Misplaced Pages

:Administrative action review: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:42, 10 August 2023 editThryduulf (talk | contribs)Oversighters, Administrators98,905 edits →Block of User:KoA by User:Leyo: belatedly add signature to my close← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:20, 31 December 2024 edit undoFloquenbeam (talk | contribs)Administrators38,306 edits →User:Amaury using rollback to revert constructive or good-faith edits without explanation: oops sorry 
(965 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Process to review use of administrator tools}} {{Short description|Process to review use of administrator tools}}
{{/header}} {{/header}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| maxarchivesize = 750K | maxarchivesize = 500K
| counter = 1 | counter = 2
| minthreadsleft = 0 | minthreadsleft = 0
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadstoarchive = 1
| algo = old(14d) | algo = old(7d)
| archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review/Archive %(counter)d | archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review/Archive %(counter)d
| archiveheader = {{Talk archive navigation}} | archiveheader = {{Talk archive navigation}}
Line 12: Line 13:
{{archives}} {{archives}}
{{clear}} {{clear}}
]




==Bbb23's block, revocation of TPA of, and aspersions about Isonomia01==
== Unblock of Tony1 by Bishonen ==
{{archive top|Bbb23's block was unanimously '''endorsed''' and the reporting editor has been subsequently been reblocked indefinitely. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 09:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}}
* {{User13|Isonomia01}}


TLDR:
{{Archive top|status=Closed|result=This discussion died out two weeks ago, and I see no benefit to leaving it open. Everyone who was substantively involved in this dispute can draw some useful lessons from it, and I encourage them all to do so. ] (]) 17:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)}}
#Bbb23 issued a 7 day block on a newbie for a second revert, after the newbie had stopped engaging in reversion and had went back to discourse. The newbie had previously tried to engage in content discussion on the talk page, and the other user was ignoring this and making false statements on the user's page.
#It is argued that Bbb23 was involved in the content dispute.
#Bbb23 made false and disparaging remarks about the user they blocked to try to influence the opinions of other administrators, advocated that the user should be blocked indefinitely without justification, and attempted to influence content consensus discussions with aspersion about the user both before the block, and while the block was in place.
#Bbb23 accused the user of "refactoring", the user asked for clarification and was ignored, and then Bbb23 revoked TPA for the user while the user was blocked.
#Editors should not have to worry about administrator tools being applied excessively and over content disputes that can and should be / have been resolved through discussion, without unnecessary drama.


Note: Statements supported by references have (ref) attached. These references can be provided on request, to diffs.
:Action: of {{u|Tony1}} by Bishonen
:User: {{User3|Bishonen}} ()
'''Policy background:'''
* ] is a policy enacted by our community. It provides in relevant part:
::"Editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. (...) Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. (...) In cases of repeated harassment or egregious personal attacks, then the offender may be blocked. Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block".
* The is a policy enacted by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, and is binding on all Wikipedians (UCoC §1). The Arbitration Committee has ], and explained that the UCoC is a minimum standard that our local policies go beyond of. As such, the UCoC must be observed when applying our local policies. It provides in relevant part:
::"The following behaviours are considered unacceptable within the Wikimedia movement: 3.1 – Harassment. This includes any behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome. (...) Harassment includes but is not limited to: Insults: This includes (...) any attacks based on personal characteristics. Insults may refer to perceived characteristics like intelligence".


====1. Abuse of Administrator Tools====
'''Factual background:'''


=====a. Blocking me over a content dispute=====
The linked to above concerned a complaint by {{u|Headbomb}} against {{u|Tony1}}. Headbomb took offense to a by Tony1 in which Tony1 accused Headbomb of "ignorant writing" and told Headbomb to "go to hell". The cause of this message was apparently a stylistic disagreement about how some text should be phrased.


To distill the facts as much as humanly possible, I was blocked(ref1) for two reasons (even though only one of these was mentioned in the block justification): (1) a second revert, after which I stopped; after that a warning was issued on my page, and then I was blocked even though I had made no edits, and (2) a frustrated response to the warning template in which the user made false accusations against me and distorted the facts (specifically, the accusation of "disruptive edits", and that I was not engaging in consensus discussion were not just false, but also applicable to the user issuing the warning template). I can't identify anything else significant or remotely relevant that I've done.
After the complaint was initially not taken seriously by other responding administrators, I blocked Tony1 for the . Later, Bishonen unblocked Tony1. As far as I can tell from her comments in the AN thread, she did so because in her view there was "an admin consensus" against the block, and because in her view Tony1's comments were not harrassment and not a personal attack.


