Wikipedia:Administrative action review/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

I’m beyond fed up.

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

---

Action:

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

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

You've done a good job in any case, as legal threats are a bright line for pretty obvious reasons. Good luck in the next life. Remsense诉 08:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s not what I am doing I am threatening leaving for good if corrupt admins don’t stop bullying me. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

What does "will try to get this account gone for good legally" mean specifically? Remsense诉 08:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know I am not a lawyer and am too busy getting on work on time to explain. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

So it involves the threat of some sort of legal action? See you in the bardo, then. Remsense诉 08:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)|prior discussion]])

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

You need to be specific about who and what administrative action you want reviewed, or this is likely to be closed for being malformed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

To add, you were indeffed in 2012 for this same behavior. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• It's quite late where I live, but after reading through a bit of the background, my best guess is there is some distress that isn't directly related to Wikipedia. Maybe taking to the user talk page instead is a good idea, as I don't see any sanction that will "prevent disruption" as being useful. It may be that Blaze The Movie Fan needs a break away from here, of his own choosing. This place can be stressful, and while I don't want to assume anything, I get the feeling you don't need the extra stress right now. It's easy to blow things out of proportion when you are stressed, to be overly sensitive, and to take things out of perspective. This is true for all of us. But I don't think a discussion at ANI is going to find the solutions you are looking for, so as I said, maybe it's better to close this and the ANI thread and go to your talk page instead, and work it out there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Draft:Gumn

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

This does not appear to have been an administrative action. Therefore, there's nothing to be reviewed here. --Yamla (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey User:Yamla, Where to address the issue? I genuinely wants an independent review of my draft by someone other than User:Saqib. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

But, Saqib, are you sure you got that ping...? ——Serial Number 54129 12:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Obviously. Why do you need to ask this? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129, ;) Drmies (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Am I missing something? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Heh. Drmies grasses me up :) apologies Saqib, merely a lighthearted remark vis à vis the IP pinging you six times  :) ——Serial Number 54129 14:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saqib&diff=prev&oldid=1222868417 —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I suspect this is the banned user, Nauman335. I want to be clear, this is based solely on behaviour. I have not used checkuser tools here. --Yamla (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nauman335#01_May_2024 —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

You can have investigation on my IP to confirm the fact. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, you are acknowledging you are indeed Nauman335, evading your block. Is that correct? --Yamla (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

No, because User:Saqib has accused me of the same. When I'm not User:Nauman335, it's frustrating to be tagged with the WP:SP. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yamla, left a comment on the SPI. Maybe WP:MEAT more than WP:SOCK but the pushy nature and focus feels like WP:UPE. And I'm quite certain they've had named accounts in the past, their editing and knowledge of Wikipedia is significant. Ravensfire (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Noting the IP is blocked with a note for them to log into their account to edit. [1] S0091 (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Nothing to review - This isn't an administrative tool use, it is an editorial decision made by a reviewer at WP:AFC. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Nothing to review. I wouldn't close the door to all review here of AfC Reviewer actions, since being a reviewer is essentially an advanced permission. That said, I would think that meaningful review here would have to be focused on procedural matters. We can't open the door to review of every approve/decline. I'd say the same about New Page Patrol actions. If all the OP wants is independent review of the draft, they just need to solicit outside feedback (which they've already done in other fora) and then be patient. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I should have been more clear, but yes, if there is some obvious abuse, but there were two declines with no edits between them. It's like the editor is shaking the Magic 8 Ball and hoping for a different outcome (reviewer) instead of at least trying to address the problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'd really appreciate that. Thank you for your attention, Appreciated. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Nothing to review please ip do not stalk Saqib. You've taken this everywhere, in my talk, in two admin's talks, at ANI, thats enough. Toadette^Edit! 14:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  In your talk it was about Draft:Hook (2022 TV series) and Draft:Wonderland (Pakistani TV series). Currently I'm concerned about Draft:Gumn. All of these are declined by Saqib, so he's stalking me, not vice versa. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Reviewers often specialize in particular areas they're familiar with. I specialize in articles in and around food. Saqib may very well specialize in Pakistani entertainment because they're familiar with reliable sourcing in that area. The fact they reviewed all of these doesn't mean they're stalking you. Valereee (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• I disagree that this is out of scope of XRV. Only people that meet the criteria for the AfCR pseudoright can review AfC submissions, which makes it an "advanced permission" and therefore something that should be subject to community review. Since 182.182.