring. It's very simple. There was NOTHING in that edit that required you edit war to keep the material out. You could have gone to BLPN. It was NOT an emergency or "clear" violion. And yes, CLEAR, whether you want to believe that is the standard or not, it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown: I strongly dislike penalizing editors based on implied rules; it comes across as very Kafkaesque and what is implied can be subject to reasonable disagreement. Instead, I believe that an RFC should be opened proposing that "clear" is added to WP:3RRNO #7.

  Personally, I would oppose it, based on the fact that even non-clear violations can be damaging, but it would allow us to determine whether the consensus of the community aligns with your belief, and if consensus does it will make it clear to future editors what the actual expectations are. BilledMammal (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's not an implied rule. 1RR is an explicit rule, and in a Arb DS area, it is strictly enforced. The rule is to block/sanction. The exception is only when the edit is clearly to remove vandalism or other policy violations that are clear to anyone viewing them, ie: they don't need explaining. The default isn't to allow, it is to sanction. The current situation simply did not warrant exemption, and they should have known it. It wasn't about BLP, it was about preferred version. They could have taken it to BLPN or any other board, but they didn't, knowing that sanction was possible. Some might not like it, but that is how it is enforced, per Arb rulings and authority. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown: The rule isn't implied but the limitations to the exemption, limitations that this block is based on, are. This is why I disagree with the block; a straight reading of the text supports the claim that Levivich's actions were permitted. BilledMammal (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  No, and every admin on this page disagrees with you on this point, which should say something. Exemptions aren't automatic, they must be clear and obvious, otherwise violations will be common, wikilawyered to death. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  In this case it is clear and obvious; anything that is not clearly not a violation can be kept off the page until there is a consensus that it is not a violation. I also note that edit warring can be prevented through WP:BLPRESTORE and warning or blocking the editors re-adding the content in violation of it. In addition, this allows us to protect the subjects of BLP's from violations. BilledMammal (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  Dennis' argument has been the universal interpretation of that clause for well over a decade and the entire point of discretionary sanctions is to avoid arguments like the ones you're making. When an article is under AE, there's a clear awareness of AE, and an action is done in contradiction of sanctions, the burden is on the person who looks to be violating policy to show that an exemption clearly applies. It is not on Dennis to show that his presumed good block that follows policy and practice to the letter is correct.

  On the policy point, if you want to change the policy to read like you think it should read, the burden is on you to start the RfC to remove the section that tells people not to claim the BLP exemption unless they are sure it applies, and encourages them not to revert but to discuss instead. You're the person suggesting the policy change here, so it would be on you to start an RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  the section that tells people not to claim the BLP exemption unless they are sure it applies - can you quote this section? As far as I can tell, WP:3RRNO #7 does not say that, and I cannot find a section elsewhere that does. BilledMammal (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  That RFC is probably the next step. Levivich (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Beyond that, just removing the JPost source by itself is outside of any valid BLP claim. All parts of the removal must be a BLP violation to claim that exemption, and here at least some clearly reliable sources were edit-warred out. There were three reverts of a presumptively reliable source in a 1RR article. nableezy - 15:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• Also, why exactly are we spending this time here. Levivich hasnt even requested an unblock. If he feels the block was improper we have an established process for challenging it. It starts with placing an ((unblock)) template on his user talk page. nableezy - 15:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse. WP:3RRNO is pretty clear: What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. By invoking the 3RR exception to edit-war, rather than addressing concerns by other means, one is implicitly accepting the possibility of being blocked. The policy makes clear that the exemption is very narrow, and that one had best be sure their BLP case is ironclad before invoking the exemption.
  The disputed edit stated that Khalek's "views have been described as pro-Assadist and pro-Kremlin". It then cited a half-dozen sources in which her views were, well, described as pro-Assadist and pro-Kremlin. Yes, the sources were largely opinion pieces, but their content was clearly presented as opinion rather than in wiki-voice, as fact—an approach consistent with site guidelines. I'm not sure that this material belongs in the lead of the article, but that's a matter for discussion, not for edit-warring.
  As an admin who has been on the frontlines of BLP enforcement for more than a decade, this isn't a BLP violation and it's certainly not a clear-cut BLP violation warranting edit-warring and invocation of 3RR exceptions. In that context, Dennis's block was—maybe not what I would have done, but certainly within the realm of appropriate administrative discretion. MastCell ^Talk 15:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• I'm uncomfortable with two things here. The block being full wasn't necessary; even if some level of block were fully justified, a partial on the article would have been sufficient. I'm also very sympathetic to repeated removal (and unsympathetic to repeated restoration) when there's discussion of whether possibly-non-neutral information should be included at a BLP, and even more so when, as in this case, there is discussion of whether the sources are good enough. I think we should lean very hard in the direction of protecting BLPs until we have consensus. I do not endorse. valereee (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• Question why is this a site block and not a pblock, which is the standard for blocking good faith users in otherwise good standing (at least in practice lately)? Was there disruption somewhere else? PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  The real question is why isnt this an ARBPIA block and why is it only 24 hours. nableezy - 17:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  No, that's not the real question. The real question is exactly what I asked. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  Well we have different questions. This is the second time Levivich has violated the 1RR in an ARBPIA article, the first time he got off on a technicality that wasnt even valid. This being his second violation of an arbitration decision would typically merit a week block or a longer topic ban. This bending over backwards for an unrepentant edit-warrior is mind-boggling. nableezy - 17:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, you're free to ask your own question, which has no bearing whatsoever on mine. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  To answer your question. I almost never issue partial/article blocks unless they are indef. I can't think of an instance where I would ever give a 24 hour partial block, in fact. Part of a block is to stop disruption, the other part is to discourage future transgressions. This is within admin discretion, and from my extensive experience, quite common. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• My understanding of the WP:3RRNO exemption is that it relates specifically to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content, When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Something re-added without consensus after it's been removed on good-faith BLP objections is BLPvio, per the letter of the policy. There were good faith objections made by multiple users on the talk page of the article, starting on July 10th. At that point, any restoration of the material until there is consensus is violating BLP policy. There is no harm in leaving it out, and there is potential real-world harm to a BLP subject when labeling them pro-Kremlin and pro-Assad.
  I've been involved in multiple 3RRNO uses, and have come down both for and against the usage. Normally it's pretty obvious when the objections are good-faith, which is all that is required. The bare minimum before blocking should be demonstrating that there is a reasonable consensus that the material in question isn't a violation, and warning the user that further invocations of 3RRNO will not be allowed, which is what I've seen done in these situations in the past. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think that is a misreading of the policies, that covers the restoration of the material (and yes that should not have happened either, but WP:NOTTHEM). WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE could be cited for an argument that the two editors that restored the content should likewise be sanctioned, but for the removals thats covered by WP:BLPREMOVE. That would allow for the removal of material that is "is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources; relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP; relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards." If any part of the removal is not in one of those categories the exemption is not valid. nableezy - 17:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know where you're coming up with the "any part" stuff. The person reverting doesn't have to make a partial revert, and leaving out the contested material when re-adding would be the significant change necessary to nullify the 3RRNO exemption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  Of course they do, you cannot excuse edit-warring of non-BLP violating material on the basis that other material removed is a BLP violation. You are responsible for all parts of your edit. And if you remove perfectly valid material then that is not exempt from any revert rules. And how I know that is because I was blocked for it. nableezy - 17:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  You were adding new text, not reverting. Some of these reverts do fall under the BLP exception, including [143] (for the reason given in the edit summary). But in most, such as [144], the change that is being edit warred over consists in removing an unreliable source (which is fine), adding a presumably reliable source (which is also fine) and adding new text (which is not). Instead, the reverts should only have removed the problematic material. To the extent these reverts also add new text, they constitute disruptive edit warring about a content disagreement. That disagreement is not covered by the BLP exception. Was Levivich adding new prose, or just reverting? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  The point of that was that only the removal of BLP violations is covered, not anything else. If something removed was not a BLP violation then it is not covered by the exemption. Do you think the JPost source was a BLP violation? If not then it can not be edit-warred over and then be claimed to be exempt from the edit-warring rules. See where it says "the reverts should only have removed the problematic material". nableezy - 17:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  That's weird, to me the point was To the extent these reverts also add new text, they constitute disruptive edit warring about a content disagreement. A single admin's judgement 12 years ago, however, isn't exactly how policy should be read and interpreted today, so this is a bit in the weeds. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse and note that this should have been handled through the ordinary talk page appeal procedures since it was only 24 hours and so clearly within admin discretion and was not an AE block — it likely would have lead to an unblock happening already since the standard for basically every first-time edit warring block is to unblock on appeal once assurance are given that the edit war will stop.
  On the merits: The fact that Levivich has to post a detailed sourcing analysis of why opinion pieces in widely respected publications constitute BLP violations is evidence 3RRNO was not met - they are not unambigiously such and require detailed analysis and discussion on the talk page. He may well be right that they should not be included, but the solution here is discussion and consensus, not edit warring and then wikilawyering to insist that your point of view be the default one in the article until a discussion was complete. This could have been handled as a longer AE block or other AE sanction, as a partial block, or as a 24 hour sitewide block. All are reasonable outcomes. Dennis chose one of them, and has justified his actions. There's nothing more to do here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. seems to preclude but the solution here is discussion and consensus, not edit warring and then wikilawyering to insist that your point of view be the default one in the article until a discussion was complete. There was already active discussion on the talk page when the material was re-added, and the lack of material under discussion in a BLP is the default, per policy. The bar isn't "is it BLPvio," the bar is "was the material removed due to a good-faith objection." WP:3RRNO covers material that is biased, and that is one of the things that was being discussed on the talk page when the material was re-added. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  The relevant policy is this: Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

  The only potential one here that applies is biased. Since you're dealing with a sourcing analysis of pieces published by highly respected journalistic institutions with editorial oversight (even if opinion pieces), the other 3 aren't going to apply. It's also extremely unlikely to be uncontroversial. If there's a discussion ongoing and someone is editing against policy, you take them to a noticeboard, you don't violate policy yourself when you know it will be controversial to do so. The entire point of AE is that everyone who edits in these areas is extremely skilled at explaining why their actions aren't actually policy violations, so it imposes brighter lines and exemptions to those are also typically held to higher standards because people editing in the area should know how to behave when dealing with controversy. In short: if this requires the type of analysis Levivich provided to explain why 3RRNO applies, then 3RRNO does not apply. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't understand. You're saying that if an editor were to remove severely libelous material they could be blocked for edit warring if the admin saw there was a list of ambiguously good sources which the admin did not review? If the editor considered reporting to BLPN, but chose not to because they felt the violation was severe, and they chose to remove it immediately and repeatedly they would be blocked? Wouldn't the appropriate action be to keep the material out, lock the article, and evaluate the 3RRNO exception afterwards? If the editor were found to have improperly cited 3RRNO, I would think they could be warned or otherwise sanctioned after the article was protected. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm saying that if there's a list of unambiguously good sources with editorial oversight arguably supporting the claim, we can safely assume it is not libelous for the purposes of the BLP and oversight policies. If you have to make a detailed argument for why your summary of the source is different than the reasonable summary by another person, it is not an unambiguous BLP violation and is certainly not libel. That means 3RRNO does not apply. Basically I'm in agreement with MastCell. Crying BLP to engage in an edit war is wikilawyering, and is the thing that AE page restrictions are designed to avoid since the editors already know they need to be careful and shouldn't do stuff like this. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  What if there's a list of good sources which clearly do not support the claim? It sounds like Dennis didn't know what was in the sources, just that two editors adding the material claimed it was well sourced. They could have been mistaken. I would think if there's a disagreement over whether material is well sourced, admins should assume it is not and assume the 3RRNO exception applies. Levivich's detailed analysis was made after the block. It sounds like this may be a case of block first, ask questions later. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  If you have to extensively pour through 10+ sources to verify the authenticity and applicability of a simple claim, then you are making a content judgement and the violation isn't obvious. Being obvious is required to be exempt. Being a "bad edit" isn't enough to quality for an exemption, that is what the talk page and BLPN are for. Trust me, you don't want admin making calls on content, only on behavior. Being "pro-Kremlin" isn't so urgent a claim that it requires edit warring as it could have been handled at BLPN in 2-3 hours. Being accused of a crime, gender related, vandalism and similar, would easily be enough to warrant breaking 1RR. The onus is on the one breaking 1RR, not anyone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  If I add text saying John Doe is a convicted rapist with ten sources which just say he was charged with rape, that is still an obvious violation isn't it? It sounds like the overciting is disruptively preventing verification. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  Being a rapist is not the same as being "pro-Kremlin", so it is pretty obvious it would be handled differently. Rape is a crime. Being pro-Kremlin is not. Your argument is a strawman. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  No, this is a valid hypothetical to consider. But let's start with your answer. How would it be handled differently? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  What constitutes a more or less serious allegation against a BLP is a matter of content, not conduct, as is whether a claim is well-supported by sources or not. The moment you blocked Levivich you made a determination on both, whether you intended it or not. François Robere (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  Nonsense, and that nonsensical statement would make every admin "involved" whenever they took any admin action. You are advocating, unintentionally perhaps, for users to be able to edit-war with impunity because any admin that deals with it is making a content decision. Again, nonsense. And if this werent somebody who youre friendly with I cant imagine you would ever advocate for such a thing. nableezy - 15:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  You may not like it, but the problem is nevertheless real, and arises quite naturally from the false distinction between "content" and "conduct". Yes, admins get involved in content all the time; what I'm advocating for is for them to listen to editors when they express valid concerns, rather than block them outright for superficial reasons. François Robere (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni, I'm actually kind of surprised that you'd think it would be okay to leave potentially-libellous content in a BLP instead of automatically removing in advance of gaining consensus. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point you're making; apologies if that's so. I feel like we should err 99.9% on protecting a BLP, even to the point of edit-warring, to keep that content out until consensus is reached at talk to include. I'm not going to argue whether the sourcing here is good enough; that shouldn't matter in this discussion. If multiple people are disputing -- even if there is suspected meatpuppetry -- what is the harm of not including while the issue is hashed out at talk? valereee (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  Well, just be clear about what libel is. It is a false statement of fact, it is not opinion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Alanscottwalker, and I do get that. And I'm not arguing with how the information is presented (attributed opinion vs. fact) or the sources (unambiguously good vs. questionable for some reason). I am only saying if there is a dispute at a BLP about content that at least some editors are saying is not being presented correctly or sourced well, we should not include until talk discussion has reached consensus. valereee (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  100% agreed, and the revert to include it after a BLP claim was made violated policy. However, enforcing BLPREQUESTRESTORE is not part of the BLP exemption to the edit-warring policy. nableezy - 21:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  valereee: a few things. First, I agree on the potentially libelous bit - if something is potentially libelous (not just actually libelous) it qualifies for suppression and should be removed immediately. The thing is, in this case, there was nothing potentially libelous.

