Wikipedia:Administrative action review

Shortcuts

Administrative action review (XRV/AARV) determines whether use of the administrator tools or other advanced permissions is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Any action (or set of related actions) involving a tool not available to all confirmed editors—except those covered by another, more specific review process—may be submitted here for community review. The purpose of an administrative review discussion is to reach a consensus on whether a specific action was appropriate, not to assign blame. It is not the place to request comment on an editor's general conduct, to seek retribution or removal of an editor's advanced permissions, or to quibble about technicalities.

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

Purpose

Shortcut

WP:XRVPURPOSE

Administrative action review may be used to request review of:

an administrator action
an action using an advanced permission

Administrative action review should not be used:

to request an appeal or review of an action with a dedicated review process
For review of page deletions or review of deletion discussion closures, use Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV)

For review of page move discussion closures, use Wikipedia:Move review (MRV)
to ask to remove a user's permissions:
Permissions granted at WP:PERM may be revoked by an administrator consistent with the guidelines for that permission.

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

Instructions
Initiating a review

Before listing a review request, try to resolve the matter by discussing it with the performer of the action.
Start a new discussion by clicking the button below and filling in the preloaded template (or use {{subst:XRV}} directly)
Notify the performer of the action of the discussion.
You must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. You may use {{subst:XRV-notice}} for this purpose.

Use of the notification system is not sufficient.

Start a new discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

April 2025 Decline of AWB Request. by Pppery

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

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)[reply]

This is only making you look more and more like a fool. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow Wikipedia:HUSH... Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 20:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry, I meant Wikipedia:PA Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 20:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Pppery has also "digging up the dirt on me", from several discussions I have resolved. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 20:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what he's supposed to do when considering whether to grant advanced permissions. Schazjmd (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
May I please get the "examples", as I clearly don't understand. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 21:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Pppery: Just letting ya close it. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 21:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have not triple reverted anything? Cite a diff? Andre🚐 21:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your actions are extremely inappropriate. You are removing accurate content and then making inaccurate accusations. Andre🚐 21:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cite one example of an inaccuracy in the infoboxes I restored. Andre🚐 22:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The sources were not imported to the infobox. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I did not make 2 rounds of reverts, either. Andre🚐 21:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

So in your view, rollback may be used by admins to edit war? Andre🚐 22:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

So are you saying this complaint is at the wrong venue? Andre🚐 23:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Where did he say your edits are vandalism? Sorry if I missed something. —Alalch E. 23:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wrong venue Rollback is not an administrator-exclusive tool. Mind you, I don't think you're going to get a more favorable answer anywhere else, but I'd not call this in scope. Jclemens (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding venue, I considered a different part of AN, but since this is using rollback to edit war a content issue, would it not be appropriate for here? Andre🚐 21:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was reverting my own edit when you replied. You're correct. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be an administrator-exclusive tool for the venue to be competent. —Alalch E. 22:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the correct venue as this regards advanced permissions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions that led to the creation of this venue had more in mind than just administrator tools. This venue is also meant to cover any advanced permission, I think, including rollback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've reviewed use of rollback here before, so this is the correct venue. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. An explanation was provided before the rolling back was done. The actions were roughly in line with WP:ROLLBACKUSE.—Alalch E. 22:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Actions were consistent with WP:ROLLBACKUSE. I do not know why rollbacks are automatically marked as a "minor edit", but that is a software issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because reverting vandalism is usually a minor edit in the sense that it doesn't need careful scrutiny. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above. consistent with WP:ROLLBACKUSE. explanation was provided.---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Also, as an aside, I endorse the rationale. -- asilvering (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Wikipedia is not a game of gotcha. An explanation was clearly provided (example: diff "Remove wikidata-only WP:DISINFOBOX. We should not be importing data from other projects with different sourcing standards for BLPs than ours."). Infoboxes are controversial. Wikidata is controversial. Dubiously sourced information in BLPs is controversial. Has there been a central discussion showing consensus for BLP wikidata infoboxes? Rollback can be used for non-vandalism edits provided an explanation has been provided. It has been. Johnuniq (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the reverts were BLPs, though. Andre🚐 03:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's misleading. The edit summary Johnuniq quoted was applied to BLPs as well as some non-BLP articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are being misleading. There were 2 BLPs, and all of the revert diffs I linked in this report were not BLPs, and I did not revert any of the BLP ones. Andre🚐 04:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going to multiple articles just to add or remove an infobox is highly controversial around these parts. When that addition or removal is challenged, going back to those articles and doing exactly the same thing again is the kind of stuff that gets people (well, newbies, at least) hauled to ANI. I don't really care about use of rollback, but it's completely inappropriate to edit war across multiple articles to force one's own preference about infoboxes. That said, it's not an administrative action. Best course of action here: close this as wrong venue, David undoes the last round of edits and finds consensus to remove those infoboxes (or a clearer consensus that Wikidata is never allowed in infoboxes). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. While I haven't checked if those infoboxes comply with the 2018 RfC, the use of rollback seems to acceptable based on WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Nobody (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural close~~ Rollback is not an adminitrative tool, and not subject to review here. Take it up an WP:AN or WP:ANI if there is still a problem.—Bagumba (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we use administrator tools or other advanced permissions on the top of this page, I don't think review here is wrong. Nobody (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original RFC proposal clearly indicates this is for all actions done with advanced permissions (which to me means anything beyond what you get for being extended confirmed).

And also, just because rollback isn't exclusive to admins, does not make it not an administrative tool. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Seems there should be an asterisk, e.g. Wikipedia:Administrative* action review LOL.—Bagumba (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback is just a method of revert, albeit one which tends to include or justify giving less of an explanation. There was no clear violation regarding that, but probably regular reverts and giving more explanation(s) would have been a better way to do it. But 80% of this isn't about rollback per se, and this is the wrong venue for the 80%. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
anybody want to guess (without checking first!) how many words are in this thread so far? —Floquenbeam (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I mean look, everyone is endorsing so if you want to close this go ahead. Personally I believe that Wikipedia processes are not supposed to hinge on procedural technicalities but to focus on outcomes and that admins have a responsibility to explain their actions without rudeness or defensiveness, and that these actions were at least wrong according to the spirit if not the letter, but clearly I am in the minority here, so if someone wants to close this go ahead. Andre🚐 17:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Seems reasonable to me Other's mileage may vary.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Ritchie333: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I miss my synthesizer. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what HJ said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block. Clearly counts as preventative. I also think that PEPSI697's edits to Gracie Films as well as their unblock request show a clear lack of good faith toward the IP and Ritchie. Nobody (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It's possible that a warning might have had the desired effect but a block is well within admin discretion as Pepsi went straight over 3RR without any exemption. More importantly, they were reverting without actually looking at the edit, nor communicating meaningfully, which tends to suggest that the reverting would have continued until it was forcibly stopped. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, which I arguably already did in a more substantive fashion by declining the ANEW case against the IP as stale. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 20th, 2025 Block by Valereee

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I suggest you reconsider taking the 90-day topic ban with 500 edits.—S Marshall T/C 14:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Formal review processes
Deletion review Move review Administrative action review
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard
In bot-related matters:
Bots noticeboard
Discussion about closes prior to closing:
Discussions for discussion
v t e