I maintain that I had reached consensus properly, and that the talk page should have been utilized by the other parties (this is not incompatible with that I shouldn't have reverted the second time).
'''Argument:'''


I was blocked over a content dispute, where the other parties are choosing not to engage in consensus discussion, and instead resorting to the use of administrator tools, and aspersion, in place of consensus discussion.
Bishonen acted irresponsibly by unblocking Tony1. The comments by Tony1 were incivil and therefore sanctionable per ]. Whether or not they were personal attacks, they were at least "rudeness disrespectful comments", as provided for by the policy. They were also harassment as defined in UCoC §3.1, i.e. "behaviour intended primarily to intimidate, outrage or upset a person, or any behaviour where this would reasonably be considered the most likely main outcome". The allegation of "ignorant writing" was moreover an insult as defined in the same provision, i.e., "attacks based on personal characteristics (...) like intelligence".


The block was issued *without* discussion (or rather subsequent to cursory discussion **without me making addditional edits**), and in spite of my willingness and receptiveness to discussion and to be educated about the rules. It's not like someone told me "a second revert can be considered a breach of the rules in a case like this" (and I continued reverting) prior to the block.
The block was also an appropriate and proportionate response, as explained in the AN thread, particularly because of previous blocks and reports of similar misconduct concerning Tony1.


The block was for 7 days, which is an overly long period of time (7x customary(ref2)) for a "first offense" for actual revert warring (bit of a stretch from what I did, considering that I stopped and no discussion or warnings took place prior to me stopping, before blocking me)(ref3).
It is also immaterial whether there was an "admin consensus" against the block, as Bishonen alleged. The view of administrators is not of greater importance than that of other users in disciplinary matters. In any event, core policies such as ] and the UCoC cannot be set aside by local consensus.


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


Bbb23 accused me of "refactoring"(]). I had no idea what they meant, repeatedly asked them to clarify(]) (even quoted the rules that require them to answer my request for clarification(])), and reviewed the edits in question and openly asserted that I am challenging the truth of their statements, and that I am allowed to strikethrough my own text(ref7). They refused to clarify. Again, I have no idea what they were talking about.
Bishonen knows better. She has recently correctly blocked other editors for similar misconduct, see e.g. ] (), ] (), ] (). In particular, at ], she page-blocked an editor for the : "well, cant argue with a fool anymore. Have a nice life", and correctly : "Civility is policy here". In June, she for "personal attacks or harassment" for that were considerably milder than Tony1's statements. It is therefore difficult to explain why she would go so far out of her way to protect Tony1 from a block for very similar misconduct. The only conceivable explanation is that Tony1 is a socially well-connected established editor, and the other editors she blocked were not. In my view, this conduct by Bishonen contributes to the impression, as described at ], that civility is something enforced only against nobodies, not against people with the right kind of friends. This is repugnant to me, and, I hope, most Wikipedians.


I submitted an unblock request, which was declined by Administrator Asilverfox. Their justification for rejecting the unblock request literally has a reply button. I couldn't use reply buttons while I was blocked; I had to edit pages to reply, so I assumed (after I checked the template for indications not to and saw nothing) there was no problem with replying to the rejection (which had a reply button), and did so (within the adjudicated unblock request template).
The unblock should therefore be undone and the block reinstated until such time as Tony1 ''credibly'' recognizes their misconduct and commits not to repeat it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


Without discussion or any attempt at clarification or anything, my TPA was revoked by Bbb23(]).
:''Follow-up:'' Someone I don't know informed me by e-mail of the following: In 2019, Tony1 to "Piss off. Now, you miserable little swine." When Tony1's conduct was subsequently discussed at ANI, Bishonen : " I understand why he was blocked. But I'm glad GoldenRing unblocked. As for a FAC topic ban, that is surely unnecessarily humiliating for someone who used to be one of the FAC greats". While I am not familiar with that incident, Bishonen's comment mentioned above supports the impression that as an administrator she does not apply the same standards to people she likes and to other editors. This is very problematic in an administrator. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