  On the more general principle, Nableezy is correct. Unless something is an unambiguous BLP violation (which this wasn't; lets be very clear about that) it is not exempt from our edit warring rules and the solution to the problem is requesting administrative intervention rather than edit warring.

  The policy is designed that way because WP:CRYBLP is a thing; it happens pretty frequently in AE areas since a lot of the most contentious stuff involves living people; and if the 3RRNO exemption was presumed valid every time someone called something a BLP issue, the entire DS regime around revert restrictions wouldn't be functional. I'm not saying that we should keep contested BLP material in an article. I'm saying that the policy exemption does not apply just because someone thinks that there's a weighting issue on some of the sources (which is essentially what this dispute boils down to.) That's a relatively run-of-the-mill BLP dispute that happens daily on talk pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see that 3RRNO makes any distinction between libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material, so why do you agree that edit warring to remove potentially libelous material is proper under 3RRNO but not to remove biased or poorly sourced material? Secondly, Dennis Brown blocked apparently without looking at the sources, so he didn't know if the BLP violation was unambiguous. This seems like enough reason to call this an improper action. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  I do get that CRYBLP is a thing. And maybe we've gotten off the actual point here, to Aquillion's point in opening a discussion. Whether the vio or the block were imperfectly handled, whether the content was justified by the sources, and whether the sources were assessed correctly are all moot to whether content that is being objected to should be in the article until there's consensus somewhere. Although I guess that's what's informing my opinion on the vio and the block, so not completely moot. :) valereee (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse block. There are many valid ways to deal with the concerns. Edit warring is not one of them. Cullen328 (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• I don't know if I can comment here But Meh. It's only 24 hours, at the end of the day. But I think it should be clear from all of the above there there are people who believe the content to be a BLP vio. With that in mind, I have a hard time saying the block was a good one. I've certainly seen such violations in the past get way more leeway on the same arguments. A/E is pretty much riddled with them. Arkon (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree 100%. Dennis Brown is taking 1RR super serious here, saying there are only very narrow exceptions that apply. But a few weeks ago at an unambiguous 1RR violation report at AE he says it is “a minor infraction worthy of an informal warning only.” At least in this case there are good faith BLP claims. It’s a great mystery to me why such cases would be treated so differently, and why the experienced editors who edit warred to reinsert the content despite the clear policies preventing it have freely skated off. Maybe some admins could come out of the wagon circle to comment on that. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  I doubt we can expect others to comment on your unwarranted assumptions and unevidenced assertions. SPECIFICO talk 01:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  Oh don’t worry about that. You were there too, of course. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse per ToniBallioni - The discussion on whether that sourcing is good enough to keep that sentence in the article is interesting and nuanced. The discussion on whether the sourcing is so atrocious that it overrides our edit warring policy to keep it out is not. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• How come this wasn't one of those nifty new page-specific blocks instead of an old-fashioned go-sit-in-the-corner-facing-the-wall block? EEng 02:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

This was already answered above. The real question is why didn't I block him a week under WP:ARBPIA/WP:ARBBLP and log it in the discretionary sanctions log? That would have been the normal thing to do. Partial blocks that are 24 hours long are virtually unheard of, and admin are not ever required to use them. That's also answered above and on his talk page, if you had bothered to read. And it started with an WP:AE case, but I'm sure you read that before commenting, right? Sorry/not sorry for the snark, but drive-by comments aren't helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Because you didn't want me to appeal it to arbcom :-) Levivich (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not worried about Arbcom, you are welcome to file if you like. It will be declined unanimously, of course, but you are welcome to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

To answer your questions: no I didn't read all that came before, but nonetheless it's a simple question that merely required a simple answer. As it is, however, your answer (and your answers earlier, now that I search for them) is fairly revealing. You're decidedly defensive, and your answers are circular: admin are not ever required to use them; virtually unheard of; I almost never issue partial/article blocks unless they are indef -- in other words, "it's not my habit and I don't have to", na-na-nuh-na-na. Actually, where you believe that an otherwise productive editor has, for whatever reason, temporarily lost his compass on just a single article, a partial block on that article (article only -- not the talk page) is the perfect solution; in fact that's pretty clearly what they were invented for. You could even make it indef, if you prefer, until the miscreant promises not to it again.

Of course, if your intent is punative instead of preventative, well then a partial block doesn't do the job, does it? On reflection I can see why you're so defensive. EEng 23:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse regretfully. As long as the "[w]hat counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial" part is there, you break RR restrictions at your own risk. And you leave it entirely up to the reviewing administrator to judge whether the content justified the edit-warring. Regarding WP:BLPUNDEL, my opinion is, and I hope it is the case, that ignoring BLPUNDEL after being reminded should be immediately sanctionable since it is policy and says "must". That would save people from having to choose between edit-warring and not removing content that one believes is BLPVIO in mainspace. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse The content is neither libelous, unsourced, or poorly sourced. That would leave biased as a valid concern, and although the content is biased in the way that all political positions are biased I can't believe that is what is meant by the exception. Otherwise anything but the mildest pleasantries could be excluded from all BLPs. There's certainly a DUE argument for the content, but that is not an exception to 3RR. Also the behaviour of others, and who is right or wrong is not an exception. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse Levivich was edit warring and the administrator made the right decision. Lightburst (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• Not endorse, obviously, as blockee, because I removed a BLP vio, a valid 3RRNO exception, because it was unsourced. It had footnotes, but not sources, and they are not the same thing. Not one of the footnotes described her views (or her) as pro-Kremlin. Of the 12 footnotes, 2 were yellow at RSP (HuffPo and Daily Beast), 2 were blogs (Crossroads), 7 were op-eds, and only 1 was a straight news source (JPost), and it did not say that her views have been described as pro-Kremlin or pro-Assad (source-by-source analysis is above). Of the 9 op-eds, only two said "pro-Assad". "Her views have been described as pro-Assad", cited to two biased op-eds calling her pro-Assad, is a BLP violation. What's the urgency, Dennis asks? The urgency is that we'd have said that her views have been described as pro-Assad and pro-Kremlin, when that's not true and unsourced. That's a big deal, and it's shocking to me that Dennis and others don't think so. Cullen says there are other ways to handle it: yeah, like article talk page discussion, user talk page discussion, reporting to a noticeboard... I took each one of those steps, and none of them worked. Nevertheless, the BLPvio content was repeatedly reinstated, even after I took each one of those steps, even after I filed the AE (diffs of all of this are at WP:AE in my filing there). None of that stopped the content from appearing in the article. But the BLP vio content is out now. It's been out for days, it won't be put back in (the RFC is tanking), and the only thing that kept this BLP vio out is editors pressing the undo button. 3RRNO #7 is for this exact situation, and I used it correctly, and a good outcome came of it: the BLP vio content finally removed. Meanwhile, Dennis could have just come to my talk page and told me he didn't think the exemption applied. I would have argued it, but I wouldn't have restored it after an admin made a "ruling". Or he could have pblocked me. The full block was over the top. BTW, nice to see all these familiar names here at XRV for the first time. Glad to see the board is getting more participation. Levivich (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment to the extent it is argued that exact words have to be found in sources, unless there are quote marks around the words, our practice including for BLP's is not to copy the exact words (see also plagarism). So the issues here, cannot turn on exact words in sources, it may turn on fair representation of sources, but not on copying of exact words. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with that, and when I say none of the sources say pro-Kremlin, and only two say pro-Assad, I don't mean just that they don't use those particular words, I mean they don't use equivalent words either. For example, some of the sources note she used to work for a subsidiary of RT -- that's not pro-Kremlin. People who work for a government aren't pro- that government. And any views she espoused while working for RT are the Kremlin's views, not her views. As for pro-Assad, two of the sources say that directly, but they're two opinion pieces from biased (anti-Assad) sources. The others just criticize her for various Assad-related things -- like taking a trip to Syria paid for by Assad, or agreeing with Tulsi Gabbard that there are many extremists among Assad's opposition -- which cannot be truthfully summarized as "her views have been described as pro-Assad", because that's not what they say; in fact, most of the sources are complaining about her actions (taking the trip to Syria; they say she shouldn't have taken money from Assad), not her views. Levivich (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm. Are they not pointing to her actions, to make an argument about her views? (eg, 'you've done this, so you would say that'). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  No, they don't make that argument, at least not that I can see. On my reading of those sources, what they're actually criticizing her for is for working for RT (and thus helping support and spread Kremlin propaganda) and for not being against Assad enough, e.g. by taking his money to go on a trip, by criticizing the media for being too anti-Assad, by saying some of Assad's opposition are extremist. The same sources also point to time when she's criticized Assad in the past. They're saying she's been slipping away from what they view as her true ideals... but they don't go so far as to say she's pro-Assad, and really none say pro-Kremlin or anything close to it, just that she used to work for them. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Omg, the level of sophistry in this discussion is getting ridiculous. Source says “Khalek supports Kremlin propaganda” but apparently that is completely different from “pro Kremlin”. Sources says that Khalek “whitewashes (Assad) regime’s crimes” or that she’s a “pro Assad apologist” but apparently that is completely different from “pro Assad”. Hell, if you want the text to say “Assad apologist who whitewashes the regimes war crimes” just say so. We can change it to that no problem. Volunteer Marek 16:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't say that "Khalek supports Kremlin propaganda", it says "Author and journalist Andrea Chalupa accused Omar of “amplifying an RT contributor,” asserting that Khalek supports 'Kremlin propaganda'." Everyone who works at RT supports Kremlin propaganda; it doesn't mean their views are pro-Kremlin. It's not their views they're espousing at RT, it's their job to espouse the government's views. It's not free independent media. We can't suggest someone's views have been described as pro-Kremlin based on one tweet by a journalist criticizing Ilhan Omar for retweeting someone who used to work for RT. Levivich (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it says exactly that!!! Khalek supports “Kremlin propaganda”. It. Literally. Says. Exactly. This. Jfc. Volunteer Marek 16:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

It's attributed to a single person, and I cannot seriously believe you do not get the distinction. Levivich should have been blocked for a 1RR violation, but the two editors that reverted what was claimed to be a BLP violation, even if it was not a BLP violation and simply run of the mill UNDUE or even totally acceptable content, should not have restored it absent an affirmative consensus for the material. You both were wrong, Levivich for edit-warring, you (and Phillip Cross) for violating WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. nableezy - 18:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

And this is completely on the nail. None of the three of you behaved correctly here. Not that VM or PC should have been blocked, but they should have known better than to restore it. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, however, once I was dragged here, that precluded me from acting further on that article, until this was settled. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown would you please comment regarding the behavior of the experienced editors who participated in the edit war to reinsert disputed content (and who have a history of the same for many years), and why your opinion about enforcing 1RR has changed from what a few weeks ago you called a minor infraction that requires an informal warning? Mr Ernie (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, this sucks. The situations you're comparing are

• Two reverts on a 1RR article spaced 23 hours and 56 minutes apart (link to the AE)
• Three reverts on a 1RR article within a 24-hour period

. And the editor in the former discussion admitted to a mistaken understanding of policy. I am not at all baffled that the two situations were handled differently. DB's decision to issue an informal warning (at most) was supported by the two other admins chiming in at AE. I don't know if you've received a warning about WP:BATTLEGROUND yet, but your recent edits show you repeatedly attempting to re-litigate prior attempts at sanctioning other editors in matters that aren't about them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

They aren't the same, so comparing is pointless. One was two reverts of unrelated material, which could be easily explained as thinking it didn't apply because they were unrelated (I used to think that, so I can understand how others would.) The other was THREE reverts of the exact same material with the last two reverts in rapid succession, so the editor 100% knew that 1RR applied to them. In both cases, the majority of admin particiapting agreed with my interpretation. Different situations demand different outcomes. This is so obvious, I find it difficult to believe that you don't understand this without me explaining it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse. The ONUS is not a reason or excuse for violationg 1RR/3RR. The removed content was supported by multiple RS, and therefore it was not a BLP violation. Can this content be improved? Yes, sure, but again, violating the revert rule does not serve this purporse, but rather the opposite. But I dubt even about ONUS. Based on such argumants, one could remove at will any well sourced and relevant contet from any BLP pages, and then insist on conducting an RfC by refering to ONUS.My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Endorse block, without endorsing the content that Levivich removed. This is a 1RR violation and moreover would be a sanctionable edit warring violation had this occurred on any page. Edit warring is not about the number of reverts, but the nature. Here, there is repeated reversion of content that multiple editors have sought to include with multiple references (regardless of how valid) and different iterations of the content.

