Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrative action review/Archive 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

April 2025 Decline of AWB Request. by Pppery

Withdrawn by filer following unanimous endorsement. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Diffs/logs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/AutoWikiBrowser&oldid=1286578105 and past on.
User: Pppery (talk · contribs · logs) (prior discussion)

The Admin Pppery is being Bias to me due to the fact of I notified admins of the request and the backlog, but the admins never asked me to stop, and now mentioning discussions that have happened awhile ago, and I have provided a valid rationale, but Pppery refuses to re-review.
~~~~ Valorrr (lets chat) 20:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

This is only making you look more and more like a fool. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Please follow Wikipedia:HUSH... Valorrr (lets chat) 20:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Um, what? That shortcut links to WP:Harassment#User space harassment. I haven't done anything whatsoever to your user space or your user talk space. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant Wikipedia:PA Valorrr (lets chat) 20:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Nothing I have said is a personal attack on you. On the contrary you're the one personally attacking me by groundlessly accusing me of being biased. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
You have said this makes me look more like a Fool. which can be classified as Offensive. Valorrr (lets chat) 20:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Pppery's explanation for refusing the permission at this time makes sense, especially considering that Valorrr's account is barely a month old. I think it's significant that Ppppery had to repair the report here so that it would display properly, since Valorrr had troubles with the format (which is also an indicator that maybe advanced tools aren't right for this editor yet). Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I clicked the button as it stated, and it said just to fill it out, I was going to fix it by the edit history though. Valorrr (lets chat) 20:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse no one has a right to get AWB access granted, and Pppery's reasons for declining the request make sense. You need to slow down and gain a better understanding of community norms, and you now filing this request only makes that clearer. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    I understand that no one has the Right, but I have provided valid rationale if you looked are more recent comments... Valorrr (lets chat) 20:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse Pppery is in my opinion in the right to decide to A) decline this and B) not to continue discussing this with the user. Exactly what Valorrr expected to come from them essentially "digging up dirt" on Pppery with talk page warnings from 9 years ago, I've no idea, but it does demonstrate why I would also hesitate to grant them extra tools at this stage of their nascent editing career. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    Pppery has also "digging up the dirt on me", from several discussions I have resolved. Valorrr (lets chat) 20:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    That's what he's supposed to do when considering whether to grant advanced permissions. Schazjmd (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    And also, I have said he/she is biased as he/she has declined my request as I "bugged them" to approve requests when others have such as Special:PermanentLink/1284353951#User:OpalYosutebito, but got approved. I provided rationale that it should be approved as that request bugged them, but failed to decline it, as I went to the First admin that reviewed my request the first time, he said he preferred not to do re-do's of requests, and when he said that, I went to Pppery, as per my contributions. Valorrr (lets chat) 20:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I looked at the comments that were currently on your talk page. That's not even remotely comparable to looking back nine years into my talk page history. Yes, I behaved stupidly in 2016, and in hindsight should have been blocked (I said as much in my RfA). I was granted my first advanced permission in 2018 - if you come back in 2027 with two years of editing at a rate equal to or higher than that which I edited between 2016 and 2018 then I will have no qualms looking past any mistakes you may have made today, so there's no hypocrisy here. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    But you were granted permissions of a template-editor, which is way more powerful (can't find a proper word), than AWB which is automated edits. Valorrr (lets chat) 20:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    I was tempted earlier today to ask if Valorrr wanted to ask about adoption, as I thought they could do with edting advice going forward. I'm not sure if that would still be suitable. Knitsey (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    I am not going to say no, to helping other editors but I do sometimes have a problem with interactions/communication as I have Autism, so I interact differently and I don't understand social cues, I understand that isn't no excuse, but I prefer not to list it on my user-page for harassment reasons, I've had some issues telling that before. Valorrr (lets chat) 21:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Endorse per above. Filer continues to offer examples of why the decline was the right thing to do.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    May I please get the "examples", as I clearly don't understand. Valorrr (lets chat) 21:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
  • I wish to Withdraw my Review, I have acted wrong and I realize that @Pppery was acting right, I do have Autism, which impacts how I interact socially, and I do understand my actions may of caused Pppery a lot of distress, mentally and physically, I wish to offer my apology. Valorrr (lets chat) 21:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
    @Pppery: Just letting ya close it. Valorrr (lets chat) 21:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: David Eppstein using rollback to mass revert edits that were not vandalism

Withdrawn by OP. The use of rollback here was generally "endorsed", as the reasons for the reverts were explained, albeit not in the edit summaries. Who is "right" is not a topic for this page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