-
::Sandstein, opening a review at this noticeboard seems to me a bit like asking the other parent, or forumshopping. Your own block of Tony1 was yesterday, and the arbs and others are busy there commenting on both your block and, of course, on my unblock. (As indeed did many users at .) Isn't that enough? It seems to me that having the discussion over several boards can only dilute it. ] &#124; ] 11:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC).
:::My understanding is that this is the proper forum in which to review a contested admin action, so I'm here. Arbitration is a last resort, and the arbitration request you refer to is in the process of being denied for this reason, among others. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
::The most that this page can handle is: "Bishonen unblocked Tony1 yesterday without consulting me, the blocking admin. Does the community endorse?" Even then, it is premature in that you have not discussed this with her, and simultaneously, it is too late because the whole incident was already discussed at AN and even ArbCom, though perhaps neither venue discussed Bishonen's conduct front and centre. The accusations you've made here are grave. If AN and ArbCom didn't address it to your satisfaction, you will just have to start dedicated cases in the same venues. This board would be a step backwards.
::Personally, I hope adminning in the English Misplaced Pages can continue to remain as robust without the need for appeal to UCOC. Not a fan of undiscussed reversal of admin actions, especially blocks. Not a fan of the way Bishonen notified you on your talk page. As to why the interpersonal dynamics may be the way they are among three users who have been on Misplaced Pages almost 20 years, I would not dare begin to explore. I don't think anyone seriously wants to get into that whole thing about favouritism, double standards and cabalism among established users and admin corps. ''']'''&nbsp;] 12:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
*Here's my two cents, in more or less chronological order:
**I've never written anything for The Signpost, so I'm not up on the culture there, but I tend to think of Signpost articles as akin to personal essays where the author has a greater degree of ownership than they would with a mainspace article. The ] seems to support that view.
**Headbomb could have been more diplomatic in how they pushed back on Tony1's edits.
**Tony1's {{tq|Go to hell}} ] was completely uncalled for. Arguing about which of ] or ] applied is just wikilawyering. Whatever you label it, it wasn't an appropriate thing to say.
**I'm not convinced Sandstein's block was necessary, but it was certainly not unreasonable.
**I don't see any reason the UCOC had to be cited. Our own policies cover this just fine. As a practical matter, the UCOC has not been received well by much of the enwiki community and I suspect any time it's cited to support an admin action, that'll just ratchet up the temperature of whatever else is going on.
**I disagree with Bishonen's unblock, but I don't see it rising to anything more than a routine "that's not what I would have done".
**Ritchie333 bringing this to arbcom was excessive, but they've ], so no need to dwell on it.
**I see somebody dug up another example of Tony1 being uncivil '''from four years ago'''. Unless we've got some reason to believe this is an ongoing problem, let's all just agree that everybody is allowed to have a bad day once every four years and move on from that.
**I've seen a few comments citing Tony1's long history of work at FA and the Signpost, asserting that this history gives him a free ride to ignore rules and be nasty to people. It ].
**Please everybody, just decompress and get back to writing the encyclopedia. ] ] 13:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
*:+1 to this analysis. Pretty much every successive step in this saga has made me roll my eyes, then go back to more productive work. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 14:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
*:I agree with Roy here also. That said, I would emphasize a few points a bit more strongly. The UCOC mention was probably a bad idea for a number of reasons (mainly it makes it look like a soapbox for UCOC's relationship to Misplaced Pages and thus feels like a case of the tail wagging the dog) and I'd recommend avoiding mentioning it in the future. I'd have phrased my disagreement wrt Bishonen's unblock a bit more strongly. I think it was at best unwise and should at least have been followed by some advice given to Tony1. ] (]) 17:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
*::I agree with Hobit (and thus broadly RoySmith) on all counts. Headbomb, Tony1, Bishonen, Sandstein and Ritchie333 ''all'' have lessons to be learned from this saga, but as long as they commit to learning them (and Richtie333 at least already has) then I don't think any further action would benefit the project. ] (]) 18:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
*{{u|Sandstein}} my friend. Close this and let's move on please. ] 19:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
*Drawing upon information from various sources the now closed discussion and the current request, which is on its way to speedy decline, it appears that the block imposed was wholly within the established Misplaced Pages policy. The invoked Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) merely serves as a foundational guideline, yet the pre-existing policy is decidedly more comprehensive, as affirmed by our Arbitration Committee.{{pb}}What intrigues, and somewhat amuses me, is the unblocking decision. The rationale provided is, to put it mildly, lacking in maturity and remarkably dismissive of the ongoing discourse. Although I am not convinced that this situation necessitates community sanctions or escalation to the Arbitration Committee, I firmly believe that this episode should serve as a precedent and certainly not be replicated in future situations. ] (]) 22:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