3RRNO#7 does not apply here and should in my view only apply in very, very narrow cases e.g. somebody repeatedly adding the plausible but unsourced claim "X is a rapist" to an article. The fact is that most of the highly contested content on Wikipedia relates to BLPs and 3RRNO#7 is not there as a get-out clause. If you have to prove that something is a BLP violation then it is not the right approach to continue reverting—you should discuss on the talk page only.

Volunteer Marek was also edit warring and I would say that it is at the blocking admin's discretion whether to block them or not. This 25-hour-apart second revert is particularly concerning, but Volunteer Marek has been here long enough to know that it's not the length or number of edits that means they were edit warring, but that the edit is made with knowledge that the material is seriously contested on grounds too involved to reply to in an edit summary, and must now be discussed on the talk page to reach a conclusion either way.

Dennis Brown could have instead given a partial block or fully protected the article (with or without the contested content), and could perhaps have made this an WP:ARBPIA block (I haven't evaluated that option), but was not obliged to take any of these actions. A single block for a 1RR violation / edit warring to de-escalate or halt the edit war is acceptable. — Bilorv (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Only 2 editors sought to include it. Half a dozen removed it. So I don't feel I had to prove it was a BLP vio, I feel that half a dozen editors agreed with me that it was. Levivich (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

This claim, much like Levivich’s “source by source analysis” is simply false. Just. False. Volunteer Marek 16:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

(And aside from being factually incorrect it also conveniently omits the fact that of the two editors who supported removal, one was canvassed off-wiki to revert and another one has a major WP:COI, being subject’s employee) Volunteer Marek 17:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

One more thing. Both Khalek and her co worker User:GosztolaK (acknowledgment of COI [12]) have been agitating on twitter for their followers to come to article and “fix” the problem. In addition to GosztolaK, both Levivich and User:Pinkville came to that article after being canvassed on twitter. I’m sorry but WP:CONSENSUS needs to build on Wikipedia talk pages, not manufactured on Twitter (by people who neither understand what our policies are nor wish to abide by them). Volunteer Marek 17:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: what do you hope to achieve by making such rude and aggressive comments? — Bilorv (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is “rude” about my comment? Is Levivich’s claims false? Yes. Was an editor canvassed off wiki to edit the page? Yes. Did another editor have a COI with respect to the subject? Yes. Did Levivich come to the article after seeing it in twitter? Yes, per their own claim. Are the subject and her coworker posting on twitter and asking people to go and edit the article on their behalf? Yes.

I’m sorry but there’s nothing “rude” in stating these facts. The fact that they may be unpleasant for some and make some people look not so good is not my problem. I’d appreciate it if you struck your personal attack. Volunteer Marek 17:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I did not ask or agitate for any "followers" to "fix" Rania Khalek's Wikipedia page. To do so would require me to believe that her page could be fixed or that editors or volunteers at Wikipedia have any interest in fixing it. No one was "canvassed," and Khalek had no idea I was going to leave a comment on her Talk page. What buffoonery.

I accepted your response, and the fact that it would be a waste of time for me to request that Wikipedia editors or volunteers with privileges make a non-sensitive update to her page that had nothing to with addressing the worst and most problematic sections of her page on her "Viewpoints." I do not believe anything will ever be done to fix Khalek's page. The best course of action that anyone could hope for is that Wikipedia deletes Khalek's page because they're sick and tired of having to deal with all the objections and tussling over it. GosztolaK (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Not endorsed. Insufficient justification given for block. Regarding the text Levivich removed, Dennis Brown stated that "it was well sourced, so it doesn't seem in bad faith or an obvious BLP violation",[13] but this was an assumption because Dennis Brown apparently admitted there were too many sources to read.[14][15] Dennis Brown admitted that if he personally judged the content of the text to be more serious he would have handled this differently.[16] The subject of the BLP herself denounced the text as "smears".[17] Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Given the clear disagreement among highly-experienced editors about the applicability of WP:3RRNO point 7, I've started a discussion here about clarifying it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Action: Blocking of User:Polycarpa aurata→ (log), accusing the user of being sock of User:World's Lamest Critic

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

The blocked user filed a report on 4 August asking for enforcement of the topic ban Johnpacklambert had in a topic area. However, the report was dismissed as Blablubbs decided that the user was a sockpuppet of said user. Blablubbs is an admin and a clerk at SPI, but clerks do not have checkuser rights. A follow-up question by Nableezy was asked seeking justification of dismissing the AN complaint and deeming the reporter a sockpuppet, but was either ignored or not noticed.

This filing does not necessarily ask to reverse the block, but it does raise a few points about this AN procedure.

1. The blocking admin did not present any evidence nor initiated, or participated in, a formal SPI investigation. Blablubbs has a chance to explain such behaviour and maybe his action was correct, but for now, on the surface, it differs little from being a personal attack against the user, worsened by the fact that it was supplemented by an administrative action. An SPI report was opened against the user on 27 July but no one commented there, except to state that the user was blocked. Blablubbs has experience with dealing with alleged WLC socks, but at least I'd have expected a comment on SPI or something confirming the allegations. CU checks won't hurt, too.
2. Forum-shopping by the user is evident, yet his complaint was dismissed solely on the basis that Polycarpa was a sock (an accusation that does not appear to rely on any reasoning). That looks very much like the act of poisoning the well - sock, so whatever he says is bullshit and should not be investigated so as not to enable them. The latter part is understandable but simply because the sock breaks the rules of Wikipedia and is blocked for that doesn't mean that the accused party is automatically vindicated.
   1. Note that JPL said that: The topic ban in its imposition also admits that the exact limits can be hard to determine, and clearly says there is an option to revert inadvertent edits. I have on multiple occasions apologized for this actions... which can be alternatively read as: "I'm trying to empirically determine the limits of users'/admins' patience before they start using/requesting to use the banhammer; but admins, however much I do that, please don't ban/block me because I know I'm wrong and I apologise all the time I mess up". Some would say it is a harsh interpretation, but for me that really sounds like an admission. I mean, I hope that in that cycle there should appear that moment of "enough of those last chances", shouldn't there?

In short, I request explanation from admins involved, the evidence on which the block was made, and analyse the behaviour in relation to this incident without taking account the alleged identity of the filer. Cullen328 and Dennis Brown are pinged as admins involved in these discussions. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is unfortunate: As I write, I am on a train and on my way to a vacation destination, so I likely won't be able to be as responsive here as I would like (and I can't use my laptop right now, so I have to keep it brief). A couple thoughts from my side:

• I blocked as a regular admin action, before I became aware of the SPI report. It is not required that sockblocks be made through SPI.
• I blocked Polycarpa because they are (1) a precocious new user who (2) is aggressively seeking sanctions against JPL without any significant history of prior conflict or editing interaction, (3) seems to have similarly negative feelings towards tomwsulcer (4) passionately pursues certain social wrongs and (5) shares writing style similarities. There is also some off-wiki corroboration that I am barred by policy from disclosing.
• I had nothing to do with the AN thread or its closure, so I cannot comment on that.
• I object to the characterisation of my block as a "personal attack".
• I'm not sure if XRV is the best venue for this point since it doesn't seem like my block is being directly challenged – I would have appreciated if someone had reached out to me in a less stressful environment first and given me a chance to explain.
• As mentioned above, I won't be able to be as responsive as I usually would be. My sincere apologies for that.

Thanks, --Blablubbs (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. A few notes on that: I said that "on the surface", the block seemed little different from a personal attack as no explanation was provided for it (and I have seen examples of that from other users, to which I by no means compare you), but now that you have explained your motives more in detail, we have a reasonably thorough and founded explanation, so for me, there isn't an issue anymore with the lack of explanation and the possibility of it being a "personal attack". Thank you for the clarification.

I filed this report under XRV as I wanted you to explain yourself, which you've done well. I believe that "review" is about judging admin's actions, but that also means providing the chance to explain. I assumed that you have seen the AN thread (which is why the block happened in about the same time as the thread was started) but not the SPI one, which was empty for more than a week. Maybe some other users will have questions, but I no longer have any. I will no longer bother you, have a good vacation.

Now, this review request also seeks explanation for the other admins' inaction, as WP:PROJSOCK does not allow socks to be used for filing reports against users (or generally participating in internal discussions), among others, but it also does not give authorisation for admins to ignore reports based on the identity of the filer. This is why I believe that it belongs here. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• World's Lamest Critic was blocked for reasons that had to be oversighted, so you need to contact Arb or the Oversight team for that. I just closed a discussion, nothing more. I could say the same for Cullen328, who was handling the problem before the report was filed. As for "inaction", admin are never required to take action, period. They/we are volunteers, so no explanation is ever required as that doesn't fall under WP:ADMINACCT. I will say this, just as with ANI or any other admin board, editors are expected to FIRST go to the blocking admin's talk page and try to resolve it without dragging people to a drama board. I don't see where Szmenderowiecki attempted to find answers before dragging and pinging people here. Please follow basic procedure and at least attempt to talk to the blocking admin on their talk page next time. It is a waste of time for several people when you fail to do this first, as often, the explanation is simple and forthcoming, like in this case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well, I am speaking about that precise comment, and I believe this to be enough of an inquiry to be counted as an attempt to contact the admins about what was happening. Both users have been actively editing and performing admin actions on WP since that comment on similar forums, though not specifically on AN, so while there is no certainty about having seen that comment, I cannot for sure say they haven't. I believed that that was enough, and that the comment could be ignored, but I was likely wrong about that.

  I cannot agree with the assertion that inaction is not reviewable here. For starters, administrators should justify their actions when requested. Yes, you did not use admin tools (obviously no one says that you must use them, as not all reports are actionable), but you closed the discussion as an admin with the effect that the complaint could no longer be evaluated, and will you argue this was not an action? You made a conscious decision as an admin about not doing anything about it, right?

  And please don't mistake two things. You say that as for "inaction", admin are never required to take action as we are volunteers, so no explanation is ever required. I am also a volunteer and no one can force me to write articles or to do internal maintenance work, but once I start doing that, I must do it properly. Not including some details in the articles will sooner or later be questioned, and I certainly cannot use the excuse of "I'm not required to write about that, I'm a volunteer", as that may get me reported for POV editing, for example. The same works for people with advanced rights - no one forces them to do anything, as they can retire at any moment, resign their tools, not use the tools they have been entrusted with and so on, but admins' poor judgment calls when using them (or explicitly refusing to consider to do that, as was the case here) may and will be questioned - admins are tasked with investigating conduct complaints, aren't they? Acknowledging the blocking of the OP is not an example of poor judgment, but dismissing the complaint based on this information may be, and in this case likely is. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Based on the usage of "you" here, I've moved this comment to be in reply to Dennis, not Spicy. @Szmenderowiecki: Feel free to move back if I'm misunderstanding. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It's not clear to me exactly what is being objected to here. Socks are regularly blocked outside of SPI - there is no requirement for there to be a formal filing. The OP doesn't seem to be alleging that the block was incorrect (FWIW, I closed the SPI case - while my close was procedural, I had read through the evidence and found it reasonably convincing. If I had concerns about the block, I would have asked for clarification before closing). Or is the issue that the AN thread was closed because the reporter was blocked as a sock? As far as I can tell, the only objection to this was this comment, which didn't ping the closer, so it's not clear that they would have seen it. This filing was posted shortly after that comment was made, with no apparent attempt to discuss this with the involved admins - it seems like most of this could have been resolved with a talk page post. IMO, if a user in good standing has concerns about JPL's conduct, they should feel free to open a new thread. I don't see how closing the sock's thread is an issue. Spicy (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse Closing discussions started by sockpuppets for no other reason is not fundamentally different from reverting edits by sockpuppets for no other reason, which has always been allowed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• "...the report was dismissed as Blablubbs decided that the user was a sockpuppet of said user..." That is not correct. The root issue - JPL's edit in violation of his topic ban - had already been addressed by Cullen328, on JPL's talk page. Cullen328, after communicating with JPL and Ritchie333 (who enacted the topic ban) about the issue, and acting within the bounds of admin discretion, opted to clarify and warn rather than to block in this instance.
  At the time the WP:AN thread was closed, the only comments on it were those of the ban-evading sock, Cullen328's affirmation of his reasoning behind his handling of the situation, and a question from GoodDay (with response from JPL) followed by GoodDay's endorsement. Dennis Brown, who closed the AN thread, is an experienced admin and one of the most active in assessing and closing discussions at WP:AE. He sensibly determined that a thread opened by a ban-evading sockpuppet, in a discussion where nobody but the sock had registered a concern about the outcome, could be closed.
  If an editor in good standing has a concern about the way the situation was handled, then they can raise the issue in their own name without the taint and confusion of a sockpuppet sideshow. Wasting the time of a substantial number of editors by bringing the matter here without trying any other discussions first is poor judgement. Where is Szmenderowiecki's query on Cullen328's talk page? Or Dennis Brown's? Or Ritchie333's? Or Blablubbs'?
  This request fails the very first instruction at the top of the page: "1. Before listing a review request, try to resolve the matter by discussing it with the performer of the action." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• A trout for User:Szmenderowiecki for failing to carry out the first step in the instructions: Before listing a review request, try to resolve the matter by discussing it with the performer of the action. I suggest that in future requests be summarily dismissed if requesters do not show that this step has been carried out. On the substantive issues, I see nothing meritorious about this request. The block has been made, an appeal process exists. An admin dealt with the JPL incident within discretion. The closure of the AN thread was apt. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• As should be clear to everyone, I had nothing to do with the block of Polycarpa aurata, and that block was a surprise to me. When I had earlier learned that Ritchie333 did not intend to take action on the eleven day old infraction by Johnpacklambert, I decided to deal with the matter by issuing a warning and discussing his topic ban with JPL for the purpose of clarification. And that is what I did. I see no point in further discussion of this incident, but if anyone has further questions for me, I will do my best to answer. Cullen328 (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Apparently there is no enthusiasm at all to endorse this review, so this forces me to withdraw this review request. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Action: On the 24th of May 2022, user The Blade of the Northern Lights proceeded to implement an indefinite block of both my user account and my IP, going against Blocking Policy which asserts that "IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked".