* doesn't have an account, they also can't move the draft themselves. – Joe (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hey User:Joe Roe, I have never moved draft by myself. I just want an independent review of my Draft:Gumn by a trusted reviewer. Thank you! 182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  IP, which three and only three of the sources used best represent significant coverage in independent reliable sources? Asking editors to review this draft, which contains 25 sources, is a big ask. If you'll tell us which three and only three support a claim to notability, someone may be willing to take a look. Again, only the best three sources. Valereee (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hey, [2], [3] and [4], these 3 I believe meets WP:GNG. Thank you for your interest. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Images.dawn.com comes up 'not found'. Daily Jang appears to be sigcov, barely; is Daily Jang considered reliable/independent for entertainment news? Daily Times doesn't appear to be sigcov re:the show, it's really about the actor. Depending on the reliability of Daily Jang for entertainment, which I can't speak to, that would mean you have possibly one instance of sigcov. Some reviewers would accept two, but I like to see three. Valereee (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Try [5], IP pasted junk characters at the end. Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Hmmm, author has 6 article posted, all in the "Comments" section of the site. This has me slightly concerned [6] about the site in general and specifically this source - is this submitted, any editorial review and does this meet WP:RS? Not sure. Ravensfire (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  [7], This one User:Valereee is from Images Dawn. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Note that the page explicitly states that it is a comment and is thus unreliable. Toadette^Edit! 15:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's definitely sigcov, but like Ravensfire I'm questioning the editorial oversight. Valereee (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that's what I said. If you had an account, you could just move it. But it's completely fine that you choose not to make one. – Joe (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  They used to do that. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Who they? Why you're inclined to prove me a WP:SP. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  First, you linked to Wikipedia:Subpages and not WP:SOCK. Second, you have been editing in the same areas and often asking assistance from other, in addition to requesting reviews from others. Toadette^Edit! 15:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think you could strike that comment, Saqib. As you know, then there's a place to share suspicions of sockpuppetry. But unless and until it's proven by a CheckUser, repeating the accusation elsewhere is just casting aspersion. – Joe (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  The first AFC reviews didn't really address the main relevant criteria (meeting GNG) and the last one mentioned it but also spoke of presence of non-GNG or lower grade sources. I think article would have passed NPP and AFD as is, (which is supposed to be the AFC criteria) but since it's under a magnifying glass and there have been prior declines the GNG compliance bar is inevitably going to get raised a bit. Suggest that the creator do their best to find the best possible sources with respect to GNG (published independent sources that cover the topic of the article in depth) and then carefully get ready to re-answer the question posed by Valereee above, keeping in mind the other analysis and comments made by Valereee. Maybe this could get handled here/now or I'd be happy to look at it later if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Assuming there's no socking going on (I have no idea yes or no), I would have thought that the way to get a second opinion, if you honestly believe the previous review was wrong, would be to resubmit for a new review. In this case, Saqib has reviewed all 3 submissions. If no other reviewer is going to review this, then going to ANI or here or WT:AFC or something is the IP's only chance for a review, so this is not forum shopping. I'm surprised AFC isn't a little more like unblock requests, where it is poor form for the same admin to reject more than once. Wouldn't the solution here be "Saqib, please leave it for another reviewer"? But I find it a little hard to believe that AARV's purpose is to go into the content weeds and ask for and review 3 sources to determine notability. Surely that's AFC territory, not AARV territory? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Typically rereviews are by different editors. This one was resubmitted so quickly each time, though. Valereee (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Floq - I'm pretty new to NPP, just started a couple of days back. I've had patrolling rights for a while but I never really got into it until now. So, I'm not sure if it's okay for the same reviewer to keep reviewing the same drafts. I'll definitely be more careful next time if that's a rule. The thing is, there's a big backlog in patrolling pages, so I figured I'd at least pitch in on Pakistan-related pages. That's why I ended up reviewing this one three times, and this too. But like I mentioned earlier today, I'm cool with anyone else giving it a review. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  I worded it the way I did because I really have no idea if it is against a written rule or not. Indeed, I suspect if it was explicitly against a rule, someone would have said so by now. I just think that, rule or not, it seems like wise practice. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Alright but here's the thing. If you check the draft's history, it's obvious they keep asking for reviews without making any edits, let alone fixing the issues. So, I figured it would be OK to reject it repeatedly. Like I mentioned, we already have a big backlog so why do we keep letting this page sit when it's clearly not ready to be moved to the main NS? And let's be real, the IP isn't innocent either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  For two reasons; (1) as a human, you might occasionally be wrong about something, and another reviewer might have a different opinion, or even when you're right, another reviewer might have different suggestions, and (2) because you avoid the kind of drawn-out meta-discussion that is occurring right here, when a content dispute turns into a behavioral dispute to no benefit.