David Eppstein does not like some infoboxes, but I didn't agree. I reverted his bold edit, restoring images and information that was accurate, I also started a discussion at David's talk page.[1] David mass reverted my revert of his bold edit using the rollback tool - i.e. marked as minor, no edit summary. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Andre🚐 21:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Endorse As a matter of rollback policy, this falls within point 5 or WP:ROLLBACKUSE. The rest is a content dispute. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, explain? How were my edits unhelpful? Andre🚐 21:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) David Eppstein clearly believed they were. And that belief is at least per se reasonable, which is all that should be required as that procedural policy should be interpreted in the mind of the executor. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
But he did not provide the needed explanation, and the explanations on his talk are wanting. He also doubled down on a bold change. He is not following point 5. Andre🚐 21:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I provided the explanation in the ongoing discussion in my talk page, as a direct reply to you, prior to taking these actions. As I already said. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
But you still have not answered the question, and you mass reverted as a substitute for discussion. That is tantamount to editwarring and using the admin tools to do it. Andre🚐 21:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
"The question" being how your edits were unhelpful? I have answered that multiple times both here and on my talk. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Your edits are the ones disimproving the encyclopedia. You first incorrectly cited BLP on a number of dead people. Then you claimed that the 2018 RFC supported your position when it fact it says the opposite. Andre🚐 22:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Responding to Pppery's procedural explanation of his endorsement, this is Wikipedia. The tests here are whether people are communicating appropriately, assuming good faith, following consensus and precedent, avoiding edit warring and following ADMINACCT. That is a fail on all counts in my view. We have high standards for admins. Andre🚐 22:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
@Pppery: Could you clarify: When someone makes mass actions, and someone reverts them using rollback that can make sense under point 5. Then if someone reinstates their mass action, using rollback, that's really still point 5? Presumably the two can just go back and forth forever and it's still an acceptable use of rollback until 3RR is breached? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Well, no, it's edit warring, and misconduct for that reason alone (you don't have to breach 3RR to be sanctioned for edit warring). The use of rollback doesn't add any additional misconduct compared to if the same dispute had taken place using undo, though.
The purpose of rollback policy, as I read it, is to make sure people are aware of why their edit is rolled back if doing so isn't completely obvious, so that's satisfied here. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
If David Eppstein was edit warring (I already wrote below that I can't really characterize his edits as edit warring, but let's say that he was), then using rollback is using an advanced permission to make your edit warring quicker and smoother. It's like using a car to rob a bank. You can rob a bank without a car, but a car makes it more convenient. The car will be subject to forfeiture. Society endorses use of motor vehicles but it does not endorse using one to rob a bank. So maybe, if editors believe that David Eppstein was edit warring, it wouldn't be quite right for this XRV's outcome to be "endorsed". —Alalch E. 16:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
If the response is "wrong venue" or "this isn't really about rollback", I agree. But then what action are you endorsing? I don't understand "endorse" to mean "procedural objection". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
The reply to the question of whether use of [rollback] is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (see the top of the page) can be "yes it was consistent", in which case the outcome is "endorsed" and !votes with a boldfaced "endorse" signify support for that outcome, and it can be "no, it was not consistent", in which case the outcome is "not endorsed", and !votes with a boldfaced "do not endorse" (or similar) signify support for that outcome. If you think that David Eppstein was edit warring, you should IMO !vote "do not endorse" because one cannot, in my interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including the guideline specifically about rollback, use rollback while edit warring and have that use of rollback be a fine use of an advanced permission, that is by itself consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This is why I disagree with you that this can be a wrong venue. It's a perfectly usable venue for this situation, and if people really think that D. E. was edit warring they should produce the outcome of "not endorsed"(—do not use rollback when edit warring, even if the edit warring is not sanctionable as edit warring [it isn't in this case]). —Alalch E. 16:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
This is off-topic here as I have not taken any administrative action. Meanwhile Andre has triple-reverted many of my actions, which were only to remove infoboxes whose content was entirely drawn from Wikidata. I do not object to many of these infoboxes in principle (although some were in other ways a total waste of reader eyeballs), but if we are to have those infoboxes I insist that they consist only of content and sourcing local to this Wikipedia. As for the use of rollback vs the use of undo: that was purely a matter of convenience as I had already replied on my talk, stating my intention to undo and assumed that Andre would see that reply as an explanation for my undos rather than requiring me to copy and paste the same explanation as an edit summary for each one of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I have not triple reverted anything? Cite a diff? Andre🚐 21:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps I misread my notifications. After your second round of reverts and my (first) round of restoring my removals, I saw many notifications saying my edits had been undone by you, but perhaps those were left over from your second round of reverts. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Your actions are extremely inappropriate. You are removing accurate content and then making inaccurate accusations. Andre🚐 21:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not rely on accuracy of content; it relies on published reliable sources. Wikidata has different standards. My experience with Wikidata is that if a claim there is inaccurate, but based on some other large database, attempting to remove it will be reverted in order to maintain consistency with that other database. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