User: The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · logs) ([[No discussion took place as, while my unblocking review process went on for more than 2 months and The Blade of the Northern Lights was involved in it, they maintained the block.|prior discussion]])

I am requesting this action by The Blade of the Northern Lights be reviewed as it goes against Blocking Policy recommendations and produced great levels of wasted time, both on my end, and of multiple other admins, in trying to revert that indefinite IP block. Personally, I believe that admins have an immense responsibility towards the community and them functioning against policy recommendations without any explanations as to why, can incur great costs to the project in the long run. ==Notice of noticeboard discussion== There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding an action which you performed. The thread is Administrator immediately resorting to indefinite IP block. Thank you. CarpathianAlien (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Per the giant notice in bold at the top of this page: You must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. You may use ((XRV-notice)) for this purpose. but I've gone ahead and done that for you since you don't appear to have done so yourself. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I see no evidence that TBotNL has indeffed any IPs in May or in the last year. Also there are some blatant untruths here. First, NL did engage with you when they stated they would watch the page and would leave explicit discretion to the reviewing admin, which is exactly what they did. Generally admins placing the block do not assess unblock requests, and certainly don't decline them. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse block anyway, more to the point of XRV, the user is unblocked anyway so I'm not sure what they're looking for. The block was appropriate when it was placed, even the OP admits it in their own successful unblock appeal and I respect the three other admins (331dot, SQL, NinjaRobotPirate) who declined their endless stream of unblock requests prior to their successful one. This request sounds like OP is still misunderstanding how Wikipedia works and seeking retribution and I strongly encourage them to drop it. And for posterity, here are all of NL's blocks on May 24th, none of which are IPs. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  That's about where I'm at with this. Get unblocked, immediately attack the admin that blocked you for personal attacks three months ago, despite multiple declined unblocks and saying I would like to restate that I do not deny the personal attack towards NikolaosFanaris in their accepted unblock request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Whatever gets the job done, I guess? PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• This should be closed since they are saying Blade blocked an IP and haven't provided the IP address. Indef'ing an IP is within policy anyway, it's just something that should generally be avoided except in a few circumstances, for a technical reason, not for the benefit of the blocked party. This is trolling at it's finest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Wait a second, CarpathianAlien, are you saying he blocked your IP at the same time he blocked your account, and that is why you are complaining? That he did a hard block? Out of curiosity, how would know this unless you were trying to edit from that IP? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Might have been an autoblock, I suppose. Which, yes, does begs the question as to whether CA was trying to edit. - Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• Well, I’ve reviewed The Blade of the Northern Lights's log and although I see the block of the complainant timed at 16:24, 24 May 2022 for "Personal attacks or harassment", I don’t see any block of IPs around that time or in the weeks following so I guess we have to throw that part of the complaint out (which is, I think, all of it). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Action:

User: ((User3|)) Alparishi (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

To save anyone else's time: Alparishi's edits to Traditional Chinese medicine were in June-July 2021. They were reverted with explanatory summaries including that consensus on the talk page was needed. Alparishi did not edit the talk page. The reverting editors were not and are not administrators. Alparishi has not notified anyone of this discussion. NebY (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Action: Indefinite block of Bedford (rationale) (log)

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

As I link to above, a great deal of discussion has taken place at that ANI thread as to the merits (and rationale) of my block. I clarified my position throughout this ANI thread and wholeheartedly believe it to be within policy.

The points raised by Floquenbeam as to the modifications to one of the userboxen are well received, and this imagery did indeed factor into my decision to block, though I am fairly sure I still would have blocked had I figured that out prior.

I will reiterate that although I read the thread as it was at that time, and note it in my message to the user (in an effort to give due respect to the community process taking place there), my block was an independent admin action. I fully expected the community to continue their discussions and implement a ban if consensus arose.

It is slightly disheartening to feel the need to request a review of one of your own actions, but I do try to take the expectation of accountability seriously. Although any administrator is currently free to undo my block, this seems the most transparent way of resolving this.

Lastly, I'd ask that those commenting here firmly stick to the issues at hand (i.e. should this block remain? / should this block have been made?). Many thanks. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 13:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I would simply recommend unblocking @Bedford: & leave his Wiki-fate, in the hands of the community at WP:ANI. GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

For the benefit of everyone who might have had difficulty following the back-and-forth in the original ANI thread, could you please summarize why you believe the indef block was within policy grounds - excluding essays such as WP:NOTHERE and WP:NONAZIS? I know this is redundant, but perhaps seeing a brief summary would help to assuage concerns that I raised in the ANI thread of this being a "cathartic" block.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, though I'm just really repeating those essays — my block of Bedford was for editing Wikipedia with outwardly visible hostile beliefs (contrary to WP:5P4, our civility policy, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT) and adding and maintaining the inclusion of disruptive and hateful content to their user pages (WP:NOT, namely not a web host, advocacy and again our civility policy). Wikipedia is not the place to "carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 13:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

So technically I think you're right, which as far as I understand, is the only thing that AARV/XRV attempts to fact-find. The issue I have with it is that of timing, as GabberFlasted pointed out below. Still, I don't know if there's ever a good time to impose a block such as this for the reasons that are given. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I support the block, the reasoning provided was questionable but Bedford came out of retirement for the sole purpose of trolling. Obviously WP:NOTHERE behavior, block should stay. Dronebogus (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Question Were you aware of the ANI thread when you made the block? Please don't read this in an edit* harshly interrogative tone. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes – see above; "I will reiterate that although I read the thread as it was at that time, and note it in my message to the user [...]" — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 13:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

   Self-trout Thank you, please excuse the redundant request for reiterated reiterations. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Judging by the general world view of Bedford, their recent activities, attitude towards other editors, and what I saw about their activities in the past, I can say that I fully support the action of TheresNoTime. The block certainly should stay. —Sundostund (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I would tokenly not endorse this block, because of the intersection of

• The ANI thread that was actively discussing a then-implicit CBAN
• Bedford did not pose an immediate threat of disruption.
• The extent of Bedford's extreme views became a centralized part of those calling for a block/ban.

Had any of these elements been absent, I think the block would have been fine, or even ideal. But because of the coincidence of these three, it appears as though this block was done to rapidly suppress someone because of their views, and this feeds the fires of people who decry the current administration as $buzzword. I believe in a short time, Bedford will be CBAN'd, and the timing of the block will prove wholly inconsequential. I know my take smells a bit like PR and expect that it won't sit well with most. I only bring this all up because comment was requested, and please let me know if this post is inappropriate in any way.

TL:DR, if pressed I would probably accept that the block was safely rooted in policy, but wasn't necessary and had an avoidable negative appearance because of the circumstances.GabberFlasted (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• I opposed a block in that discussion, and now finding out someone else added that symbol to his page, that is reinforced. Unquestionably, you made a call in good faith, but I think it was a mistake. I've done the same quite recently with a block in the PI area (may still be on ANI) and I just quickly reverted after several complained. I think the problem here (as with my mistaken block) is a lot of knee jerk reaction by a lot of people, including many that are !voting on the issue at the page. It becomes very dangerous when we block for what people think instead of what they do, and should be avoided under almost all circumstances. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Point of order: Isn't this 'review' premature, given that there is still an ongoing AN/I discussion (only a day-and-a-half old)? I can see we're already getting a reiteration of points being made and discussed in that still-open thread. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The review is intended to separate the discussion of whether the indef block was valid under policy in a vacuum, vs the discussion of whether a CBAN is necessary for Bedford regardless of the imposition of an indef block. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, that ANI thread should remain on the topic initially raised (which I suppose now is working it's way towards finding consensus wrt. a CBAN?) — my block impacts that discussion and is relevant in that thread, but me barging in and requesting self-review will further derail things, and means that wider participation is unlikely to take place. At least here people may be able to view the situation with a "fresh pair of eyes", which is certainly appreciated. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 14:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that the AN/I discussion also addresses the question of the validity of the indef block, though. (And indeed, several participants have touched on that issue specifically, in addition to weighing in on the ban.)

The AN/I discussion may also incidentally surface relevant user conduct behavior or investigative steps that may be relevant to when/how/why a block - independent of the CBAN - would or would not be valid. Indeed, Dennis Brown above touches on some of exactly that sort of information (though I disagree with his conclusion).

Instead, we're reduplicating and fragmenting that effort and information in this location. There was no reason - other than TheresNoTime's burning curiosity - to begin this review while the AN/I discussion is ongoing and tempers are up. If there remain open questions about the validity of TheresNoTime's block after the AN/I discussion is closed, then it might make sense to start a review here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments — I remain of the opinion that a fragmentation of the discussion between ANI (reported user conduct, community consensus over lasting block/ban) and here (a review of the admin actions I have taken in relation to this user) makes sense, but I could certainly be wrong. This review is meant to stay open a while, but bureaucracy for bureaucracies’ sake is a waste of everyone's time — if, as an uninvolved admin, you (or anyone else) would like to close this review early please feel free to — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 15:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

As one of the editors who has raised this point in the ANI, I would like to point out that I felt the block, while inevitable, completely disregarded the community discussion on the CBAN, but then used that discission to indef. Pretty much the entire ANI agrees there wasn't enough RECENT to warrant an indef, the discussion was including a totality of conduct throughout the life on the project, meaning the indef appears to be related to the discussion. The admin states they made the block outside of the ANI, despite admitting being aware of the ANI before the block, and likely ONLY being aware of the issue because of the ANI(if this is incorrect, let me know, I will retract). It was premature, and circumvented the community CBAN discussion.

WP:CBAN clearly says that when a site ban is up for discussion, which it was, since TAOT posted the proposal to indef, the discussion should remain open for 72 hours, unless consensus is clear after 24 hours. To indef the user for their conduct, while the community is discussing whether or not their conduct is worth indeffing (with absolutely no clear consensus for the indef, BTW), was the incorrect choice, in my opinion.

With all that said, the block was inevitable, and while I firmly support TNT in their decision for self review, I feel it is unnecessary, since, let's face it, it's still ultimately a block of someone who appeared headed for a CBAN anyway. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• It is what it is. I think the admin action was a bit too pre-emptive, as I would rather have had the result of the ANI discussion determine the result, but at the end of the day I'm not gonna cry about a neo-Confederate getting blocked. It is also important to note that the community can still institute a CBAN (or choose not to) on top of the normal block, so the community still has a choice. Curbon7 (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  The consensus is leaning CBAN Dronebogus (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Current !vote count is 25 supporting indef/CBAN, 23 opposing. I don't know if I'd call that consensus. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Regarding blocking an editor during an ongoing discussion about their behaviour: this has happened in the past. Most prominently in recent history, a party to an arbitration case was blocked prior to the case closing. Administrators have different thresholds for acting, and one can fairly decide that policy has been significantly breached in their judgement to warrant a block. This does not pre-empt the ability of the community to enact more severe sanctions, should it feel them to be necessary. isaacl (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• TheresNoTime needs to slow down - TheresNoTime's username is ironic; there is actually plenty of time. Firstly, the ANI thread was still active at the time of the block, and Bedford was not causing any immediate harm to the project (apart from calling someone "childish" and "ignorant", which, let's face it, happens on an hourly basis here), so the block should have waited until the ANI thread was closed and consensus was determined. Secondly, the ANI thread is still ongoing and already has 100KB of discussion, so why are we starting another parallel discussion here? Just slow down, maybe ease up on the coffee, there's no rush and no reason to make panicked decisions. I'd recommend closing this thread and allowing the ANI thread to come to a natural conclusion. If there's consensus to block, then the block can remain in place. If there isn't, then the block can be lifted. Nothing positive will result from fracturing the discussion in multiple venues. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Block was good, block should stay; thanks. --JBL (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
• Request for procedural close This appears to be unnecessary (and redundant) as the WP:CBAN discussion seems to overwhelmingly support the block. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  I concur (but obviously will not close it myself) — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 17:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  Before the close, I want to make one thing clear: I didn't disagree with your block originally for any reason other than the community discussion going on. I still think the project is protected by your block, and would agree with it under any other circumstance. Especially given what happened after, there's no way to do anything but keep it in place as well. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• While this discussion is still open, I will say that I !voted for the CBAN, but that I think that User:TheresNoTime should not have made the indefinite block when they did. There was no short-run need for a block. There was and is a medium-run and long-term need for the ban. In this case, TNT should have waited for the community to decide whether to ban the user. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
• Looks like the block was not well thought out considering there was ongoing community discussion on of the topic. This undercuts community consensus and acts as a supervote, especially considering they did not appear to have all the info at the time. From what I can tell there was no harm to the pedia that needed the block at that moment. So yeah, bad block. PackMecEng (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Action: rollback at Special:Diff/1110761972

User: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · logs) (prior discussion)

Reversion of my good-faith copyright violation revdel request at Special:Diff/1110761972 with no explanation in the edit summary. I went to ask about why my edit was rollbacked, but there has been no argument for rollbacking my edit that meets the rollback use policy. Instead Hawkeye7 has said that I should Seek consensus before placing banners. (again, the "banner" I added was ((copyvio-revdel))) and has also pointed out that 3RR does not apply to them, which is worrying, because although considerable leeway is given on 3RR for today's featured article, no-one is actually exempt from 3RR on today's featured article, and it seems as though they are willing to break 3RR, perhaps with rollback again like the first time, to revert a copyvio revision deletion request. Keep in mind, ((copyvio-revdel)) is a template that says Note to others: Please do not remove this template before an administrator has reviewed it. --Ferien (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I am far more interested in Hawkeye7's comment of I will not permit maintenance banners under any circumstances. Note that 3RR does not apply to me. than the actual use of rollback, which I view as entirely incidental.