**Decisions on their own don't have "maturity", only the people making them do. Saying "that was a very mature decision" is tantamount to saying "You are very mature." Similarly, saying that a unblock rationale is "lacking in maturity and remarkable dismissive" is a comment not on the action itself, but on the person who took the action, Bishonen. In my view, your remarks are therefore a ] on Bishonen's character, and I urge you to strike them. If you refuse, I urge an uninvolved admin to block you for your violation of ]. At the very least, a warning not to continue to make personal attacks should be issued. ] (]) 23:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
**{{reply|PackMecEng}} you appear to be trolling and casting snide insults here and . Please stop. ] (]) 15:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
**:I don't think it's trolling at all. I share PackMecEng's displeasure with the unblock itself ''and'' with Bishonen's attitude in communicating the unblock. While I don't think it serves a useful purpose for editors to continue relitigating the matter at various noticeboards, I do hope Bishonen will take on board that some of us feel the unblock was not carried out well.
**:As an aside, I strongly disagree with Sandstein's desire for the block to be reinstated. That would be a very bad outcome. This matter has been sufficiently discussed and further threads are unlikely to be healthy for the community. ] (]) 02:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
**::I think it's sufficient for Bishonen to "take on board" the fact that a number of arbitrators and other commenters on RFAR felt that Bishonen's unblock was completely within admin discretion. That some people disagreed with an admin's action is hardly anything to write home about; rather, it would be a rare admin decision about which somebody did '''''not''''' disagree. So far, at least, I'm not seeing here a groundswell of disapprobation concerning Bishonen's decision to unblock. ] (]) 02:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
**:::Sure, it was within admin discretion. But that doesn't mean it was the right call. I personally feel that it wasn't, and I'm clearly not the only one. The lack of a {{tq|groundswell of disapprobation}} probably stems from the fact that most people are justifiably ready to stop talking about the whole thing. ] (]) 04:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
**::::Or, it could mean that there just aren't that many people who thought it was a "bad call". Certainly the consensus of those who commented on the unblock in the case request didn't think so. ] (]) 08:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
**:::::For the record I am a person who agrees Bishonen's unblock was within admin discretion, also thinks it was a bad call (just because you ''can'' do something doesn't mean it is always a good idea to do it) and did not comment to this effect in the case request (because doing so would not have brought anything new to the discussion). ] (]) 09:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
**::@] How would you describe "Ha, did you stick out your tongue at the end as well?" I presume you are aware of PackMecEng's one week block for disruption at AN. ] ] 10:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
**:::I was probably aware of that situation when it happened, but I don't recall it now (which could be said about an ever-increasing number of situations that I've observed/participated in). While the "did you stick out your tongue" remark did not contribute anything helpful to the discussion, I took it as an expression of frustration with Bishonen's attitude in carrying out the unblock. Personally, I felt that both Bishonen and Sandstein (with his bogus invocation of UCOC and the accusation that other admins were failing to enforce it, as well as his decision to open this thread) were more adversarial than they should have been, and I think the frustration underlying PackMecEng's comment is perfectly valid. Is it possible that it was trolling? Sure. But I think admins should be very, very careful when lobbing that accusation against non-admins who are criticizing admin actions. ] (]) 14:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
*I think best practice would be for Bishonen to visit Sandstein's talk page for a polite conversation before unblocking.{{pb}}I think the en.wiki community takes a dismissive view of the UCOC. The community seems to think there's nothing in the UCOC that isn't already covered by our existing policies and guidelines, and that this means the UCOC can safely be ignored on en.wiki. Personally, I only hope that's true.{{pb}}I think that it's open to the community to reach a consensus that a block should be reversed. I don't think it matters whether that's a consensus of admins or not, and I don't think an "admin consensus" is a thing at all. I also don't think it matters whether the block rationale cites WP:CIVIL. I know that WP:CIVIL is a core policy but it's my position that even a civility-related block can be overturned by community consensus. And I think that yes, a consensus to unblock did exist at the time that Bishonen unblocked.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 09:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
*:@] I’m not clear why using his talk page would be superior to the discussion in the thread. ] ] 12:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