That is an issue for discussion at your talk page or at the MOS where I also started a discussion. But your threats of 3RR warring, false accusation that I made 2 reverts, and your use of rollback to edit war are WP:ADMINACCT issues. Andre🚐 22:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
The use of rollback without further explanation in an edit summary or elsewhere can be problematic. It is false that I did not provide the required explanation. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Cite one example of an inaccuracy in the infoboxes I restored. Andre🚐 22:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Why? The relevant question is whether there are unsourced claims in the infoboxes you restored. And look: the very first one I tried reexamining to respond here, Dmitrii Sinstov [13] has both two unsourced claims (his alma mater and his employment dates) and one inaccuracy (the employer was not renamed to the name stated in the infobox until over 50 years after his death). In fact, except for the image (which does not need to be in an infobox), it consists entirely of content that is either inaccurate or unsourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
That is not correct. Those claims are sourced in Wikidata. 21 reference for the first one.[14], [15] 2 for the 2nd, MacTutor History of Mathematics archive. And the post-Soviet "inaccuracy" thing is a technicality at best.Andre🚐 22:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
You should know that the way the infobox template works is, it does not import things from Wikidata that do not have sources. Andre🚐 22:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
The sources were not imported to the infobox. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, it doesn't do that. That would be cool. But the point is, it is accurate. And you did not examine the infobox you removed or recreate it. And you could just click through to Wikidata and see the source for yourself to verify the information. More to the point, you have no reason to believe the material is inaccurate to challenge it. And you are not giving anyone a chance to verify it either. Just mass reverting away an image and accurate (more or less, naming technicality nonwithstanding) info. Andre🚐 22:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I did not make 2 rounds of reverts, either. Andre🚐 21:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Now you are editing your message after I already responded to it? Please provide a diff for your threat.[16] I reverted your edits exactly once each. Andre🚐 21:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
There was no threat. I certainly have no intention of taking administrative action against you; that would violate WP:INVOLVED. I merely wanted to make sure you were aware of 3RR. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
That is a threat. You should be aware that you are in serious danger of violating WP:3RR. Am I in danger? Or is that a baseless aspersion? Andre🚐 21:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
You have not violated it yet, to my knowledge. But your escalation of this disupte to here does not reassure me of your continued behavior. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Do you disagree that I made exactly 1 revert per your change? Where was the case that I made 2 reverts? And I am not allowed to ask for review of your actions? Andre🚐 22:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
You're allowed to, but it's an editorial dispute and the actions were equivalent to non-rollback undos because they were explained in advance and were performed with a substantive rationale in good faith, and it doesn't matter who's right in the dispute when determining if the rollbacks were improper use of above-standard permissions or not. —Alalch E. 22:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
So in your view, rollback may be used by admins to edit war? Andre🚐 22:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
In my view, both the use of rollback and David Eppstein's admin status are irrelevant tangents, and this should be treated the same way as any other content dispute or edit warring accusation. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
So are you saying this complaint is at the wrong venue? Andre🚐 23:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Only the narrow question of "was the use of rollback appropriate" is within the scope of this board. And I think it is (for reasons I explained above). But your concern seems to have far more to do with other issues which have nothing to do with that question, and for which this is the wrong venue. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I think it is related because it is the use of an advanced permission alongside an ADMINACCT issue. If you believe the use of rollback is appropriate you are entitled to that opinion I guess. In the past, my understanding was that rollback was not appropriate for the use of edit war, and is revoked from non-admins who have it when they use it to edit war (or not granted) Andre🚐 23:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I would agree that using rollback to make your edit warring just that little bit easier means that it was not a good use of rollback (even if the use was technically near-indistinguishable from editing without using rollback), and that such a use should not be endorsed here, and therefore I don't think that ROLLBACKUSE can be cleanly separated from a question of edit warring. But I can't characterize Dave Eppstein's edits as edit warring. Yes, he did revert a revert, but he was somewhere in the fuzzy area between "BRD is optional" (see WP:BRR) and "must not edit war". Didn't quite rise to edit warring. The situation was on the brink of an edit war, so to speak. —Alalch E. 12:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