Hawkeye7, what do you mean by "you will not permit" maintenance banners? No individual editor has the power to forbid maintenance banners, nor does the placing of one ordinarily require consensus. Why do you believe 3RR does not apply to you? firefly ( t · c ) 13:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The placing of a maintenance banner is used to flag an ongoing discussion. The placing of one on Today's Featured Article while it is on the front page is unnecessary and disruptive. There is plenty of time for such discussions beforehand and afterwards rather than treating the readers to a screen full of maintenance banner. 3RR gives special leeway to editors protecting Today's Featured Article, and for some reason it came under heavy attack from vandals. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

You know better than this. The purpose of a banner for sources, or copyvio, or notability, etc etc etc is seldom for the purpose of discussion, but instead notification to the reader, first and foremost, and secondarily to editors. If an article is on the front page, more so the reason to remove the copyvio rather than the template. Copyvio, like BLP, trumps other concerns. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

And also, ((Copyvio-revdel)) is visible only to registered editors. DanCherek (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you've misunderstood the order of events, Dennis Brown. The copyvio had been removed. The banner was requesting revdel. I don't think readers would really be impacted by historical revisions of the article containing copyvios, but logged-in readers would be impacted by a large red banner on the version displayed to them. — Bilorv (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can see the copyvio was removed after the rollback by Hawkeye7. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not see a reason why the removal of this banner was needed, and especially why rollback was needed. Unlike other banners that are shown to logged out editors, this is only shown to logged in editors and is for an immediate request that leads to a removal once done. I would understand if this was not known at the time as most banners are shown to logged out editors.

By removing this banner administrators who are patrolling the copyvio revdel request category will not see the request and likely slows the revdel down. This is especially needed for a TFA, where the article should have copyright violations quickly removed due to the increased viewership. Furthermore, removing this edit by rollback and thus without a reason in the summary is not helpful and IMO against policy.

I hope this discussion can be resolved as a learning experience. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Ditto what Firefly said. That is kind of shocking. I would say that if an editor is asked about removing a copyvio template, a better explanation should be forthcoming. Salvio giuliano did the revdel for the edits listed in that notice, it seems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, the revdels had already been performed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  May I just point out: you rollbacked the edit at 10:09 (UTC) and the revisions were deleted at 10:16. Perhaps this was due to Salvio having your talk page or the article on their watchlist? --Ferien (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  I have the article on my watchlist, you are correct; I noticed your revdel request, but got distracted and only actioned it after Hawkeye7's rollback. Salvio 21:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hawkeye7 should not have used rollback (or any revert type) in this instance, and the justification at User talk:Hawkeye7#Rollback? is insufficient and inappropriately hostile. However, as a single revert (not mass rollback) I'm not convinced XRV is the right place to discuss it.
  I understand the annoyance at a nasty banner on a TFA page, but this is a reason to ask an admin who's online to revdel with priority or post at AN asking for action ASAP, not a reason to remove the revdel request. Hawkeye7 could correct me if they did this on an off-wiki channel.
  It is not correct that maintenance banners should always point to discussion or require pre-established consensus, and particularly not the case for ((copyvio-revdel)). I will not permit maintenance banners under any circumstances is clear overstepping: Hawkeye7 has no ultimate power over any article per WP:OWN. I wonder if Hawkeye7 was aware that ((copyvio-revdel)) is only shown to logged-in editors, or how they would take this fact into account; I only learned it from this discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, me too. I was not aware of this mechanism. I had a look at the template to see how this was done. I did ask an admin off-wiki, but Salvio actioned it before this could occur. I don't think this knowledge would have altered my resolve to remove the banner. I was only trying to protect the article for readers to enjoy. It had come under heavy attack from vandals and I will be very relieved when it is off the front page. My regret is causing offence to Ferien, and for that I do apologise. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, Hawkeye's actions were not only against policy but show a ridiculous attitude (I will not permit maintenance banners under any circumstances. Note that 3RR does not apply to me.) that is completely at odds with a collaborative encyclopedia. I am unsure, however, what sanctions could be applied here. Personally I would remove rollback, but that doesn't actually seem to be the problem here, as I am sure Hawkeye would have reverted even if they had not had access to that tool. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Note this venue is just to discuss if the actions taken were in accordance with consensus guidance. Discussion of sanctions can take place in one of the usual locations, if it's deemed appropriate. isaacl (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Seems like a lesson was learned, I'm thinking we can move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  Did I miss some mea culpa about the quoted '3rr' statement above? If not, moving on seems like a bad idea. Arkon (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  It was a TFA, which does have a lot of extra protections, including ignoring 3RR for anything that is remotely protecting the article. It was a bit overstated to be sure, but not completely without merit, now that we know it was on the front page at the time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  You mean "Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the Main Page. If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert."? I don't see the edit summary or talk page post that justifies this revert, and the revert was diminishing the quality of the FA, not maintaining it, as it may have delayed dealing with a copyvio. It is worse, not better, that it was on the front page at the time. When I saw the language of I will not permit maintenance banners under any circumstances. Note that 3RR does not apply to me pop up on my watchlist I first considered that Hawkeye (who I have a lot of time for) was joking. When I realised he was not I was gobsmacked. Writing content is hard and good content has to be defended, but this is not the first time I have seen misinterpretation of WP:FAOWN. I'd like to see an acknowledgement that this was a series of gross misjudgements; not just the reflexive revert, which was bad, but the very hostile and entitled language in talk, which was very bad. John (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• If I may self-promote for a moment, some may wish to check out Tamzin's tutorial on how to see all of the `-show` classes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  If I don't even understand what that does, does that mean I can safely ignore it because I wouldn't know what to do with it anyway? Valereee (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think the tool shows all the banners for different rights and adds a background colour to visually indicate who can see them. This means you would see the the copvios banner is only shown to certian groups by seeing it has a particular added background colour. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Valereee, Dreamy Jazz, and Isaacl: Here, I've made it (hopefully) clearer at Help:-show classes, complete with a template to make your own custom page in just a few keystrokes. (Doesn't go as far as different colors for different rights, rather grouping things in relation to what rights the user actually has; that would be a cool fork, though.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• If the rollback had an edit summary saying "Note that 3RR does not apply to me", I'd have taken that as a misstated but plausible claim for exemption. I do understand the urgency in wanting to protect TFA, but when you're IARing, you can't ignore every rule, and the rules for rollbacking and claiming exemption both require an edit summary. Valereee (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, but rollback has several annoying features: there is no opportunity to supply edit summary, no chance to confirm that it is what you intended and I think it is marked as a minor edit regardless of how large it is. If you see a rollback from me of a single edit, then it will be because I've hit the rollback by mistake. In this instance I intended to undo, and the summary would have been something like "Please do not place maintenance banners on Today's Featured Article." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Can we just move that template to the article talk page? It does not help the article, or improve it for readers (logged in editors are readers too, nor is the real audience for that template all logged in readers; it is only for those who can action it) -- more likely, it instead highlights a copyright infringement in the article history, distracting readers from the article itself, and making the copyright infringement briefly more prominent, in part negating the copyright infringement's removal from the article in the first place. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Alanscottwalker, there was a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations/Archive 1#Template:Copyvio-revdel if you're interested. --Ferien (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• I would like to make a few points as this discussion is sorta dead now.
  • Like Dennis Brown, I also believe it's best to close this discussion now, as Hawkeye7 has apologised and there aren't any more comments coming in as there's not much more to say at this point.
  • XRV does not exist to discuss inappropriate comments or attitudes, I started this discussion solely because I believed the rollback was against policy and I wanted the community to review this action. Another discussion can be started about the comments made at User talk:Hawkeye7#Rollback? but I don't think it is necessary to do that.
  • Bilorv, as said in the header at the top of the page, XRV may be used to request review of an administrative action or an action using an advanced permission. A rollback, while not logged, is still an action and is the only feature of the rollback permission. This, in my opinion, is the most appropriate place to discuss rollback use. Also, my edit was reverted before the revisions containing copyvios were deleted.
  • I have also learnt a lesson from this experience, that placing a copyvio-revdel template on the featured article of the day is not a great idea and I should get an admin's attention in another way. --Ferien (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
• What am I missing? Hawkeye isn’t an Admin. Why is this here? Doug Weller talk 18:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Doug Weller, see the top of the page "Administrative action review may be used to request review of an administrator action or an action using an advanced permission" Rollback is an advanced permission. --Ferien (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review#Should rollback be excluded from review? petered out with something like consensus that it's probably within the scope set by the RFC if not the title, so let's wait and see how it goes. IMHO this was calmer and more constructive than it might have been at ANI, for what it's worth. NebY (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  I wish this had a different title if it's not just about Admin action. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Suggestions for something better? There was quite a bit of discussion at the talk about whether it should cover all advanced permissions; I think the consensus was something along the lines of probably not every permission, but probably yes rollback. Valereee (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  The favored suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review#Change the name? was "Advanced Action Review". Levivich (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Move it and see if there are objections? I don't object. Valereee (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  The original idea was that "administrative" was used in its plain English sense (i.e. pertaining to administration) rather than the Wikipedia-jargon. Clearly that hasn't worked and is causing confusion, so I don't mind trying advanced action review either. – Joe (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• As I said above, "Seems like a lesson was learned, I'm thinking we can move on.". There really is no point in laboring this. Hawkeye WAS wrong, and he gets it. It was roll back (covered by this board) and a silly statement (which isn't covered). Move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• I recognise that we have exhausted the competence of this notice board. I would feel a lot easier in moving on if I was sure Hawkeye realised the silly statement was silly. Otherwise I worry we will see this problem recur. But you're right, maybe we have done what we can do here. John (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Action: The user Ifuvuebeifhsuchd has been disruptively editing the article of Kateri Amman since September 29, 2022, altering information regarding a mythological being without offering dialogue or citations.

User: User:Ifuvuebeifhsuch (talk · contribs · logs) ([discussion])

The editor has vandalised the article a total of four times, POV pushing, and altering details by changing words and removing cited content, without offering any citations. The user was warned a total of four times as well, thrice by me, and did not desist over a span of weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronikhiles (talk • contribs) 06:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC) this was unsigned due to an unclosed comment tag, fixed by Thryduulf (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Chronikhiles: This is not the right venue to request administrative action, you want Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thryduulf (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Action: Use of advanced "rollback" permission to revert my changes to articles. [21] [22]

User: Bbb23 (talk · contribs · logs) (No discussion with the editor took place because I cannot edit their talk page.)

These actions should be reviewed because they use the advanced "rollback" tool to revert my edits. My edits were not vandalism, not in Bbb23's userspace, not edits that Bbb23 made, not widespread, and I am not blocked nor banned. Bbb23 clearly disagreed with my edits and used the rollback tool to revert them, but "reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with" is per se abuse of the "rollback" tool. Wikipedia administrators should know better than to abuse the rollback tool, so I am bringing these rollbacks here for the other administrators and the community to review them. Lobster from Maine (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23 You are notified of this complaint. Lobster from Maine (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

As you cannot notify Bbb23 due to their talk page being semi-protected, I have notified them with ((XRV-notice)) in your stead this time. Curbon7 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Lobster from Maine (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The second diff has an edit summary, so doesn't really fall under WP:ROLLBACKUSE restictions, "Rollback" tag on the edit aside.—Bagumba (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bagumba What about the first one? Lobster from Maine (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll wait for Bbb23's explanation on that. —Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Lobster from Maine (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Great, another contributor who, despite their account being less than 48 hours old, managed to become offended by being reverted twice (1, 2) and managed to work out that Bbb23 was an admin who could be poked here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

No doubt they've edited here longer than the life of this account. I'm allowing leeway for this review only because the admin's talk page is semiprotected, and they could not post this directly there.—Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

While the edit that was reverted by DB1729 [23] looked like good faith edits reverted, you then reverted 10 minutes later which did not look like a good faith edit. In similar circumstances, I probably would have done the same. The edit summary you provided would have raised my suspicions of a problematic editor. I find this whole discussion frivolous. Equine-man (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Lobster from Maine, you took personal responsibility for restoring an edit that piped 1st Maine Heavy Artillery Regiment to 1st Maine Heavy Artillery Regiment. Why the heck did you do that, other than to start an argument? Or did you fail to evaluate the edit? I would have used undo instread of rollback, but your conduct deserves scrutiny as well. Cullen328 (talk) 08:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Hi, I have followed this from the WP:Teahouse, please notify a checkuser about this case. FWIW, User Talk:Lobster from Maine#Other accounts Lemonaka (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed one-hundred percent. This is a waste of time by a "new" user who is looking to stir the pot. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

This all seems like a lot of words to state that someone used the "rollback" feature rather than revert with an edit summary once. We aren't talking about a long list of issues, unless someone can point to it? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• I thought this board was effectively defunct. In my view - and I believe in the view of many others - it shouldn't exist as AN and ANI are more than enough to complain about an administrator. God knows they're used often enough. In any event, the rollback without an edit summary was wrong. I let my opinion of the user influence my judgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Action: User:Anthonydevolder was blocked indefinitely today for an alleged namespace violation. The infobox at the top of User talk:Anthonydevolder says that the blocked userpage was "...obviously offensive, profane, violent, threatening, sexually explicit, disruptive, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia." However, objective evidence of the truth of any of that is, in my opinion, lacking.