  Trust your fellow reviewers to notice no changes were made before re-submitting. One person repeatedly declining a submission requires some system to appeal to others. Two reviewers declining a submission means, if nothing else, there's a kind of consensus against accepting. And if there is a large backlog, then if you leave re-reviewing to others, it gives you a chance to review a new page. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Points taken, thanks! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Unilateral overturning of a close by Seraphimblade

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

---

Action: Reopened a closed RfC while the close was still being discussed at AN [8], twice [9]

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

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

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

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

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

• Overturn and warn. One editor (admin or not) shouldn't get to decide that an editor who made a good faith, reasoned close, is involved and unilaterally overturn that close. It's particularly egregious that this occurred while a close review, where people could discuss that aspect of the close, is ongoing. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe, I think you meant XRV, not XFD. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Do not endorse. (disclosure: I am clearly involved with regards the RFC, but not regarding the subsequent discussions) It is completely inappropriate to unilaterally overturn the closure of an RFC that is being actively discussed at AN (or a similar venue). If the AN discussion was heading for a very clear consensus to overturn then someone uninvolved with both discussions could reasonably close the AN discussion per SNOW and then implement that at the RFC page. However there was very clearly no consensus at AN and discussion was still ongoing so that doesn't apply. To then edit war to reinstate your inappropriate action cannot be justified by even a very liberal reading of BRD. The RfC closure should be restored unless and until such time as there is a clear consensus at AN that it should not stand. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment My general feeling is that if an uninvolved administrator believes a non-administrator is involved, then that non-administrator should not be closing the relevant discussion, and if they have already closed it should withdraw their close. BilledMammal (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Admins are not infallible. As is clear from the discussion, not everyone agrees that the closer was involved. And if they did, that would be grounds for an overturn of the close, not unilateral action during a close review. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  No, but they have been vetted by the community. I support non-admin closures, but the closers need to recognize that they are not admins and in key questions like WP:INVOLVED defer to uninvolved admins, to avoid drama and the discussion being tainted. BilledMammal (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  If that happened before the AN thread was opened, sure. But you'd already asked the community to review whether S Marshall was involved, and they were in the middle of trying to do so when Seraphimblade overturned the close. – Joe (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Based on other processes, like WP:DRV, it shouldn't matter when in the process the admin decides to step in. BilledMammal (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  When any matter is under active discussion then that discussion should not be unilaterally pre-empted unless there is a very clear consensus in that discussion. This matter was under discussion and did not have any sort of consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• I'm bitterly disappointed and thoroughly unhappy about this, and I've rarely felt so disrespected on Wikipedia. I ask the community to reverse Seraphimblade's decision as well as condemning it. I thought we'd long since established that sysops don't get to summarily overturn RFC closes on any grounds at all. These are content decisions. Sysops have no special authority over those. We obviously need to write that somewhere unmistakeable in a great big font.
  I'm appalled that people are criticising Seraphimblade for using rollback without an edit summary. If you think that's what's wrong with Seraphimblade's actions here, then all I can say is, what the heck?—S Marshall T/C 13:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Using rollback is just something additional to the reckless actions here. It's not the main point and just shows misuse of administrative tools to push their own opinion. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I believe I'm the only person that's mentioned rollback and I did so only to try and give the full description of the situation. I agree that it's inconsequential. That Seraphimblade apparently thinks that being an admin gives him the right to pre-empt the process of forming consensus is the main issue, and I find it as retrograde as you do. – Joe (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  @S Marshall: I apologise if it seems I overly focussed on one thing at WP:AN. I agree that what's appalling is SB's willingness to ramraid community expectations. I merely intended to provide another, lower league yet "still-same-ballpark" example demonstrating that their bulldozer approach was not necessarily confined to just the re-opening. ——Serial Number 54129 14:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Do not endorse, warn. Per above, this was clear overstepping that has now been reverted. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  @Aaron Liu: What does "endorse archiving" mean in this context? – Joe (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Endorse having the RfC stay archived. You see, voorts said "endorse overturn" above, but that's ambiguous as the very action we're discussing here is the overturning of a close. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  For clarity, my !vote is overturn Seraphimblade's unilateral overturning of the RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Since everyone here seems to be about "endorse or not endorse the administrative action, I'll change it to "not endorse". Aaron Liu (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Do not endorse, warn: I'm involved but I feel that this is kinda obvious actually. Loki (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural comment. As a matter of fairness, it would be appropriate to allow Seraphimblade, as the admin whose actions are being reviewed, a resaonable time to respond to this thread before people start taking positions and casting !votes. I know he has made some comments in the AN thread, but that is not a substitute for the opportunity to address the specific assertions made here. (This is a general comment applicable to virtually any discussion on this board.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Respectfully disagree with this assessment. Seraphimblade was warned that there would be consequences for such actions, knowing there would be "push back", and did so regardless and irrespective of such concerns. I'm personally reserving judgement before hearing from the user in question, but I don't believe others should do so, and editors can always change their !votes. CNC (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree on entirely different grounds. AFDs are routinely closed without input from the article starter. SPIs are routinely closed without input from the alleged sockmaster. People are routinely blocked without the chance to speak in their defence. I think it's wrong in principle to treat sysops any differently.—S Marshall T/C 15:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Fair point, even if it's somewhat irrelevant now. We now have the "not sorry, now sorry" replies for re-opening the RfC from Seraphimblade. Someone should probably collapse this conversation as off topic. CNC (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Firstly, I apologize for using rollback in what Joe has noted. I didn't mean to do that, and that was probably a misclick in reading through everything here. That said, I do think this discussion needed to be reversed, and I don't apologize for that. It was a bad closure, and did need to be reopened. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: I didn't mean to do that, and that was probably a misclick in reading through everything here is quite puzzling. While it is possible I have misunderstood, I would have thought that nothing which happened "here" could have had any bearing on a click potentially misclicked before there was a "here" here. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

    That part only applied to using the rollback. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, I get that. But either the use of rollback probably was or probably wasn't an inadvertent misclick before this discussion was opened.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Do not endorse There was an active discussion underway to determine community consensus on the appropriateness of the close. As this was not a case of, for example, hiding BLP issues, there was no reason not to let the discussion run. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• On a procedural note, as per instructions, please simply consider if the actions in question should be endorsed or not endorsed. isaacl (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Do not endorse the reopening I think that Seraphimblade had some valid points in the reopening discussion but that does not change that this was clearly procedurally improper. And using the admin imprimatur is equally as significant as using admin tools, even when not invoked, plus here it was actually invoked. I can't see where Seraphimblade weigh-in here would change the fundamentals but it could change if anything more than a reversal and a trout is called for. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• It's clear that the community does not endorse what I did here. Given that, while I think it was the right action, I cannot stand behind my action if the community does not. So, I apologize for my action and withdraw it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Do not endorse the re-opening of the RfC while the close review was in progress. The admin was warned that it wasn't a good idea to do so but ignored concerns of other editors and overturned the close regardless. They were upset and appear to have allowed emotion to dictate action rather than reason, made no apology for re-opening the RfC (aside from the use of rollback) while discussion was in progress, and even stand by that decision to disrupt consensus building. Edit: I see the apology above, but only after standing by the decision in the first place, thus remains far from convincing and I still do not believe they are fit for the role of an administrator. CNC (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  As a procedural note, this venue cannot determine whether someone is or is not fit for the role of administrator. If you think something stronger than "not endorsed" is appropriate you will need to start a discussion at an appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the info. It wasn't a proposal, merely an opinion. CNC (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Do not endorse the use of rollback. It was obviously not consistent with WP:ROLLBACKUSE, and there's no need to discuss that any further. The only use of administrator tools was the use of rollback. The act of undoing the close as such (the initial edit that was followed by the use of rollback) is important context, but was not an administrative action in the sense of this forum's scope. I think this should be snowclosed as "not endorsed" with respect to the rollback click as such, and the underlying issue should be settled at AN. Per WP:XRVPURPOSE, Administrative action review should not be used to ... review of an action with a dedicated review process, and AN is a dedicated review venue for RfC closes and I would say it is also the dedicated venue to resolve procedural disputes relating to RfCs, both on the side of process and conduct, as AN is also a conduct forum. The start of this review should have limited the review to the use of rollback.—Alalch E. 15:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that closing and reopening RfCs is not normally an admin action, as I said, but Seraphimblade made it one by invoking his admin status when doing it. That is why I thought it would be best addressed here and indeed we seem to have reached a near-unanimous outcome rather quicker than the average AN thread.