David Eppstein was acting in a general capacity of an editor, not as an admin. If in this capacity he had used advanced permissions to give himself an upper hand in the dispute, i.e. mixed the roles of an admin and editor-as-an-editor in an improper, essentially corrupt, way, there'd be a case, but he did not do that. He used an advanced permission, but the manner in which he did it is not distinguishable from him not using it and only using the buttons afforded to the standard group. This is because he provided an explanation in advance, provided an editorially meaningful reasoning (for you and everyone else to agree or disagree with), and acted in good faith. —Alalch E. 23:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I would ask anyone else reviewing this to consider whether this statement is true, whether David is indeed acting with the collegiality, respect, and engagement that is expected, or if he mass reverted my edits as vandalism, made false accusations, and threatened me. Andre🚐 23:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Where did he say your edits are vandalism? Sorry if I missed something. —Alalch E. 23:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Traditionally, a minor edit using rollback with no edit summary is treating my edits as vandalism. That is a long-time held Wikipedia norm. Andre🚐 23:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
He didn't revert your edits as vandalism, he just reverted your edits using rollback, and as a side-effect of that the edit was marked as minor. It is suboptimal that these edits were marked as minor but an edit being marked as minor that should not have been and treating something as vandalism which was not vandalism are different things. —Alalch E. 23:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
I would be happy if all rollbacks were marked as non-minor. Even when rollbacks are used to undo vandalism I don't think they are minor. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
The point is you used rollback to carry out a dispute and then falsely accused me of making 2 and 3 reverts, and you still have not even apologized. Also you have been quite rude as well. Andre🚐 23:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 2025 Edit-warring at Gracie Films and block of PEPSI697 by Ritchie333

Endorsed * Pppery * it has begun... 17:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Diffs/logs: [17] [18]
User: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · logs) (No discussion yet, this thread is to start that)

I am self-reporting this recent block, and I'll try and be brief.

I saw a report at WP:AN3 for Gracie Films, checked the history and immediately saw multiple editors undoing each other with no discussion, and decided full-protecting the article would work. I then investigated a bit further and found a number of other problems, causing me to reverse the protection as premature.

Firstly, I saw that PEPSI697 had previously been warned for reverting IPs edits without discussion, regardless of merits, and given there appeared to be potential disruption over multiple articles, I thought a short attention-grabbing block would be a suitable course correction - the block is sitewide rather than page specific because of the previous warning in an unrelated article (There's a declined unblock request on their talk page now).

Secondly, I thought (and openly said) the IPs edits removed what I thought was a large amount of unsourced text written in a Simpsons' fan point of view, and they had been attempting to discuss the issue at WP:AN3, explaining why they made the edit and why nobody else was discussing it. So I haven't blocked them yet because out of the involved parties, they're the only one to actually talk about the content (albeit in the wrong place).

Thirdly, I strongly suspect the IP is the Best Known For IP and will get blocked anyway (I've submitted a sockpuppetry report for that). I've put this shibboleth on their talk page to see if they respond, and if they start ranting about I created the casepage for the Best Known For IP (despite being endorsed by the Wikipedia community in general) then I'll have a cast iron reason to sitewide block them for sockpuppetry.

So, all said and done, were my administrative actions reasonable, and could things have been done better? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

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

April 20th, 2025 Block by Valereee

Unanimously endorsed. Leaving this open risks a further sanction on the OP. That is not what this page is for. It is only about endorsing/undoing an admin action, and we should be vigilant against mission creep. They can still be unblocked through the usual mechanism on their talk page. An admin can still tban them from PIA if they want. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

Diffs/logs: [19]
User: Valereee (talk · contribs · logs) (prior discussion 1, prior discussion 2)

I respectfully request a reconsideration of my indefinite block, which I believe was based on a significant misunderstanding rather than intentional disruption.

The initial issue arose from an edit I made to Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war, where I added a sourced sentence from journalist Ian Black. While I believed the quote was historically accurate and supported by other reliable sources, I now understand that even well-sourced content must be discussed first on the talk page in contentious topic areas as they can be seen as distruptive.

Following that, Valereee suggested adding a placeholder Latin phrase ("Lorem ipsum...") to illustrate how to structure a proposed change. Not recognizing it as dummy text, I misunderstood the suggestion and, in good faith, opened a talk page request to add the “Neque porro” quote found on the Wikipedia page for “Lorem ipsum.”

This was misinterpreted as sarcasm or provocation, which was absolutely not my intent. I’ve been on Wikipedia for 19 years and have made over 1,500 edits — it wouldn’t make sense for me to risk all that over a sarcastic post.

This was a genuine misunderstanding. I was simply unfamiliar with the concept of dummy text. I now understand that it's used in web development, but that’s not my field. I work in engineering and tend to take things very literally. I should also mention that I’m slightly on the autism spectrum — it doesn’t stop me from editing Wikipedia, but it might explain some of the confusion. This situation may seem strange, but that’s the honest truth.