User: User:Doug Weller.

Discussion of the block is happening at both User talk:Anthonydevolder and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

User:Anthonydevolder was created in 2011 and had not been edited since that time. An article in Politico on 20 January about controversial US representative George Santos referenced this userpage and showed a screenshot of it: [24]. As Santos is a subject of much current interest in the US, the Politico article has been highly referenced on social media and elsewhere. However, none of that seems to warrant a block and content deletion. Page protection in anticipation of vandalism seems to be a more rational response. I request an admin review of User:Doug Weller's decisions. Thank you. Moncrief (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It's the standard username hardblocked template. It would have been better if the famous username template had been used, but I think that's really all it is. The account has two edits from 2011, both oversighted. Doug is an oversighter, but will be bound by the OS policy, so at most you'd get why, not what, assuming he applied the OS. Regular admins don't have visibility into OS actions. Why is this discussion now happening in a third venue? Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Could you explain that in a way that doesn't have so much jargon? I don't understand what you're saying. Why was the page deleted? What rules did it violate? Thanks. Moncrief (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

What jargon? You're an admin, you know about oversight. I'm guessing Doug used the wrong template. The edits were not just deleted, they were oversighted, so it's out of admins' power to review. OS review is an Arbcom area. In any case, there is a discussion at AN. It should be kept there, not dispersed to other noticeboards. As for the block rationale, that's up to Doug to explain at AN. Acroterion (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The deletion and the removal of the links are both oversight actions that can't be reviewed publicly. (You can file a complaint with ArbCom using the procedures at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit, although I don't think that would get very far.) We can review the username block, but it's standard procedure to block accounts whose usernames represent famous people even if they haven't edited recently (see User:Beeblebrox/rough guide to username blocks), and while it probably shouldn't have been a hardblock if the only issue was the username, I'm not sure that's really worth quibbling over at this point. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a clear explanation. Moncrief (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Beeblebrox's guide only suggests soft blocking the "famous" username if they have edited content related to that person, which this account had not. So that user's guide (which is not Wikipedia policy) is not relevant here. Is there a relevant policy somewhere other than WP:MISLEADNAME, Extraordinary Writ? —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Ganesha811, the account did edit "content related to that person". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

They edited only their own user page, if I recall correctly (though as it has been suppressed I cannot confirm that). User pages are not content—by my understanding, articles are content and that's about it. Look, I get creating a semi-biographical promotional user page filled with lies is far from ideal behavior, but doing so is not grounds for a username block, especially when the person in question did not become notable until 12 years later, under an entirely different name. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

In the Politico article, there's a screenshot of his user page as it was, if that helps. See (Redacted). Moncrief (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC) I don't appreciate that being removed. It's listed in the template on Talk:George Santos. Is any reference to this easily found public article really to be scrubbed from Wikipedia because of the oversight policy? If so, that policy should be applied consistently. Moncrief (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

What I find confusing with that explanation is Devolder's talk page is 11 years old so I don't see how the user name Anthony Devolder "represent a famous person" 11 years ago. I feel deleting the page is unwarranted and unwise. ~Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, he was "a customer service representative at a call center for Dish Network in College Point, Queens" as of 2012. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison and Zanimum: I don't see how that's relevant. It's represent present-tense not represented past-tense. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I see no basis at all for the hard block (or any block) or for suppression of the edit to their userpage. Where is the policy against editing under two of four of a person's real names, and what policy justifies suppression of revealing bragging? I simply do not understand the reason for any of this. Cullen328 (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

So if BetsyRMadison -- or even another person also named Betsy R. Madison -- became famous later on, an oversighter could hardblock her account with no warning just because the name she gave, in good faith and which was allowed at the time she created the account, has since become controversial? I think the relevancy is that there is a chilling effect if ex post facto hardblocks can be applied to anyone with any name that may become famous in the future. 216.30.158.37 (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Moncrief. So I think that we would not have access to enough information to review the oversight work. And so the things that we can review here are the username block and choice of template. Your "Thank you. That's a clear explanation." statement seems to imply that you are now OK with the username block. (?) Is there something that is reviewable here that you still seek to have reviewed? North8000 (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I would like the review of the username block and choice of template to continue. With the comment you mention, I was just indicating that I appreciated the explanation of oversight, and especially the links provided. Moncrief (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

"We would not have access to enough information to review the oversight work" That actually isn't quite right, everything this account ever did (all two edits) is already public, it's just not on Wikipedia. We have the same information the oversighters do. We just don't have the power to question or observe their decision-making process. —Ganesha811 (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, by different routes, we ended up at the same conclusion, not reviewing the oversight work. IMO such is an action using an advanced permission and not excluded here. But on privacy matters, I would prefer that they err on the side of caution. BTW, IMO there are degrees of publicness. Pulling together stuff that is published scattered elsewhere and putting the result in Wikipedia IMO represents making it far more public. So I would be against attempting to review oversight work here.North8000 (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Moncrief, what do you think about pausing the review here a bit to see if anything develops at the other two venues? I realize that this venue may be intended to address possible shortcomings of expecting review of admin actions by admins, but perhaps a pause at this venue might be a good thing? North8000 (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not interested in requesting a pause, no. Administrators will take whatever time they need to reach a conclusion, but I'm not going to ask for a pause. Moncrief (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Before listing a review request, try to resolve the matter by discussing it with the performer of the action.

Indeed. There is extensive repetitive discussion about this action on at least 4 different pages. None of the participants in the discussion has bothered to wait for comment from the person who took the action (his last contribution is the block in question). There are numerous self-fulfilling comments about this making Wikipedia look bad, hurting its reputation, opening it to mockery, etc. Jibal (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jibal Thank you. I'm sorry if I've made a mistake and I did nothing out of malice. I can't possibly spend my day responding to everyone at every venue My biggest error was probably not reading the date. Sorry, I was doing this last thing before going to sleep (another Admin put it on Facebook, which is where I found it), and I only read the content. I'm going to AN to respond there. @Moncrief I hope that will satisfy you. I do wish I'd looked at Politico yesterday. Doug Weller talk 08:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Undeleted user page. Doug Weller talk 09:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

My take is that if it had been current it would be suppressible, but 2011? No. It's clearly not someone picking this up from the news, creating an account and a userpage for fun. Was it actually Santos? Who knows. I've unsuppressed it, will probably unblock. Doug Weller talk 09:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Forgot, the Disney thing had me convinced it was a hoax and an attack on Santos. Doug Weller talk 09:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moncrief I hope that will satisfy you. Yes, thank you. Could you also please clarify if this article is under oversight? It sounds from what you've said that it wasn't/isn't, but I'd appreciate you clarifying. Is the Politico article able to be linked (not that I plan to add it anywhere, but it's currently in, for example, Talk:George Santos)? Thanks. Moncrief (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

He said he's unsuppressed it. That implies that it was under oversight and now isn't--as you were told elsewhere, suppressed=oversight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Jibal (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I don't mean to hammer you here, but in my opinion, your biggest error was not failing to read the date. There were two big error: the biggest was blocking someone and suppressing something right before you went to bed. That left your colleagues who were just waking up with a mess to deal with for 8-12 hours until you came back online. (Note the editors who suggested we shouldn't do anything until we heard further from you. This illustrates the problem with "fire and leave".) WP:ADMIN counsels not to do that, because then you won't be available to answer queries promptly. The second one was using your tools in response to a post on Facebook, which very obviously didn't give you enough information to act, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Facebook is not a proper reporting avenue for admin intervention. This could have been handled by reporting it on-wiki, on the CU email list, or on the OS email list, where editors who were awake could have fielded it. In my view, the block and suppression wasn't a big deal, and not even a mistake as a first-line-of-defense; the mistake, rather, was doing it right before logging off for hours. Levivich (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think finding out about it on Facebook is a problem. In gait I wondered if it was a joke at first. But yeah, with hindsight what I thought was not a terribly controversial action was wrong, so I think that after spending so much time today responding I’m pretty unlikely to do something like that again! Doug Weller talk 18:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• There doesn't seem to be disagreement over whether the content was suppressible, but Levivich, your argument that such tasks shouldn't be done shortly before logging off isn't reasonable. If the date had been current, this would have been an entirely routine action, and if we expect admins to be online for a while after taking routine actions, we'd have none left. Also: I don't know the content of the Facebook post, but I got the definite impression Doug Weller saw something from the news media posted on Facebook and determined it needed investigating, not that someone asked him for help on Facebook. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm surprised by that view; up until now I've thought it was a widely-held norm that admins should not block someone if they're going to be logged off for a while (e.g., right before going to bed) because then they won't be around to "respond promptly" to inquiries about the block. Levivich (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  For contentious blocks it's a good policy. For routine blocks, why does it matter? Any other admin can always handle it. I see no reason admins should be discouraged from dealing with the AIV backlog if they're not confident of being on-wiki for the next few hours. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  What about this is routine? Even if this account edit yesterday, it wouldn't be routine. It's a sitting US Congressman. Levivich (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  No, the block was placed on the assumption that it wasn't a sitting US Congressman, but rather impersonation. If this was Santos, there would be no reason to block; adults can say what they like about themselves. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  What I mean is that this wasn't a routine username block, it's not like someone just registered a famous name and an admin patrolling put on a soft block. This came to us as a story in the media about a U.S. Congressman editing Wikipedia. That doesn't happen every day, that Politico writes about a Wikipedia userpage. That's what makes it not routine in my view. If an admin is patrolling and makes 100 routine blocks and then logs off, that's a different story, of course that has to be OK for the reason you said. Levivich (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Please count me as among those who would prefer waiting for a reply at Doug's talk page before starting the escalation to here. We're talking about an account that was created in 2011 and abandoned almost as soon as it was created. It's not like an editor who really cares about contributing here suddenly finding that they were blocked. I'll wager that the person actually has a lot of other things on his mind, other than feeling sad at not having been able to edit here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish thanks, but reply on my talk page about what? Doug Weller talk 08:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, what I meant is that editors raised the issue at your talk page, and then started the discussion here before you had gotten a chance to reply to what they said at your talk page. (I think – my apologies if I got the chronology wrong.) It seems to me that your reply at your talk page, [25], was both reasonable and clear. Had editors waited for and read that reply, the one that I just gave the diff of, there would have been no need to escalate the dispute to here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, that makes sense! I wish they had. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Any chance this can be closed? Doug Weller talk 21:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that in summary the only thing widely agreed on is what Doug said himself. In essence that he made what he thought was the best decision at the time and that in hindsight that there are a few things that he should have been handled differently. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Action: Partial-block from article space of Simoooix.haddi for edit warring and disruptive editing to push a POV at various pages, most recently here, here, here.

User: Valereee (talk · contribs · logs)

I p-blocked this editor after various discussions, and I'm not actually sure I've got it right. The other editor in the dispute, M.Bitton, may be just as much at fault. I don't have any expertise in the subject, just wanted to see if this seemed reasonable. Just a reality check for me. Valereee (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I came to Wikipedia with the intention to contribute, and I acknowledge that I may make mistakes soemetimes. However, I do not believe that my last edits were disruptive. It would be beneficial to have editors with at least some basic knowledge about the subject to confirm this. Unlike M.Bitton (who was reverting my edits after following me of course), I have provided explanations for my last edits in the comments. SimoooIX (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Neither Algerian nor Ottoman victory is very illuminating for the reader here given the current state of the article. I am pretty sure that if you had spent some time improving the content, for instance at least linking to Oruç Reis there would not be such skepticism of your edits. I think you do have a minor point, but best if you were to first explain to the reader before just changing the info boxes. fiveby(zero) 17:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. While I acknowledge that "Ottoman" may not be entirely accurate, it was the best term I could come up with. Referring to it as an "Ottoman victory" is still way better than calling it an "Algerian victory," as the latter would be an anachronism. SimoooIX (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The word Ottoman has no place in there for the simple reason that the Barbarossa brothers didn't seek the help of the Ottomans until after those dates (this is basic knowledge). M.Bitton (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

basically Barbarossa brothers were Ottoman corsairs before coming to modern-day Algeria. SimoooIX (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind teaching history, but this is not the place to do it. For now, things like you personally attacking me on your third ever edit (for no reason whatsoever) and insulting the Algerian president on fr.wp are more relevant. M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You could have "teached" me history in your comments when you reverted my edits. SimoooIX (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Good p-block--without any opinion on which text is more correct, Simooix.haddi has edit warred across multiple articles and expressed clear intent at M.Bitton's talk page to continue edit warring (largely based on what appear to be honest misunderstanding of our edit warring policy), without adequately engaging in discussion at a relevant talk page. Simooix can now continue to seek a consensus by starting talk page discussions in the appropriate locations, with reference to RS. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry but did i "express clear intent at M.Bitton's talk page to continue edit warring"? I don't think so.