====2. Lying====
== Block of ] by ] ==
{{archive top|status=Not endorsed|Consensus is clear that this block is not endorsed, both considering only KoA's actions and also for being a ] block.<br>As KoA has already been unblocked, Leyo has indicated they are taking an admin break and there is no further action possible at this board there is no value in leaving the discussion here open any longer. If anyone feels that further action is desirable (including but not limited to the suggested IBAN or restriction on blocking auto-confirmed editors) then they should start at a discussion at ], similarly anyone who feels this rises to the level of desysopping should initiate an admin conduct case at ].<br>Whether those discussions are initiated or not, ] should reflect that multiple editors do consider that their actions rise to that level. ] (]) 16:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)}}
I am questioning the coorectness of this block stating that "You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit-warring (], ], ], ]), as you did at ]), as you did at Dominion (2018 film." by ].


====a. Indicating that they didn't delete content that I had added(ref9)====
I asked Leyo to explain their block here:https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Leyo#Your_block_of_User:KoA_was_inappropriate] They have now been inactive for almost two days so I have decided to proceed.


I argued in my unblock request that Bbb23 shouldn't have blocked me because they had recently deleted content from my user page(ref10) (in addition to making disparaging remarks about me personally to others during content consensus discussion on Drmies' talk page(ref11)), therefore constituting a content or other dispute / "involvement"(refs12). I made this argument several times(refs14) and it is not reasonable to believe Bbb23 didn't know about this argument. They finally responded to my question, but stated that they had *not* deletete content(]). They used the phrase "from this page" (the talk page, as opposed to the userpage). It is unreasonable to believe that they did not know that they had deleted content from my userpage, and it had been specified repeatedl, so their phrasing in their negative response is irrelevant.
When I first noticed the block it didn't seem to be appropriate. It wasn't clear to me that they were reverting anyone on the 24th, the first diff. It was trimmed quite a bit, but as I understand it, that's not considered reverting if it isn't reverting a specific editor's text. As for their last actual revert, they posted to the article talk page at 17:43, July 31, 2023, no one responded, and at 22:43, August 3, 2023 they reverted. In other words, they waited over 3 days. I don't see that revert as edit warring. I'd probably revert if I'd posted to the talk page and waited that long (note that I'm not agreeing with the revert, simply saying that this wasn't edit warring as I understand it).
What I hadn't realised is that Leyo is an involved editor - I only learned that from KoA's unblock request in which he wrote:


====b. "Refactoring" and "Distortion"(refs16)====
"I've had to caution Leyo about their behavior issues building over some years when they have been attacking me and edit warring in DS/CT topics. I specifically had to warn them about casting ] in the GMO topic and as well as for the 1RR restrictions. I had to caution them specifically about the GMO restrictions again just a yet again because Leyo was promoting a ] organization (denial of scientific consensus on GMOs) as reliable in where they were lashing out at me. A lot of that has focused on GMO-related content disputes too, so I'm worried that this pursuit is escalating into other agriculture related topics. They also made similar article talk comments <q class="inline-quote-talk ">You have a well-known history of man-on-a-mission edits. Your actions are not the consensus.</q> where another admin ] (though involved in the topic) had to caution Leyo about their pursuit of me. That all started back in 2016 when they were taking to article talk to accuse me of having an agenda. I've felt they haven't taken cautions I've given them seriously, but I never expected them to go this far and use admin tools as part of that interaction."