  Is AN described anywhere as the dedicated review venue RfC closes? It gets used for it a lot, to be sure, but I've always assumed that's because of AN's historic "I had nowhere else to put this so I'm putting it here" function. Which is a bit ironic, considering a major point of agreement here is that admins do not have a special role in determining RfC outcomes. Now we have WP:DFD, that might actually be a better place for them. – Joe (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, AN is the designated place for close reviews. There was no consensus to start a separate venue back in December. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy close, not a deletion-related reopen, there's nothing to suggest the rollback was intentional, and this is not the place to bring WP:ADMINCOND cases. RAN1 (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Also, to quote the instructions: Before listing a review request, try to resolve the matter by discussing it with the performer of the action. The filer did not wait for a self-revert. RAN1 (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  This was actually extensively discussed in the aforementioned AN close review. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  There isn't a word in policy that suggests that an RFC close revert is an admin action, and I don't understand why Seraphimblade thought deletion reopens were relevant, and I'm surprised nobody challenged that either. Likewise, it doesn't seem to have occurred to any of the participants to ask Seraphimblade if the rollback was an accident. RAN1 (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Despite the name, this board is not solely for review of admin actions but also "other advanced permissions", but given the action was asserted to be an admin action it is definitely on-topic here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Except nobody disputes that the revert has nothing to do with WP:MOPRIGHTS. RAN1 (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  The review asks us to examine the overturning of the close as a whole, which was asserted to be an admin action, not just the use of rollback, and this board is explicitly not limited to reviewing only admin actions. Whether reviewing use of rollback is within the scope of this board has been discussed multiple times without clear consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  Isn't that covered by Special:ListGroupRights § sysop? RAN1 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  @RAN1: They don't need to ask, he already said it was; I believe it, and maybe I should have done sooner. ——Serial Number 54129 19:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• The unilateral "overturning" should be reversed and Seraphimblade warned. One editor doesn't get to decide that. This RfC is still legitimately closed by S Marshall. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Pretty astonished that SB complains that SM is involved, !votes in the discussion, and then (having quite unambiguously made themself involved) goes on to revert the closure -- seems like a striking lack of self-awareness, at a minimum. --JBL (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Do not endorse although I don't like the terminology, it feels clumsy but I'm not sure what would be better. Some of this is my own opinion, that we've moved too far in the direction of NACs and have more bad closes and more wasted time on close reviews as a result. Anyway, Seraphimblade makes some good points on the WP:BADNAC problem. Anyone could see that an RFC like this is likely to be controversial, and letting an admin do it would have been easier. I followed the RFC, because I thought it might be another one that goes months without anyone else willing to close it. I do think there are legitimate issues with the close itself as well.
  However, S Marshall is known as an experienced editor and closer who has a reputation for making difficult closes. It wasn't an emergency that had to be summarily vacated to prevent imminent harm, like vandalism or bots actively implementing the close result. The right thing to do would be to show S Marshall some respect, discuss the close on its merits, and let the community work it out.
  The rollback was also inappropriate, though that's a more minor issue. Undo or Twinkle revert with an edit summary would have been better. Seraphimblade says it was a misclick and that's a reasonable explanation; I've done the same and it's an easy mistake when the buttons are next to each other. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Do not endorse the use of rollback, which was out-of-process per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. However, as Seraphimblade has already stated here that the use of rollback was wrong and offered an apology for using the rollback, I do think that we should close this discussion as the central item has been resolved. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• I agree with multiple colleagues above that we have gone too far toward NACs; even when permitted by policy, in contentious areas they inevitably draw challenge on the basis of being NACs, and consequently waste more community time than they save. That said, there was nothing about this closure so inappropriate or urgent that it required reversal while a challenge was in progress. The reversal would therefore be inappropriate even if the original closure was found to be a mis-reading of consensus. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Well, I deplore this credentialism. If someone feels there's something wrong with a close, then they can articulate that and we have a reasonable, objective, logical basis for discussion. If someone feels there's something wrong with the closer, then we what we have is an ad hominem fallacy.—S Marshall T/C 21:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• The preference towards admin closures of RFCs has always been because admins tend to be veteran, respected editors. Somehow this has morphed into the idea that BEING an admin somehow qualifies you to close contentious RFCs. This is the cart leading the horse, and further entrenching a strange divide between users and administrators, for seemingly no benefit. S Marshall is is probably more capable of closing discussions like that than a lot of administrators with no experience doing so. The idea that BADNAC applies to editors like him is frankly ridiculous. Parabolist (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Blocked for no good reason

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

---

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

We can do nothing about a block on another Wikipedia. You will need to address that there using whatever process they have to do so. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

As 331dot says, you'll need to address this on nlwiki. I would note however, that most of RonaldB's blocks are of VPNs and open proxies. If that's the case, you might want to look into disabling it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Permanent ban of Hocikre

Action: Log ID 164025646, the blocking of user Hocikre at 05:43, 25 August 2024

User: Graham87 (talk · contribs · logs) (prior discussion)

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

@MtBotany, I think you're misunderstanding what "indefinite" means. It isn't permanent. It means that the editor is blocked until they can reassure an administrator that the problem(s) that led to the block will not recur. Schazjmd (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You say Hocikre was permanently banned. All I see is an indefinite block; WP:BLOCK vs WP:BAN. Please clarify. --Yamla (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, you are correct. I'm almost never involved in these sorts of discussions and I should have been more careful in selecting the right term. If allowable should I correct the request? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) :Just clarifying, "indefinite" doesn't mean permanent, it just means that there is no automatic expiration date. And a block is not a ban in Wiki terms. But at first glance it does seem too severe as a fist step. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it would have been helpful if someone had told Hocikre flat-out "no more headings", but looking at the edit history, it appears that an admin noticed the disruption and made a block to stop it (then spent a lot of time cleaning up weeks of edits that had gone unnoticed). Schazjmd (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