After my explanation, I was offered a 90-day topic ban plus 500 edits, which I declined, believing it disproportionate given the nature of the mistake.

I ask for a second chance to demonstrate that I can contribute constructively.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Endorse: In most areas, the placeholder text snafu would be simply odd and the overaggressive edit to Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war would be small potatoes, but in what is arguably the most sensitive area on Wikipedia these days, coming immediately after a trip to AE about conduct in this topic, the caution here on Valereee's part is easily justified. The offered topic ban is a minor one, a short-term block from a problematic CTOP that is one of the millions of topics available. These actions were well within Valereee's discretion and I see no reason overturn this. I'm sorry, Michael, if you only have come to the understanding now after 19 years that discussion in a sensitive area is important, the short-term topic ban is to your benefit as well as Wikipedia's. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    Valereee wrote to me, I'd be willing to go with appealing at AN or AE after three months and 500 productive non-gaming edits outside the topic. As you pointed out, what I did would not have been an issue outside CTOP (simply odd/small potatoes), so there is no reason to require 500 additional edits unless it is intended as a form of punishment. I fully understand that I made a mistake, but where in the CTOP guidelines does it say that an administrator can compel someone to make 500 edits as a form of punishment? Where in the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct does it say that an administrator can require a user to make 500 edits as a condition for appeal or as a sanction? Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    Offering condition(s) for being unblocked is up to the discretion of the administrator and reviewed by the community and the CoC has nothing to do with this. You're not compelled to do anything; you are perfectly free to turn down the unblock conditions and remain blocked until such time a different administrator is willing to unblock you with conditions you're willing to accept. The next administrator might not offer you conditions as mild as Valereee did. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    @Boutboul, it's not a punishment. It's to ensure you get more experience before editing in PIA, which you've been having lots of problems editing in unproblematically. If you'd continued doing the things you were doing in PIA, someone else would have come along and indefinitely tbanned you, which would have come with a strong expectation that you wait at minimum six months before appealing, and which a lot of people would consider even too rushed at six months and prefer to see a year. There is another editor right now in this convo suggesting exactly such a tban.
    Clearly I'm completely involved here, so I won't suggest it myself, but please go ask any experienced editor you trust whether you should consider withdrawing this before it's closed. My concern is that it could end with you in a worse situation than you are. Valereee (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse concur with CoffeeCrumbs. Following the AE discussion, there's an immediate return to POV editing. However one interprets the subsequent "Lorem ipsum..." episode, the exchange on Valereee's talk page demonstrates poor understanding of the use of sourcing and it's not unreasonable now to expect a demonstration of proper use of sources in other areas. In asserting that ASD affects their ability to interpret the literalness of some instructions, I would encourage them to leave a message on their user and talk pages explaining the circumstance and requesting editors not communicate with them by use of analogy. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Hi, Boutboul. In your unblock request on your page, you appear to state that you did understand that Lorem ipsum is a dummy text before you suggested adding the “Neque porro” quote. You say there "I didn’t recognize the sentence, so I researched it and found out it is a dummy Latin text used in the printing and web design industries. I was confused about the suggestion, but since it came from an administrator, I tried to find a logical reason. I discovered that the phrase is loosely based on a sentence by Cicero. So I attempted to link the section with a philosophical reflection from Cicero and used the original Latin sentence." But in your request above, you say "Not recognizing it as dummy text, I misunderstood the suggestion and, in good faith, opened a talk page request to add the "Neque porro" quote found on the Wikipedia page for "Lorem ipsum." So did you, or did you not, recognize it as a dummy text before making the "Neque porro" suggestion? Please resolve this apparent contradiction. Secondly, you don't provide any diff for your (very worrying) "Neque porro" stuff. People here should be able to see it; here it is. Also, I have a third question: you've been here for 19 years. Have you ever mentioned before on Wikipedia that you're on the autism spectrum, or even that you tend to take things very literally? If you have, I think it would somewhat strengthen your case. If you haven't, well... only mentioning it now seems a little late. Bishonen | tålk 13:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC).
Thanks for your clarification requests:
  • Recognized/Did not recognize: I did not recognize the sentence (because I was not familiar with it) as dummy text meant to be used as a placeholder for "type your text here." When I checked the Wikipedia article, it was mentioned as a placeholder for the print or web industries, not for other uses.
  • Autism: No, I never had the opportunity to mention that I am slightly on the autism spectrum. This is not something I easily talk about but very common in the engineering field.
  • take things very literally: Not directly but I have one exemple where Valereee said why are so many people [...] willing to not address concerns expressed [20] and I answered might I suggest adding a question mark next time to make that clearer [21]. I have another example where she used a word that was not in the dictionary, and I had difficulty addressing it.