As I stated above (in the Revoking TPA section), Bbb23 accused me falsely of refactoring (the second accusation notwithstanding as petty and irrelevant -- this is about the first accusation) and "distortion"(], ]). Their accusation was challenged. They openly refused clarify, and have continued to make this accusation (after being challenged and refusing to clarify), and that I "distort the facts", with no examples or support(ref17), and which I dispute the truth of. As I mentioned in the above section, I reviewed the edits they referred to and all I did was strikethrough my own text, which I'm allowed to do.
] also responded to the unblock request agreeing that Leyo is ]. ] ] 07:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
:Prior to considering ], it does seem to be a bad block.
:#Leyo cited four diffs as evidence for the block: ], ], ], ]. Of these, only three would traditionally be considered reverts, as the first is a change to long-standing content which has been in place {{diff2|1009818225|since 2021}}.
:#Leyo didn't consider the talk page discussion. Before making the reverts in diffs 3 and 4 KoA ]. For #3 the editor who reverted them, {{noping|Psychologist Guy}}, did not appear to oppose not characterizing the film as a "documentary", and for #4 the editor, {{noping|Stonerock10}}, did not engage - while editors are not expected to ] other editors, they are expected to contribute to the discussion, and if they refuse to do so after sufficient time has passed it is reasonable to revert their revert. KoA's behavior was aligned with ], and was not edit warring.
:#Counting the first "revert", the reverts took place across ten days. Four reverts over such an extended period, absent aggravating circumstances, should not result in an immediate block as such circumstances do not meet the requirements of ]. Even if Leyo had been correct about this being edit warring a talk page warning should have been the first step, with a block only occurring if KoA did not desist.
:Considering ], the evidence demonstrates long-standing animosity between Leyo and KoA, and on that basis I would call this a highly inappropriate ] block, made more so by the fact that it was a bad block that even an uninvolved admin should not have made.
:I am also curious how Leyo discovered the dispute at ]; ], would you be able to explain this to us? In the interests of resolving this, I am also hoping you can provide more information on why you believed a block was necessary, why you believed it was appropriate for you to make the block, and how you will ensure such mistakes do not reoccur. ] (]) 11:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*I don't think they have a very good grasp of ] too. ] 13:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*Seems like a drive-by admin job, to be honest, a bit lazy and sloppy. Plenty of reason to be suspicious of Stonerock10, the new account that jumped in only to edit that one article, but that is a reason to also not quick block KoA. There wasn't any reason to rush to block either editor, as this was happening rather slow, and KoA had at least started discussion. It's a perfect opportunity for an admin to give a STRONG warning on the article talk page, pinging both editors, to get them to actually discuss the content. I don't see it as abuse, per se, but I do think it was lazy and not optimal to resolve the issue. I would support unblocking both as being bad blocks that policy doesn't really support, being there was no urgency, no immediate "warring" taking place. ] - ] 18:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*I'm very concerned that this was a misuse of admin tools. I agree with what others say above, about how this doesn't really look like there was the kind of edit warring that would have justified the block. I want to expand on the INVOLVED aspect of the problem. The GMO topic area is defined as a Contentious Topic by ArbCom, one that I'm all too familiar with, as the filing party in that ArbCom case. Leyo was on the wrong side of the dispute in that CT area, albeit not in the use of admin permissions, but just as an editor. There is every reason to conclude that Leyo has subsequently held a grudge against KoA over it, and then capitalized on the perceived opportunity to issue a retaliatory block on KoA here. This is contrary to what we expect of admins, on multiple levels. Leyo has been inactive since the issue was raised, but I think that a clear response, on-site, is called for, as a matter of admin accountability. --] (]) 19:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*Question. On the occasions when I've been the victim of a bad block, I've been unblocked and my block log says unambiguously that the block was bad. But in this case the bad block's expired. Is there a way to repair the victim's block log or do they just have to suck it up?—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 20:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*: The block didn't expire. The shows an unblock claiming {{tq|Not at all clear that there was edit warring, blocking Admin seems to have been involved}}, which I guess doesn't outright say that the block is bad, but is close enough. ] ] 20:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*:{{ec}} That's long been something that has bothered me, too. (I long ago tried to get WMF to change the software, to allow such corrections, but it never went anywhere.) In this case, we have diffs on the record from KoA's talk page, where Doug Weller accepted the block review and unblocked, and said things similar to what he says here. So there's that. --] (]) 20:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I feel like the unblock log gives me at least enough to show the block had a red flag. If it comes up in conversation, I