An indefinite ban without warning does seem wildly excessive, especially when the subject is then treated to the sentence "Right now you're a net negative to the project". There are kinder ways to deliver the message that a user is making a big mess of something, and I personally would rather be greeted by the traditional solution, and failing that, I think a week-long block would've gotten their attention just fine. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought that was actually a pretty mild comment, I'd rather be told that than "you made a big mess that others had to clean up". 331dot (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised. I find the latter (a description of what happened) much less insulting than the former (a judgment of the editor's worth). Floquenbeam (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally I find "you made a lot of unnecessary work for other people" more of a judgment. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Surprised again, but I guess there's no point in discussing this particular thing further (de gustibis non est disputandum...). I'd hate for this to turn into a vote of which is more judgemental. I certainly don't think you were trying to be mean. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Might be a cultural difference? I very much fall on floquenbeam's side here --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Could be, additionally all of us 8 billion humans react to things differently. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• I can see how an indef block might eventually have been needed, but a warning first - even just one! - would have been much better. The message under the block notice and the unblock decline seem unnecessarily harsh to me, too. I understand that good faith disruption is, by definition, disruptive. But let's not forget that it's also, by definition, good faith, too... --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  Also, unless someone can point me to actual English language problems, it was kind of questionable to say "I see you're from Uganda, you should try your native language Wikipedia", when (1) English is an official language of Uganda, (2) I see no evidence they have an English language deficiency, and (c) believe it or not, people that don't live in English speaking countries are still capable of speaking English. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  +1 Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  True, the follow-up language was mean. Schazjmd (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  My intention was not to be mean. As I just told Floquenbeam above, I find what I said milder than "you made lots of work for other people and wasted their time". Maybe that's just me. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Graham87 's decision might turn out to be right, but I think Hocikre should be given a chance at least. Looks like they were blocked without any real warning. A block of one week might have been better. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• This edit was described as "particularly ridiculous" on the blocked user's talk page, but at first glance I am not seeing the problem with that edit. Just to double check, am I missing something? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @Novem Linguae: I haven't encountered a heading titled with a word in the past tense for many years. I have no objection an unblock in principle, but I would also like this user to stop making random paragraph adjustments. On reflection some of what I said was probably too harsh. Graham87 (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

On reflection, I've decided that an unblock would be the wisest course of action here so I've reversed my block. Graham87 (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this can be closed with no further action. Graham87 was obviously at the end of his tether but has now reversed the block. Is there a way to make it even clearer that indefinite ≢ permanent and that an indefinite block can (as in this case) be shorter than any timed block? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Rager7

• If possible, as it's a similar case, is there any input on the appeal of User talk:Rager7? They were blocked by Graham87, who was rightfully irritated by the errors being made that needed clean-up, but with little warning and straight to an indef. I'm extremely hesitant to apply WP:ROPE when the blocking admin disagrees with an unblock. A bit more input would be helpful.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Rager7 should probably be unblocked as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  A little more context: I don't mind a whole lot if someone is a little quicker than many to block. I don't mind if it is indefinite right off the bat, as long as it is clear to the target of the block that indef doesn't mean permanent. But then you have to be willing to unblock when a semi-decent unblock request is made. Any two of (a) quick to block, (b) straight to indef, and (c) requiring a perfect unblock request can be reasonable for a good faith editor making a lot of mistakes, but the three together is too Kafkaesque. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have come round to the position - although I would welcome your opinion on this - that blocks of registered users should be indef ie pending a block appeal and an explanation or apology - with timed blocks reserved for IPs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps I'm missing context at User_talk:Rager7#Blocked, but it seems like an indef for an MOS issue on using contractions, of which they received only one prior warning. I support MOS blocks, but indef seems rash if its not malicious disruption and the block log only has a vague "disuptive editing" without prior escalating warnings on specific points of improvement. Concur with Floquenbeam about needing to be more lenient with unblocks if one is going to be quick(er) to indef. —Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  OK I've gone and applied the rope myself, just because it's the best way to find out how sincere they actually are even though I still have an ... off feeling about this user. It wasn't only the contraction thing but also, among other things, the overlinking and the use of the word "are" to describe a long-since-past event; they'd been explicitly told about part of our guideline about overlinking before I came along, but not the bit that applied to the edit that brought them to my attention. I normally do accept unblock requests when brought to my attention by other admins, but this one was ... really odd to me. Graham87 (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  You could be right, though I hope not for their sake. Personally, I err on the side of wanting a few warnings for MOS-related issues before resorting to a block. And MOS is so vast, I try not to lump all MOS violations together, if feasible. There's the AGF factor, but doing so also minimizes reports here to begin with if the thought process is more obvious to outsiders who look at the blockee's talk page. Thanks for the background. —Bagumba (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Page Mover, out-of-process technical move

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

---

Action: Tamara (given name) → Tamara (name) round-robin (Special:Diff/1250968295)

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

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

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

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

Why have you not attempted to discuss this with Maliner before bringing it here? Thryduulf (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

There's a prior discussion link. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Please relax. There is no need to make a mountain of this. In your prior discussion link, Maliner makes it clear why they moved the page. Maybe they were right, or maybe they overlooked something and are wrong. Don't take it personally. Did the objection noted in their response occur? If so, just take the suggestion and have a full discussion. There is no misuse of admin tools here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I am here to utilize the forum #Purpose: review if the action was inconsistent with policy. Simply that. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:XRVPURPOSE#1 subpoint 2, this should not come to XRV because WP:MRV is available. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