  • Neque porro: The diff regarding "Neque porro" was provided in the diffs/logs above: [19]
Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
I believe the requirement for me to make 500 edits as a condition for being unblocked constitutes an abuse of power by the Wikipedia administrators. This is a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation’s Code of Conduct, specifically section 3.2 – Abuse of power, privilege, or influence.
How can I contact the Wikimedia Foundation to report this? Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Aside I have an Asperger's user box on my userpage. Also, many of us here are neurodivergent. I find it useful for repetitive tasks. Aware of my neurodivergence, I take steps to modify my responses. Best-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • I suggest you reconsider taking the 90-day topic ban with 500 edits.—S Marshall T/C 14:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse, with a strong recommendation to take the temporary restriction. I believe (or perhaps hope) that this was entirely unintentional, a result of somewhat common miscommunication. You might also recall that I assisted with multiple of the issues you encountered, including with communication, at the recent AE filing against you. @Boutboul, having said that, blocks (and other sanctions) on Wikipedia are preventative, not punitive. The purpose of that restriction is to allow you to gain the necessary experience to understand English Wikipedia policies and unwritten customs in topic areas where an “oops” type of issue is a lot less harmful than within ARBPIA. I’m sure there are a plethora of topics of interest to you that could use 500 edits worth of improvements; national and academic topics of interest (or maybe some of your hobbies/special interests) might be a good place to start. FortunateSons (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse Valereee's actions throughout this process. Indeed after reading the discussions at AE and their their talkpage, I see Valereee putting significant effort to be helpful, communicative and fair. And seeing Boutboul comments at those venues, at the article talkpage, and their own talkpage, I believe an indef WP:PIA topic ban would be the ideal outcome here because, whether intentional or not, their actions have been significantly disruptive, and burdensome to other editors/admins involved in a highly contentious area. PS: I know that a 500 edits/90 days TBAN is on offer but personally I am not a fan of such self-terminating TBANs in circumstances such as these; won't object to their use though since admin experience and philosophies differ, and the exact choice is well within admin discretion. Abecedare (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    Minor bit of clarity: the conditional unblock offer was appealing at AN or AE after three months and 500 productive non-gaming edits outside the topic. Not time-limited, which I'm not a fan of either. I just wanted to be clear that an appeal in only three months/500 edits wouldn't be considered by me as being too soon to be able to assess progress made by this editor. Valereee (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    You're right. My (now struck) quibble was based on a misread, which only strengthens my endorsement. :) Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    I believe the requirement for me to make 500 edits as a condition for being unblocked constitutes an abuse of power by the Wikipedia administrators. This is a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation’s Code of Conduct, specifically section 3.2 – Abuse of power, privilege, or influence.
    How can I contact the Wikimedia Foundation to report this? Michael Boutboul (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    It’s really not, and I encourage you to drop this FortunateSons (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    You can email ca@wikimedia.org, which is Trust & Safety (the department that would review abuse of administrator power).—S Marshall T/C 17:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    @S Marshall That's not really true though? Reviewing admin abuse is not part of TnS's workflow. After WP:FRAM, the Foundation won't touch admins with a ten foot pole. For Michael's enlightenment, you would need to thoroughly exhaust community appeal routes first, namely your talk page, appealing on WP:UTRS, appealing to the community, appealing to WP:ARBCOM. There are many layers of community review that exist; the Foundation is not a part of the regular block workflow by design. TnS handles the legal threats and pedos, not admins who made a marginal call. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
    The question was clear and specific. That's the answer. It won't do what this user wants, but it's the answer. We ought to close this, as we've done all we can.—S Marshall T/C 08:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
    Hear him! Hear him! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
    You're literally at one of the places that would address that. Wikipedia is ruled by consensus, and the consensus is clearly that there was nothing wrong with Valereee's actions. You're certainly free to push this matter further, but it appears you've already talked yourself from Valereee's voluntary, milder topic ban to an involuntary, more stringent one. You still have the ability to stop digging, before you lose your shovel. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Michael's Babel boxes indicate he's not a native English speaker, and so as absurd as it seems, it's possible that he really didn't understand what Lorem Ipsum is. Either way, he's got egg on his face and looks rather dense. But we can save a bunch of time and cut to the chase here by lifting the block and substituting a standard PIA topic ban, which was the outcome this was trending towards anyways. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, I must admit that my mistake was ridiculous. I understand you as an administrator have the right to topic ban me, but why do you need to say I “look rather dense”?