  I have reverted their edits since they didn't give any explanation for their revert in the comments. SimoooIX (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  This string of responses is what concerns me. Also, your participation here isn't really desired; Valereee is asking for input from other administrators and experienced editors--even if you fit that description, as the subject of the p-block you will have an obviously biased view of its propriety. You can request that the block be lifted by filing a normal unblock request at your talk page; although unless/until an uninvolved editor opines here that the block was inappropriate, you're not going to get very far making that assertion (a more successful unblock request would clarify how you intend to deal with editing disputes moving forward). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  "This string of responses is what concerns me." i didn't mean that i wil continue edit-warring by that.

  "Also, your participation here isn't really desired;Valereee is asking for input from other administrators and experienced editors--even if you fit that description". Valereee sent me a link to this discussion. I think that's an invitation. SimoooIX (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  It was a courtesy notification, as we'd be discussing you. I'm really here because I want to hear what other experienced, well-intentioned editors think. I wish the two of you would stop relitigating your disputes. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Trust me that's what i wish too. I also hope if just M.Bitton's interactions would be less toxic than they already are.

  I admit that i have made a mistake in my third edit (which i apologized for already). but I'm not the only one who had issues with this editor. SimoooIX (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

What is p-block? Permanent block? Partial block? Practical block? Some of us are civilians, can't assume we are up on all the jargon.

Also, User:Rosguill, "Your participation here isn't really desired" is not how we work here. Sorry, but I skipped the rest of your post after that. I don't have time for engaging editors who write stuff like that. If you're going to write things like that you should learn to expect that I guess.

OK, so, I don't have time or interest to look over the whole thing, and there's no link for the various discussions, but just looking at Siege of Jijel, we have:

• User:Simoooix.haddi changes "Algerian" to "Ottoman. On the merits, I assume it's debatable -- The Algerian forces were operating under the nominal suzerainity of the Ottomans IIRC, so the bold edit is defensible. The edit summary is very poor and actually inflammatory: "Algerian victory in 1517? That doesn't make any sense". But it makes perfect sense. It might be wrong, but its not madness. Don't do that. Insulting edit summary = bad edit. I'd consider a rollback on that basis.
• So User:M.Bitton rolls back that edit, but doesn't say why. No edit summary. Is the rollback because Bitton doesn't agree with the content? Or the edit summary? or doesn't like Simooox personally? Or the Ottomans generally? Or just likes to revert stuff? Who knows? The proper edit summary would be "Reverted per WP:BRD, make your case on talk". But they didn't do that. Bad.
• Simoooix then should have not reverted the edit and instead opened a thread on talk page making their case. But instead he reverted again -- edit war now looming, particularly since their summary was "aren't you the warrior against anachronism?" which is about the editor not the edit. Bad. However, since Bitton left no edit summary, which is kind of dismissive. it's understandable that Simoooix would just revert. Wrong, but to a degree just being human.
• So the next step would be Bitton (or anyone) to re-revert, with an edit summary something like "Reverted again per WP:BRD, DO NOT EDIT WAR, instead make you case on the talk page" Optional extra work, but best, would be for Bitton (or someone) to open a thread on the talk page with content like "An editor is changing Ottoman to Algerian and is insisting, they are requested to make their case here". I generally do this. But nobody has done this yet.

So, I think what we have here is an opportunity for a learning experience. User:Valereee could have left messages on both editors' talk page teaching them how it should have been done. This is how the admin corps, the best of our best, helps editors to learn and grow. That is how the editor corps improves, and that's more important than the somewhat obscure issue at hand.

So really nobody was excellent here. I guess there's more expectation for an admin to be excellent, or try, tho. If Valereee didn't have the time to do this correctly, per WP:FAILSAFE they should have let it go, I guess. So, maybe a growing experience for all three participants.

And your second choice would have been to take the issue to ANI I think. If you're going to block somebody -- and per WP:HURTS every block risks permanently alienating the editor, or at least hurting their morale -- do that. Get other admins's eyes on it, an let the editor have a chance to explain themself. (And, finally... I gather this has spread over several articles, but that just makes it more compelling to educate the participants.) Herostratus (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Herostratus My suggestion to SimoolX was primarily so that they would avoid providing additional rope here to justify their hanging. If you'd read the rest of my comment, that would have been quite clear, as I gave them advice for how to go about requesting an unblock. There's also the irony that you apparently don't know what WP:P-block means and couldn't be bothered to look it up? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I hope that "you apparently don't know what [first use of acronym, and not even linked] means and couldn't be bothered to look it up" isn't how you you think toward the reader when you write articles. I'd like the same courtesy. There's hella acronyms here. I get that "everybody knows what I do, or anyway should" is a common, if unconscious, human attitude. Fight it.

You gave three examples of bad behavior right off. I picked one. It wasn't bad behavior, or anyway egregious, or much worse than the other guy. There's a limit to how deep I can or will dig.

Asking for feeback on actions is admirable, and good on you. If the attitude is "wtf dude, I expect confirmation and flattery, not actual critisism'" (and I've seen this before), not so great. Don't snark at me for your failure to at least take this to ANI discussion before kicking an editor off the project -- and every block has an n-percent chance of that, where n is some non-zero numbers. If you don't know that you had better learn fast, I think. Herostratus (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Rosguill didn't take the action or open this discussion. I did those. Valereee (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You might expect them to know what this discussion is about, but there's a limit to how deep they can or will dig. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I did discuss/advise at both editors' talks here, here, here and here and an article talk, plus at another editor's user talk. I'm not sure where I gave the impression this was a lack-of-time issue, I've been editing all day. For me this is a 'was this the right move?' issue. Valereee (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your previous intervention on the ScotishFinishRadish talk page, where you were impartial and listened to both sides. However, I'm disappointed that you didn't follow the same approach this time. Instead of discussing the matter, you blocked me without warning and labeled my edits as 'disruptive'. SimoooIX (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think some background information is needed here: 1) Simoooix.haddi personally attacked me for no reason whatsoever on their third edit. 2) Told me to "fuck off" in their edit summaries (twice[27][28] so far). 3) They have been blocked indefinitely on the fr.wp for replacing the name of the Algerian president with an insulting name. M.Bitton (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Setting aside the current topic, it seems like you're trying to find ways to get rid of me. Anyway:

  1)- You have personally attacked me in this instance [29] and here [30].

  2)-The meaning of FO in my comments was not meant to be offensive. You selectively chose the worst interpretation and attributed it to me.

  3)-The block on the French wiki was unjust and i insulted nobody, and I don't have to discuss that. My primary focus has always been the English wiki. SimoooIX (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  What does FO mean?

  The block on fr.wp was more than justified. You can't insult the Algerian president or any other living person and get away with it. M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  False Opinion. SimoooIX (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  So your response to facts such as "stop adding original research" and "edit warring" is "false opinion" (when there is no question that you did both)? It's worse than Fuck off. M.Bitton (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not going to play this game with you. you asked about what i meant by FO and i answered you. That's it. SimoooIX (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Now, let's return to our subject. I'm not going to discuss this anymore. SimoooIX (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Why did you set the p-block duration to indefinite, Valereee?—S Marshall T/C 20:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  SM, what I'd like to see is this editor listening to what people are telling them. An indef requires someone to listen rather than simply waiting something out. I have zero objection to anyone lifting the block once the editor starts listening instead of arguing. Valereee (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. Time limited blocks do not ensure understanding. An indefinite block is not of infinite duration. It can be removed once understanding is understood. Sometimes sooner than a randomly determined time-limited block. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have experienced disagreements with other editors where I was in the wrong side. In those instances, when the other editor explained themselves in a civil and respectful manner, and pointed out my mistakes, I was convinced and expressed gratitude. However, unfortunately, that was never the case with M.Bitton. SimoooIX (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• SM, I've made that clear at the user's talk, thanks. Valereee (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)From what I've seen here, the partial block is still needed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Okay. I note that this editor is now talking. Profusely. I think there are two sides to this, and I'm not exactly overjoyed about M.Bitton's responses. We've got two editors who both display an awful lot of self-confidence and trust in their own judgment and knowledge.—S Marshall T/C 21:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yep. Which is exactly what I said in my OP and the reason I came here for input. Valereee (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Fair. I endorse the indefinite P-block from article space in the circumstances but feel some kind of further intervention is needed.—S Marshall T/C 21:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

• Seems to have subsided now? Suggest lifting the pblock for the time being. I wouldn't look for a mea culpa before unblocking in this case because WP:EHP and there was a degree of provocation. I do not think this pblock can be sustained for much longer when we haven't taken action on M.Bitton.—S Marshall T/C 23:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  @S Marshall: What action and for what exactly? M.Bitton (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  I've unblocked in response to a request, and I've also discussed going forward at the other editor's talk. Thanks for the input, all! Valereee (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Action: block of Esculenta [31]

User: Cullen328 (talk · contribs · logs) (prior discussion)

I'm requesting review of Cullen328's block of Esculenta.

It happened immediately after this ANI thread was started, before almost anyone had responded. The reason given for the one-month block was Disruptive editing: Unapproved mass creation of articles and another content using ChatGPT or other AI technology. From the subsequent discussion, it became clear that no disruption had occurred (there was only positive feedback on the articles in question), that the allegation of mass creation was dubious (the editor had created barely four articles per day for the preceding week), and that there was no credible evidence for the involvement of AI (with decent evidence to the contrary).

The only legitimate criticism of Esculenta was for earlier incivility, but that would have never required a block, let alone one of such duration. I find it disturbing that such a block could have happened, and it's troubling that it still hasn't been reversed. – Uanfala (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Esculenta has not requested an unblock. Esculenta has previously stated a desire to mass create a large volume of articles and has openly experimented with Chat GPT for GA reviews. Before being blocked, Esculenta refused to communicate with editors who raised concerns, and repeatedly blanked their talk page. Esculenta insulted editors who asked questions about mass article creation and embraced "meatbot" as a nickname. This is a collaborative project and they decided to refuse to collaborate or communicate. Cullen328 (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Action: blocking user:2600:1001:b130::/44 User: JBW (talk · contribs · logs) shared IP range with no history of vandalism. Collateral damage. Indy208 (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Checking the IP range's edits, this was valid. This was a LTA vandal that was vandalizing requests for unblock starting on 3/21 and continuing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

That was months ago. The person might be long gone. Indy208 (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@JBW: Since you are the blocking admin, do you think it could be safe to lift the range block at this time? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• To say that there was "no history of vandalism" is completely mistaken. There is a history of extremely serious vandalism, with the potential to do far more harm than "normal" run of the mill vandalism.
• Examination of the editing history from this range very strongly indicates that probably all the editing, and if not then almost all, has been done either by two people each with their own style of unconstructive editing or else by one person doing two kinds of unconstructive editing. Either way, the risk of collateral damage is negligible.
• The person responsible for the extreme vandalism from this range has a long term history of the same thing, continuing, to my knowledge, at least up to yesterday. They are not "long gone", and it is entirely likely that they might return to this range if it were unblocked.
• RickinBaltimore, for the reasons I have outlined above I think that lifting the block would be a very bad idea, but if you think otherwise I won't stand in the way of your unblocking.
• I wonder why Indy208 didn't consult me as a first step, rather than coming directly to this page. JBW (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• @JBW: Thanks for the reply. I would agree, given the info here, that this would be unwise to lift the block at this time. I also wonder why they didn't come to your talk page directly. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: @JBW:. It's a great block, and please don't adjust it (unless widening it). The range has been heavily and disproportionately used by an LTA doing vandalism for a long time, including within the past few days and several times this month. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
• The block appears appropriate based on the history provided by JBW, and more so based on the checkuser note by zzuuzz. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Action: blocking of 2600:1017:B400:0:0:0:0:0/40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

User: Daniel Case (talk · contribs · logs)

Daniel, why did you block a wide mobile range for one IP from the range vandalizing Cool Hand Luke? A look at the history reveals mostly constructive editing. Shim119 (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

From "Instructions - Initiating a review" above: "Before listing a review request, try to resolve the matter by discussing it with the performer of the action." I don't see where you did that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's best if we don't make the sysop who performed the disputed action into a gatekeeper for the review.—S Marshall T/C 17:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a direct quote from the instructions, which were developed thru consensus. And, if you read it again, it is clearly not making the admin a "gatekeeper" for the review. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but. To you or me, talking to the sysop who performed the action seems like the normal and courteous thing to do, and particularly when it's a sysop as kindly, approachable and helpful as Daniel is. But to an inexperienced editor, the sysop will seem like a hostile authority figure who's performed actions they see as arbitrary and capricious. A requirement to talk to the sysop might well seem onerous and offputting. I see those instructions as a best practice recommendation for experienced editors, not an AN/I style mandatory thou shalt do this.—S Marshall T/C 20:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

If you want the policy changed, it would require an RFC, not an ad hoc discussion in one case. This only serves to muddy the waters on THIS case, which should follow existing policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Dennis, I'm afraid that nothing on this page is policy. It's a new process where norms are still being established and we ought to be able to make reasoned changes after reasoned discussion without the need for a formal 30 day process.—S Marshall T/C 07:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

First, the history shows that that range had already been blocked three times before, for lengthy periods of time, in the years before. Second, many of the edits on the day I blocked it just over a year ago had been reverted—I am guessing someone had reported the range to AIV. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but 6 months to a year -- not 3! Anyhow I think you need to fix the block summary. The link is missing a right bracket and putting a ((rangeblock)) should make it more understandable with instructions. To be honest, I'm more inclined to AGF if this issue persisted over the past few days or months but often these guys disappear after six of them as shown in the length of time that passed between the first two in the log. Shim119 (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the block log, prior to Daniel's block the previous block was 2 years long, starting in March of 2020, as a CU block. Daniel's extension to 3 years makes sense as it was the same behavior on the range that led to the previous block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: the previous 2 year block was due to vandalism from logged in accounts, this cites vandalism to the Cool Hand Luke article. Shim119 (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• This should be addressed on the admin talk page, and then if there is still a problem, taken to AN where more people with experience in these matters watch the page. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• Done. Shim119 (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Action: Unblock of Tony1 by Bishonen

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

Policy background:

• WP:CIVIL is a policy enacted by our community. It provides in relevant part:

"Editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. (...) Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. (...) In cases of repeated harassment or egregious personal attacks, then the offender may be blocked. Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block".