MRV doesn't mention speedy moves at RM/TR are accepted, and only XfDs and RMs that have formal closing processes. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The question at the heart:

• Is it consistent with policy for a Page Mover to unilaterally move a page away from its stable title, when the move is objected to in good faith? Hyphenation Expert (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Well... no, but that's a leading question, isn't it? Why not just start an RM discussion where the page is now? That will sort this out. -- asilvering (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Maliner's move away from the stable title over objections was pretty clearly mistaken, and while I understand the "just start an RM" line of thinking, I also understand the frustration and am uncomfortable with just allowing a fait-accompli move to stand. Ultimately our only job here is to figure out whether this was an appropriate use of page mover (MRV wouldn't be the right place for that), and I don't think it was, so overturn. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Overturn: Since Rosguills move was reverted, it clearly was no longer uncontrovertial, so Maliners move should not have happened without a discussion. Nobody (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• The correct title would be Tamara (name), and I hope we can get to that outcome with the minimum possible bureaucracy.—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's nearly that straightforward: if Category:Feminine given names is any indication, there's a fairly strong WP:CONSISTENT argument for the longer title, if nothing else. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

    Additionally, WP:APOAT (it's a good page) explains that the difference isn't even stylistic but denotes the scope of the anthro page, with "name" (as opposed to "surname" and "given name"), being reserved for "the article covers both, or is ambiguous" case, which is an exception. The page starts with "Tamara is a feminine given name ...", there's a list of people whose given name is Tamara, and ends with the template {{Given name}}. —Alalch E. 03:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

    As an example, Abigail (name): "Abigail is a feminine given name. ... It is also a surname." Three people with the surname Abigail are listed. That's why the title has "name" as opposed to "given name". Without Francis, Peter, and Robert Abigail, the tile would have been "Abigail (given name)". —Alalch E. 03:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn: I understand the “this isn’t that big a deal, just do an RM” feeling, but this board is just to determine whether to maintain or overturn an action using advanced tools. I think it will be quicker and more painless to just get to that. OP presents a pretty obvious case. Just overturn because Maliner’s move was out of process. If anyone on either side of the dispute want action taken against someone, that’s for somewhere else. —Floquenbeam (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn per Floq. Seems like an honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. – Joe (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn per Floq, others. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Everyone agrees that the eventual outcome should be decided by consensus from a discussion. It doesn't matter what title this is under while it is being discussed. This discussion can only serve to prolong that process. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn per nom. Incorrect action. Mover should not have accepted The Blue Rider's request.—Alalch E. 02:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose any action from here. This is out of scope. This forum must not be allowed to subsume other forums. The solution is to use WP:RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  A mover volunteering at WP:RM/TR needs to know when to refuse requests, and needs to know how to reverse course when they've made a mistake in accepting a request they shouldn't have. —Alalch E. 03:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Did you possibly mean WP:MRV, not RM? -- asilvering (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  No. A simple reading might see someone send it to MRV, but what is MRV going to do? There’s disagreement, so start an RM. Appeals should start at the bottom, not the top. 1. Ask the mover, maybe they’ll revert. 2. Start the RM that is in hindsight needed. 3. If the RM is done or closed wrong, go to MRV. If an admin blocks you for asking tricky questions, maybe that is a path to XRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Out of scope XRV is for things where another review board is not available. Administrative actions to (un)delete and (un)protect protect things are reviewed at DRV all the time, so a move done with administrative tools should accordingly be reviewed at WP:MRV. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  WP:MRV is explicitly for a contested close. A speedy action like RM/TR has no close. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  So fix the language. Where would this have gone before XRV was created? MRV. Jclemens (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  AN. Page mover using privilege incorrectly, not recognizing and not reversing a mistake, and needs correction to ensure that they use it correctly. —Alalch E. 13:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Get the page-mover people to sort it out. If they choose to overturn, the person who did something incorrect will get the message. This page is for later, if messages are not received and there is a pattern of problems. Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  Without weighing in on this specific scenario, this venue isn't for patterns of problems. It's for a review of an administrator's decision, without assigning blame. Patterns of problems continue to be handled in the same venues as before. isaacl (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would totally agree if we were discussing one block or one page deletion. However, this is a techo thing that really doesn't matter except to the people who specialize in titles. It should be discussed at the usual place like all the other inappropriate/contested moves. Is this page going to be used for all future contested moves where an advanced permission has been used? Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is not just a techo thing. Whether the word "given" should be in the title is that. But this XRV is not about whether the word given should be in the title, it's the fundamental concept of knowing when it is appropriate to use advanced permissions. The specific means by which that knowledge (or lack thereof) is expressed is irrelevant.

  And overturn. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know enough about the various move processes to have formed an opinion on where this particular case should be discussed. All I'm saying is that this venue shouldn't be used to discuss patterns of problems, as it wasn't designed to handle that type of discussion. isaacl (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Do not endorse. This is at the very least the correct venue to challenge a use of advanced permissions, and this advanced permission was used inappropriately. I hope Maliner absorbs that feedback. I'm neutral on whether to overturn, since it seems like an RM is likely going to start soon regardless. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Abuse of authority

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

---

- Action

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

- Editor

Elli

- Discussion

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

- Reason

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

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

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

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

• As the administrator who enacted the block here, I stand behind it. I encourage other editors to review this section at ANI (pl) as well as some of their behavior at other discussions (this makes up ~all of their recent edits, so I'm not linking to any particular one) to get a sense of why I blocked. Also, noting that I did initially enact an AE block, but switched to a regular block on suggestion of ToBeFree. Apologies for any confusion that may have caused. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• I gotta say, you got off pretty lightly. Please move on already. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• I've noticed Rob Roilen's contributions when dealing with a page protection request, had a look at their user page and deleted it as an attack page. Rob Roilen has voiced their unhappiness and a lack of surprise about this action. As the page content was quoted in Special:Permalink/1253946907 by Trulyy, it's still accessible to anyone. While I think it did qualify for speedy deletion under WP:G10, it doesn't qualify for revision deletion. Anyway: Because of their userpage content and their contribution list that appears to be focused entirely on political disputes, I wasn't surprised to see the block, only about its short duration. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  With respect, I also feel very strongly that the deletion of my user page was inappropriate and not a proper use of WP:G10. My personal mission statement that declared my intent to counter intellectually dishonest editors was by no means intended "primarily to disparage or threaten its subject" since there was no singular subject, and stating intent to debate, especially in the context of editing an encyclopedia, is not disparaging or threatening anyone.