    This is hateful content and poor conduct of an administrator. Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May 2025 Moved article to draft by Asilvering

ENDORSED
This discussion has been running for a while and is not expecting additional replies. While one editor expressed concern for whether the action was justified if it was made in conjunction with the AfD close, I have not seen a strong opposition to the original action. With some support for the justification for the draftification, what to do next seems beyond the scope of this page. Therefore I am closing this as a rough consensus to endorse the original action. beef [talk] 03:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

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.

Diffs/logs: 1
User: Asilvering (talk · contribs · logs) (prior discussion)

Draft: Aramean people used to be a article, rated B-class and was subject to a dispute, it was nominated at AfD which closed as no consensus, Asilvering still moved the draft from mainspace and locked it as a draft for indefinite. Wlaak (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Wrong venue. WP:DRV is the place for this. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
No, what's at stake here is the page move and protection. WP:DRV, at least in my expectation, would simply be to contest the no-consensus close. If one of these two venues had to be picked, I think Wlaak has picked the correct one. You'll notice from the discussion linked as "prior discussion", above, that I did not think either was a tremendously good idea. -- asilvering (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Nevermind. I see asilvering told you to bring this particular issue here. I agree with their advice that you should drop this and focus on building consensus instead of trying to win a battle. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
consensus is all i have been trying. but my part of the consensus is constantly overlooked and dismissed. i have come here regarding a move done to Draft: Aramean people Wlaak (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Agreed... and Arameans exists, so why are we here? I think there's a stick to be dropped. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Arameans exists as a extinct people with zero coverage on history post Arabization and modern identity. I realized it would take days of reading the entire dispute to understand what is being talked about here, asilvering knows all of it which perhaps is why asilvering is the most fitting admin for this.
Regardless, it is the move I am discussing, why was it moved with no consensus when it had passed as a article. Wlaak (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Arameans is about ancient Arameans, but contains these two paragraphs at the end of the article:

In modern times, an Aramean identity is held mainly by a number of Syriac Christian groups, predominantly from southeastern Turkey and parts of Syria. Aramean identity is most predominant among ethnic Assyrians, and as such, is most often used in the Assyrian diaspora, especially in Germany and Sweden. However, other groups such as Maronites, Arab Christians, and the Arameans of Maaloula and Jubb'adin may also identify strongly under the label.

In 2014, Israel officially recognised Arameans as a distinctive minority. Questions related to the minority rights of Arameans in some other countries were also brought to international attention.

The Assyrian People speaks of an ethnic group with shared descent. That is, the group is ethnically defined. In Akopian, A. (2014) Introduction to Aramean and Syriac Studies Gorgias Press, the "Assyrian idea" is discussed in chapter 23 and confirms the ethnic definition by descent, whilst being sceptical of it. Ethnic groups may also be linguistically defined as a linguistic diaspora or across a dialect continuum, and the borders of these groups rarely map neatly with other ideas. The argument that our coverage is completed by an article on ancient Arameans and modern Assyrian people, therefore, seems incorrect. Somewhat analogous (but all analogies leak) would be how we have Celts (the ancient Celtic peoples) and Celts (modern) - the modern linguistically defined Celtic fringe. These in addition to other ethnicities (e.g Irish people). There are sources that suggest that there is a greyer Aramean diaspora that extends beyond those who identify as Assyrian.
Is the page that was draftified the page that describes this? I think not. Not in the form it is in. But it is not wrong by design. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Wlaak has been topic-banned from this topic (after the AARV was started, to be clear). I've told them that they should NOT participate here unless and until the admin who enacted the topic ban says they can, but, and that has been confirmed by the admin who enacted the topic ban, so that will explain any lack of further communication from them. If they are, as I suspect, Since they are frozen out of this discussion, and no one else seems to think that this move to draft space was wrong, then this can probably be closed. If is stays open, out of fairness, I think it would be best if Wlaak not be discussed, since they cannot respond. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC) modified : 00:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Seeing the AfD discussion, Wlaaks topic ban and the proposal for community sanctions in this topic. I think asilvering's actions are alright. Nobody (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not ready to suggest any kind of overturn here, because draftifying that article is not necessarily a bad thing. There is a clear case it was not ready for mainspace in that form. I suppose my concern here is that draftification now prevents the do-over AfD that was proposed by the speedy close arguments. The AFD was a disaster. Over 8,000 words when I found it, there was very considerable bludgeoning even after a plea to keep things brief. Also some SPAs had been inconsistently marked, so I marked all the other non EC SPAs and that was nearly everyone. There was a proposal for conducting a new AfD under controlled and enforced terms, but you can't take a draft to AFD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
    I suppose WP:MFD would serve. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
    I doubt it would have the necessary visibility at MFD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