• The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) is a policy enacted by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, and is binding on all Wikipedians (UCoC §1). The Arbitration Committee has acknowledged this, and explained that the UCoC is a minimum standard that our local policies go beyond of. As such, the UCoC must be observed when applying our local policies. It provides in relevant part:

"The following behaviours are considered unacceptable within the Wikimedia movement: 3.1 – Harassment. This includes any behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome. (...) Harassment includes but is not limited to: Insults: This includes (...) any attacks based on personal characteristics. Insults may refer to perceived characteristics like intelligence".

Factual background:

The AN thread linked to above concerned a complaint by Headbomb against Tony1. Headbomb took offense to a talk page message by Tony1 in which Tony1 accused Headbomb of "ignorant writing" and told Headbomb to "go to hell". The cause of this message was apparently a stylistic disagreement about how some text should be phrased.

After the complaint was initially not taken seriously by other responding administrators, I blocked Tony1 for the reasons explained in the AN thread. Later, Bishonen unblocked Tony1. As far as I can tell from her comments in the AN thread, she did so because in her view there was "an admin consensus" against the block, and because in her view Tony1's comments were not harrassment and not a personal attack.

Argument:

Bishonen acted irresponsibly by unblocking Tony1. The comments by Tony1 were incivil and therefore sanctionable per WP:CIVIL. Whether or not they were personal attacks, they were at least "rudeness [or] disrespectful comments", as provided for by the policy. They were also harassment as defined in UCoC §3.1, i.e. "behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome". The allegation of "ignorant writing" was moreover an insult as defined in the same provision, i.e., "attacks based on personal characteristics (...) like intelligence".

The block was also an appropriate and proportionate response, as explained in the AN thread, particularly because of previous blocks and reports of similar misconduct concerning Tony1.

It is also immaterial whether there was an "admin consensus" against the block, as Bishonen alleged. The view of administrators is not of greater importance than that of other users in disciplinary matters. In any event, core policies such as WP:CIVIL and the UCoC cannot be set aside by local consensus.

To be clear, as an administrator, Bishonen was technically authorized to undo my block. Admins may in good faith disagree about whether and which enforcement action is appropriate, and they may undo blocks (except in WP:CTOP cases) they deem inappropriate. But once seized of an enforcement request that has merit, as Bishonen was here by her participation in the AN thread and her unblock, they may not simply replace an enforcement measure with none, as Bishonen did here, because this amounts to preventing and frustrating the enforcement of core policies, contrary to the duty of administrators. Instead, having undone my block, Bishonen was required to take or request another effective preventative measure, such as an editing restriction, warning, or shorter block.

Bishonen knows better. She has recently correctly blocked other editors for similar misconduct, see e.g. User talk:Vizualnoiise#Blocked indefinitely (offense), User talk:Beeuu#Warning, and page blocks (offense), User talk:Chaitanya kalra#Enough warnings (offense). In particular, at User talk:Raheja88#Page block, she page-blocked an editor for the comment: "well, cant argue with a fool anymore. Have a nice life", and correctly explained: "Civility is policy here". In June, she blocked an IP for "personal attacks or harassment" for comments that were considerably milder than Tony1's statements. It is therefore difficult to explain why she would go so far out of her way to protect Tony1 from a block for very similar misconduct. The only conceivable explanation is that Tony1 is a socially well-connected established editor, and the other editors she blocked were not. In my view, this conduct by Bishonen contributes to the impression, as described at WP:UNBLOCKABLES, that civility is something enforced only against nobodies, not against people with the right kind of friends. This is repugnant to me, and, I hope, most Wikipedians.

The unblock should therefore be undone and the block reinstated until such time as Tony1 credibly recognizes their misconduct and commits not to repeat it. Sandstein 10:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up: Someone I don't know informed me by e-mail of the following: In 2019, Tony1 told an editor on their talk page to "Piss off. Now, you miserable little swine." When Tony1's conduct was subsequently discussed at ANI, Bishonen wrote: " I understand why he was blocked. But I'm glad GoldenRing unblocked. As for a FAC topic ban, that is surely unnecessarily humiliating for someone who used to be one of the FAC greats". While I am not familiar with that incident, Bishonen's comment mentioned above supports the impression that as an administrator she does not apply the same standards to people she likes and to other editors. This is very problematic in an administrator. Sandstein 11:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Sandstein, opening a review at this noticeboard seems to me a bit like asking the other parent, or forumshopping. Your own block of Tony1 was taken to RFAR yesterday, and the arbs and others are busy there commenting on both your block and, of course, on my unblock. (As indeed did many users at this AN thread.) Isn't that enough? It seems to me that having the discussion over several boards can only dilute it. Bishonen | tålk 11:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC).

My understanding is that this is the proper forum in which to review a contested admin action, so I'm here. Arbitration is a last resort, and the arbitration request you refer to is in the process of being denied for this reason, among others. Sandstein 12:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The most that this page can handle is: "Bishonen unblocked Tony1 yesterday without consulting me, the blocking admin. Does the community endorse?" Even then, it is premature in that you have not discussed this with her, and simultaneously, it is too late because the whole incident was already discussed at AN and even ArbCom, though perhaps neither venue discussed Bishonen's conduct front and centre. The accusations you've made here are grave. If AN and ArbCom didn't address it to your satisfaction, you will just have to start dedicated cases in the same venues. This board would be a step backwards.

Personally, I hope adminning in the English Wikipedia can continue to remain as robust without the need for appeal to UCOC. Not a fan of undiscussed reversal of admin actions, especially blocks. Not a fan of the way Bishonen notified you on your talk page. As to why the interpersonal dynamics may be the way they are among three users who have been on Wikipedia almost 20 years, I would not dare begin to explore. I don't think anyone seriously wants to get into that whole thing about favouritism, double standards and cabalism among established users and admin corps. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Here's my two cents, in more or less chronological order:
  • I've never written anything for The Signpost, so I'm not up on the culture there, but I tend to think of Signpost articles as akin to personal essays where the author has a greater degree of ownership than they would with a mainspace article. The Signpost quick start seems to support that view.
  • Headbomb could have been more diplomatic in how they pushed back on Tony1's edits.
  • Tony1's Go to hell comment was completely uncalled for. Arguing about which of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA applied is just wikilawyering. Whatever you label it, it wasn't an appropriate thing to say.
  • I'm not convinced Sandstein's block was necessary, but it was certainly not unreasonable.
  • I don't see any reason the UCOC had to be cited. Our own policies cover this just fine. As a practical matter, the UCOC has not been received well by much of the enwiki community and I suspect any time it's cited to support an admin action, that'll just ratchet up the temperature of whatever else is going on.
  • I disagree with Bishonen's unblock, but I don't see it rising to anything more than a routine "that's not what I would have done".
  • Ritchie333 bringing this to arbcom was excessive, but they've already acknowledged that, so no need to dwell on it.
  • I see somebody dug up another example of Tony1 being uncivil from four years ago. Unless we've got some reason to believe this is an ongoing problem, let's all just agree that everybody is allowed to have a bad day once every four years and move on from that.
  • I've seen a few comments citing Tony1's long history of work at FA and the Signpost, asserting that this history gives him a free ride to ignore rules and be nasty to people. It does not.
  • Please everybody, just decompress and get back to writing the encyclopedia. RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  +1 to this analysis. Pretty much every successive step in this saga has made me roll my eyes, then go back to more productive work. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Roy here also. That said, I would emphasize a few points a bit more strongly. The UCOC mention was probably a bad idea for a number of reasons (mainly it makes it look like a soapbox for UCOC's relationship to Wikipedia and thus feels like a case of the tail wagging the dog) and I'd recommend avoiding mentioning it in the future. I'd have phrased my disagreement wrt Bishonen's unblock a bit more strongly. I think it was at best unwise and should at least have been followed by some advice given to Tony1. Hobit (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Hobit (and thus broadly RoySmith) on all counts. Headbomb, Tony1, Bishonen, Sandstein and Ritchie333 all have lessons to be learned from this saga, but as long as they commit to learning them (and Richtie333 at least already has) then I don't think any further action would benefit the project. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Sandstein my friend. Close this and let's move on please. Lourdes 19:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Drawing upon information from various sources the now closed ANI discussion and the current ARC request, which is on its way to speedy decline, it appears that the block imposed was wholly within the established Wikipedia policy. The invoked Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) merely serves as a foundational guideline, yet the pre-existing policy is decidedly more comprehensive, as affirmed by our Arbitration Committee.
  What intrigues, and somewhat amuses me, is the unblocking decision. The rationale provided is, to put it mildly, lacking in maturity and remarkably dismissive of the ongoing discourse. Although I am not convinced that this situation necessitates community sanctions or escalation to the Arbitration Committee, I firmly believe that this episode should serve as a precedent and certainly not be replicated in future situations. PackMecEng (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Decisions on their own don't have "maturity", only the people making them do. Saying "that was a very mature decision" is tantamount to saying "You are very mature." Similarly, saying that a unblock rationale is "lacking in maturity and remarkable dismissive" is a comment not on the action itself, but on the person who took the action, Bishonen. In my view, your remarks are therefore a WP:Personal attack on Bishonen's character, and I urge you to strike them. If you refuse, I urge an uninvolved admin to block you for your violation of WP:NPA. At the very least, a warning not to continue to make personal attacks should be issued. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @PackMecEng: you appear to be trolling and casting snide insults here and at ANI. Please stop. Abecedare (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

    I don't think it's trolling at all. I share PackMecEng's displeasure with the unblock itself and with Bishonen's attitude in communicating the unblock. While I don't think it serves a useful purpose for editors to continue relitigating the matter at various noticeboards, I do hope Bishonen will take on board that some of us feel the unblock was not carried out well.

    As an aside, I strongly disagree with Sandstein's desire for the block to be reinstated. That would be a very bad outcome. This matter has been sufficiently discussed and further threads are unlikely to be healthy for the community. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

    I think it's sufficient for Bishonen to "take on board" the fact that a number of arbitrators and other commenters on RFAR felt that Bishonen's unblock was completely within admin discretion. That some people disagreed with an admin's action is hardly anything to write home about; rather, it would be a rare admin decision about which somebody did not disagree. So far, at least, I'm not seeing here a groundswell of disapprobation concerning Bishonen's decision to unblock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

    Sure, it was within admin discretion. But that doesn't mean it was the right call. I personally feel that it wasn't, and I'm clearly not the only one. The lack of a groundswell of disapprobation probably stems from the fact that most people are justifiably ready to stop talking about the whole thing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

    Or, it could mean that there just aren't that many people who thought it was a "bad call". Certainly the consensus of those who commented on the unblock in the case request didn't think so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

    For the record I am a person who agrees Bishonen's unblock was within admin discretion, also thinks it was a bad call (just because you can do something doesn't mean it is always a good idea to do it) and did not comment to this effect in the case request (because doing so would not have brought anything new to the discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

    @Lepricavark How would you describe "Ha, did you stick out your tongue at the end as well?" I presume you are aware of PackMecEng's one week block for disruption at AN.[32] Doug Weller talk 10:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

    I was probably aware of that situation when it happened, but I don't recall it now (which could be said about an ever-increasing number of situations that I've observed/participated in). While the "did you stick out your tongue" remark did not contribute anything helpful to the discussion, I took it as an expression of frustration with Bishonen's attitude in carrying out the unblock. Personally, I felt that both Bishonen and Sandstein (with his bogus invocation of UCOC and the accusation that other admins were failing to enforce it, as well as his decision to open this thread) were more adversarial than they should have been, and I think the frustration underlying PackMecEng's comment is perfectly valid. Is it possible that it was trolling? Sure. But I think admins should be very, very careful when lobbing that accusation against non-admins who are criticizing admin actions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• I think best practice would be for Bishonen to visit Sandstein's talk page for a polite conversation before unblocking.
  I think the en.wiki community takes a dismissive view of the UCOC. The community seems to think there's nothing in the UCOC that isn't already covered by our existing policies and guidelines, and that this means the UCOC can safely be ignored on en.wiki. Personally, I only hope that's true.
  I think that it's open to the community to reach a consensus that a block should be reversed. I don't think it matters whether that's a consensus of admins or not, and I don't think an "admin consensus" is a thing at all. I also don't think it matters whether the block rationale cites WP:CIVIL. I know that WP:CIVIL is a core policy but it's my position that even a civility-related block can be overturned by community consensus. And I think that yes, a consensus to unblock did exist at the time that Bishonen unblocked.—S Marshall T/C 09:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

  @S Marshall I’m not clear why using his talk page would be superior to the discussion in the thread. Doug Weller talk 12:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)