  I am not a single purpose account. Before my recent edits, the grand majority of my edits were about the 737 MAX, and I even achieved consensus on a fairly substantial edit within that article. I would even argue that my recent edits were high quality and contributed to the integrity of the encyclopedia, since many of them still remain on the main article pages. Rob Roilen (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I see exactly four edits at the bottom of your account's contribution list that may fit the description "edits about the 737 MAX". Four edits. What am I missing? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I forgot that I had not yet created an account when I made my most significant edits. I made those edits using the IP 2603:6080:5A07:C24C:B430:C623:2BCB:6882. Apologies for any confusion.

  You can see an extensive discussion I began here Rob Roilen (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, Special:Contributions/2603:6080:5A07:C24C:7DCB:6F5B:8ED0:FC63/64 is indeed huge. That's 121 contributions including edit warring ([19] [20] [21] [22]), warnings and a block ([23]), a concern being voiced about single-purpose editing ([24]), a DRN thread ([25]) and an accidentally logged-out contribution to a contentious discussion ([26]) that displays the "me against the others in Wikipedia's community" spirit from your user page.

  My main concern is still whether letting the block automatically expire after 24 hours was a mistake, or if you can disengage and find ways to contribute time to the project rather than causing the community to spend it on dealing with your requests and behavior. The Task Center and the community portal contain ideas, and there are probably about 6 million articles that allow you to collaborate with their authors rather than attacking them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  You're right, those very first incidents were my first edits on Wikipedia and I did not understand the policies surrounding edit warring. As you can hopefully see, I went on to remedy this and succeeded in making high quality edits, even achieving consensus with the editors who disagreed with me or even referred me to administrators.

  Regarding the accidentally logged-out contribution, I still believe that it is "intellectually dishonest to use mainstream media headlines as sources", do you disagree? I believe the proper context is very important, since what brought me to this recent string of edits was noticing an abundance of absolutely non-neutral edits to the Tony Hinchcliffe article within the immediate aftermath of his set at the MSG rally.

  And again, I'm trying to point out unambiguously that I specifically went to WP:RSN to do exactly what you're saying: move in-depth, contentious discussion out of actual article talk pages. Rob Roilen (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's already established that headlines are not reliable sources per WP:HEADLINES. I think most regulars at RSN are already aware of this but in any case it's not something that needs discussion and definitely not whether it's "intellectually dishonest". In fact it's unlikely to ever be worth discussing whether something is "intellectually dishonest" on a community board. Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC) 19:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• (non admin, involved editor), this is yet another example of what I mentioned on the ani (well it may well be archived now) about not listening. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Looking at the deleted user page, and glancing over just some of this mess, I would say you got off pretty easy. It's a good thing a less patient admin didn't stumble by, or you would still be arguing from your talk page. You don't understand policy as well as you think you do, so you will do better if you stop trying to wikilawyer people here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I do not appreciate the aspersion, and interestingly enough I see a statement with similar intent on your user page albeit couched in different terms. Rob Roilen (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  What about the aspersions you cast when you created a user page saying Hello, I'm Rob. I'm here in an attempt to counter the unfortunately large community of Wikipedia editors who have absolutely zero intellectual integrity. Too bad there are enough of them with authority at this point that people like me get banned for arguing too much. Followed by My last user page was deleted by the very people I thought would delete it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I do believe that there are many editors here who are not acting in good faith and abuse their authority or understanding of policy in an attempt to tilt articles and discussions in their favor. I see in your user page that you express a similar goal to spread the truth and verify it.

  Have you considered that we are actually on the same team whether or not our personal opinions align? Rob Roilen (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  So to be clear if other people say "Rob Roilen doesn't understand policy well and should stop wikilawyering", that's an aspersion, but if you say "many editors here abuse their authority and don't understand policy" that's ok because you believe it? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Which policy am I misinterpreting? I am genuinely asking for an example. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  What kind of answer is that? The policy you are misinterpreting is WP:THERE IS NO SPECIAL EXEMPTION FOR YOU, PERSONALLY, TO VIOLATE ALL OF OUR BEHAVIORAL POLICIES AND GENERALLY BE UNPLEASANT AND BATTLEGROUND-Y, JUST BECAUSE YOU, PERSONALLY, BELIEVE YOU ARE CORRECT. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I am disappointed by your dismissal of my good faith attempt at discussion. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I am disappointed by your dismissal of the great many attempts at good faith discussion by a great many editors in this thread and elsewhere! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I will ask my question: why is "Rob Roilen doesn't understand policy well and should stop wikilawyering" an aspersion but "many editors here abuse their authority and don't understand policy" is ok? Is there any reason other than you said one of these things and the other was said about you? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Because the former is an opinion unless an uninvolved administrator would like to definitively point to a specific violation of policy, and the non-paraphrased version of what I stated on my user page is something I expect many editors - who hold wildly varying opinions but a similar goal to maintain neutrality - would agree with after spending considerable time here. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  If you act like a professional, perpetual victim, don't be surprised if people don't take you seriously. Some might see it as dramamongering, which is a sign of not being here to build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• A 24 hour block? Elli was very lenient. I would have gone longer and think indef should be considered by a non-involved admin. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• I think now we are well into wp:tenditious territory. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Please explain how I am "partisan, biased, skewed" and not maintaining "an editorially neutral point of view" by trying to discuss the reliability of a source on the very specific noticeboard for that purpose. I am genuinely asking. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  You are not genuinely asking, because the question has been repeatedly answered on that thread and you simply ignore what everyone else is telling you. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• The only thing I don't support by Elli was marking such a short block as an AE action, given it makes all appeal mechanisms rather pointless (as they require consensus to overturn, which just ain't happening in 24 hours). I think the ongoing conduct has shown that the block was correct, or potentially too short, and therefore support the block/oppose this review. Daniel (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I find it interesting that you mention how it is not possible to reach a consensus within 24 hours when the RS discussion that eventually brought me here was closed before a single day had passed. Rob Roilen (talk