    MfD isn't really ideal, as we wouldn't be discussing the suitability of the page as a draft, but as an article. Moving it back to mainspace and starting another AfD could be a solution, but, given that the scope of the dispute is bigger than the existence of a single page (and pertains to how we should refer to these people in general), a sui generis solution seems necessary here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
    What would be the purpose of taking it to MFD? What would be the value of arguing over whether to delete the draft? I accepted the draft into article space based on a mistaken good-faith assumption that a deletion discussion could resolve the content dispute over whether Aramean people are a distinct group from Assyrian people. A deletion discussion about the draft would only decide whether to throw the draft into a memory hole. At this point, what is needed is to finalize the general sanctions, topic-ban any other disruptive editors, and impose whatever restrictions are in order. A draft deletion discussion at this point would be a genuinely terrible idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with CE here. Very early in the dispute (as in, in March), AfD looked like it might be one way to deal with this content dispute, but I warned Wlaak against forcing it at that time as I strongly suspected it would result in the content dispute "settling" the same way it has every single time previously, and thus re-inscribing consensus against the standalone Aramean page and making the overall issue even harder to make headway on. I don't think AfD is the right place for this broader discussion, because AfD is often very bad at handling actual WP:PAGEDECIDE issues, which is what this is, instead focusing quite narrowly on notability. I suspect that the way to a neutral and informative set of articles on this topic will be something like a main article about the dispute itself, and not-exactly-spin-out articles on the culture, self-definition, etc, of each group. But that's just a suspicion, based on how editorial conflicts work out on Wikipedia, and at present I think there are zero editors working in the topic area who see that as the ideal outcome. However it goes forward, it's clear to me that any change to the current status quo will impact much more than just a single article, so AfD doesn't really have any hope of solving this one. Sui generis indeed. -- asilvering (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Was the result of the AfD "no consensus" or was it "draftify"? No consensus doesn't typically lead to draftification, so is that considered a separate act made as an editor, or an administrative act as closer of the discussion (or a subsequent administrative act to protect a page from disruption)? That AfD looks like a big mess, and I won't pretend to understand such that I have an opinion on what to do with the article -- I'm just not a fan of forced draftifications of articles that had been in mainspace. Either it can hang in mainspace (no consensus at AfD means it sticks around), or there's consensus to do something else with it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
    It was in mainspace for three days. The status quo ante is draftspace. I think in this case draftifying was prudent given the shitshow over this topic area. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
    That's not how draftification or AfD work, though? When a draft author wants to move it to mainspace even though there are problems, they risk it being sent to AfD. Then, a "no consensus" outcome at AfD is the same as any other no consensus outcome at AfD - it's not "no consensus to move out of draftspace", it's "no consensus to delete". Sometimes if there's consensus to delete we draftify as a way to make improvements, but no consensus at AfD absolutely does not lead to moving back to draftspace unless there's consensus to draftify at AfD. Draftification is a separate decision after a no consensus closure. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
    WP:NOCON says an article is normally kept, not always. I think there's some wiggle room. Even if there isn't, I think draftifying to prevent further disruption was reasonable in the circumstances. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
  • There's a real risk of crystallizing this in its current, very unsatisfactory state. No challenger to this admin action remains standing, so we can and should close this AARV without further ado, but that's not a sufficient resolution.
    What needs to happen now is that we as a community need to have a discussion in which we decide if modern-day Arameans are an encyclopaedic topic or not. AFD and MFD are unsatisfactory venues for that discussion, for the reasons we've already explored above, so I would suggest that the discussion takes place at an RFC, and also that the RFC should be pre-emptively EC protected. I know we don't normally do that, but still.—S Marshall T/C 23:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
    @S Marshall, I don't think that's a good idea (yet), especially now that the main recent proponent of the "Aramean side" has now been tbanned. (Luckily or unluckily for us, that makes this two-decade-long simmering dispute no longer so urgent.) I think an RfC would work best once other methods of solving the content issue, which are currently in the works, have advanced (or failed). More context on that in the prior discussion link above and on @Chaotic Enby's talk page. In short, I don't think "should this article exist or not" is a useful question at this stage. We need to start much earlier: for example, what are the most elementary facts pertaining to this topic, about which all participants agree? Trying to sort this out with an AfD, an RfC, or our other formalized methods is basically the dispute resolution version of writing an article WP:BACKWARDS. -- asilvering (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
    As you know, although not everyone reading this discussion knows: the question of whether this is an encyclopaedic topic reduces to "are there scholarly sources that treat modern-day Arameans as a distinct population". That's not a backwards question at all. It's the first question, and this dispute will simmer on until it's answered. I do very much recommend a structured discussion with an agreed end date to establish this.—S Marshall T/C 01:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrative_action_review/Archive_3&oldid=1296531590"