  He didn't say it was impossible; he said it wasn't going to happen. There's a significant difference in visibility between these types of discussions. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• The 24-hour block was appropriate and lenient. This request looks like a continuation of the same WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that resulted in the block. (After seeing the block, which looked appropriate to me at the time, I commented on a talk page discussion about an edit made by Rob Roilen, so I'm involved at this point.) Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• (Non-admin, uninvolved comment) It's 24 hours, it's over. I believe the block was justified per aribtration enforcement and Wikipedia:Civility. Takipoint123 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• Seeing as your block has already expired. It's likely best that you drop this action review & move on. Best not to protest too much. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Respectfully, no. I believe an admin acted inappropriately, the length of the block is not the issue. And is this a vote or ...? I'm starting to find the amount of uninvolved input a bit strange. Rob Roilen 23:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's advice from a veteran editor, of over 19 years experience. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  As another veteran editor of over 19 years experience, I too advise you (Rob Roilen) to either WP:DROPTHESTICK or prepare to be on the receiving end of WP:BOOMERANG. The purpose of this page is to get uninvolved input, and the amount you are receiving is not unusual. Thryduulf (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  The whole point of this noticeboard is to get uninvolved input, which you are getting. Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  I was under the impression this was for input from uninvolved administrators, who are better versed in admin policy, to decide whether or not another admin used their privileges improperly. Rob Roilen

  From the top of this page: Any editor in good standing may request a review or participate in discussing an action being reviewed., but multiple people responding to you (including me) are administrators. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  At my count, @Rob Roilen, seven admins have chimed in, and the only disagreement with the block (stated explicitly by the majority of those admins) is that it was too short. I urge you to step away from this dispute and work on something else for a while. -- asilvering (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse (uninvolved): Clearly a reasonable action given the apparent battleground conduct here and elsewhere. Would support an indefinite block. C F A 💬 23:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
• At this point it seems like it is administratively impossible for me to even begin a discussion on the reliability of a source that has a green name on RS/P. If someone disagrees with me and closes the discussion early, and I try to appeal it, I'm accused of battleground behavior. Then if I try to defend my position, the accusations, block threats and insults continue. My genuine, good faith effort to discuss something very specific that greatly impacts the integrity of the encyclopedia is met with such incredible resistance that it actually boggles my mind.

Surely you all must understand how your mentality towards a minority dissenting voice can be used against you someday? Surely I'm not the only one who sees how this group mentality has very high potential to affect the neutrality of the encyclopedia? I don't have any fancy WP links, I'm trying to appeal to your rationality. Rob Roilen

• Wikipedia works on consensus. If you are a "minority dissenting voice" in a discussion, then obviously by definition consensus is going to be against you. That doesn't mean those opposing you have a "group mentality", merely that they disagree with you. Black Kite (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand and mostly agree. But I also think it's important to note that the official policy on consensus mentions that consensus requires common sense. This isn't to disparage anyone, but this entire discussion stems from my RS/P discussion where editors plainly did not display common sense: they either did not understand or refused to acknowledge clear rhetorical speech and instead interpreted it literally. Like taking the phrase "walk a mile in someone's shoes" literally. What is an editor supposed to do if they are met with this behavior? It's not my job to educate adults on concepts like that but an understanding of them is essential here. Rob Roilen

And those comments sound to me like a borderline personal attack on the other editors in that discussion. I advise you to strike those comments before some admin less cautious than I blocks you again. - Donald Albury 02:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

...What? Are you reading the correct discussion?? "Borderline personal attacks"? Where? Please feel free to copy the diffs here, I genuinely have no idea which parts you're talking about. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#CNN Rob Roilen (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

hello[27] soibangla (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

For clarity I'm fairly sure Donald Albury was referring to Rob Roilen saying editors "did not display common sense" and other things like "educate adults" which are clearly inappropriate things to say about other editors just because they did not agree with your perspective. Nil Einne (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Also just to emphasise, while determining consensus is not exactly vote counting, I think anyone with experience here will agree that there is basically no way a discussion with quite a few experienced editors disagreeing with the interpretations of a solitary inexperienced editor is going to be closed as consensus in favour of that solitary editor because they were the only one who displayed "common sense". It isn't even going to be no consensus. It's going to be consensus in favour of all those other editors. Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse block, which has already expired. Having looked at the deleted userpage, and OP contributions...I get a strong feeling of battleground mentality paired with pointiness. OP got away lightly. Lectonar (talk) 12:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. As an attempt at prevention, this attempt was too weak, because the underlying nature of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior calls for something other than a WP:CDB (and a one-day block is always that). Ultimately, the preventative effect wasn't really achieved. But the effort by the blocking admin to make things better isn't something that should be "not endorsed", as that wouldn't help anything. Agreed with Muboshgu.—Alalch E. 12:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

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