can always link the unblock diff, though a close summary here could be more helpful. What I've seen in the past where the first unblock wasn't clear (or block expired) was a quick reblock/unblock to make a log note if something needed to be absolutely clarified. That makes the block log ''look'' longer though, so I don't think that option is absolutely needed in my case unless someone has some really good additional clarification for the log. I think Doug worded it well without overextending since it sounds like they were also planning to post this review at the time. ] (]) 22:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Okay, well, it's good that there's a record of Doug Weller's concern about the block, but I'm with Tryptofish in that there should be a technical way to amend a block log (if only to add notes). I suppose one of the remedies we could consider in cases like this is ask the closer to make a minimal block (e.g. blocking from a test page for the minimum possible time) to enable them to make a corrective entry in the block log --- because whenever KoA's having to explain their block log with diffs, that will always mean they're getting undeserved consequences from the block.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 07:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::From a technical standpoint, I imagine being able to edit log entries opens a big can of worms. Who can edit it? Does a revision system need to be created to track what it used to be and who is doing the editing? Could a compromised account go in and start mass editing logs as a form of vandalism? Could a compromised account go in, do a bunch of destructive things, then edit the logs to cover their tracks? Reasons such as these, and also technical simplicity, are likely the reasons that devs have chosen not to allow editing Speical:Log reasons. Hope this helps. –] <small>(])</small> 20:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
* Leyo has been an admin since 2010. At their RfA, they stated, "''More important than what administrative work I intend to take part in is what I would not be doing: Deleting articles or blocking users (apart from short-term blocks of IP users continuing to vandalize after warnings).''" And, indeed, from 2010 to 2022 they only made 46 blocks, pretty much all of which appear to fit with their statement (IPs and brand new vandalising accounts). Since 15 May this year they have made 140 more blocks; and again, pretty much every one seems to be pure vandalism and other disruption ... except the block of KoA. It isn't a good look, given their previous interactions. I would be interested to see what they have to say. ] 20:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
*A bad block considering KoA's editing pattern and use of the talkpage, and a fortiori a bad block considering the past history between Leyo and KoA. It was not a situation to use admin tools in. Thanks to ] for unblocking as promptly as possible, with a clear rationale in the log. ] &#124; ] 21:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC).
*As the one who was blocked, if anyone wants to see what my thinking was on avoiding edit warring and using the talk page, I'd suggest reading the full section on . In short, we had a lot of iterative edits and content being crafted over time on the talk page or just through clarifications as part of stubifying the article like discussion with Psychologist Guy. Other cases, like Stonerock10, were dealing with SPAs/IPs that really weren't engaging, and I think Doug Weller summarized that balancing act navigating through that above very well. I made it pretty clear I was just planning to stick to the talk page in previous edit summaries and talk comments at that point, so I don't think ] was followed at all.
:There was a lot going on at the article with behavior issues from SPAs where I was wondering about potential socks, etc., but I'm not planning to also sort those out here except to say that it would have made sorting things out for even an uninvolved admin messy. If I was wearing an admin hat and trying to address the core issues there, I'd maybe be looking at semi-protection for the IP issues, remind folks to just use the talk page at that point instead of reverting back and forth, or maybe full protection at most.
:The INVOLVED aspect is what really worried me though. I had been dealing with low-level sniping and poisoning the well comments from Leyo on article talk pages for years now as linked above. Early on, I considered them problematic as they continued, but I never asked for help at ] because they seemed sporadic enough and better just to caution and then move on. The combination of behavior towards me as well as the content dispute issues Tryptofish mentions though had me thinking something might boil over in the future, but I never imagined they'd go so far as using admin tools. I wouldn't go as far as Tryptofish's comment on holding a grudge per se, but it's definitely a longstanding pursuit, especially since it seems to have continued into an article I just put on my watchlist recently. ] (]) 22:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
::I appreciate some comments on targets of INVOLVED blocks not having to be responsible for explaining themselves. While the main focus here is on INVOLVED, I'd also rather make sure I clarify now what was going on in my edits in the context of ]'s #2 framework below just in case since I'm really short on available time this week (and next to none for editing because of this). Doug Weller and BilledMammal already summarized the diffs well too though:
{{cot|title=Walkthrough of KoA's edits}}
::#: This was part of a much larger set of the July 23 edits as part of the cleanup of the article. I was careful about splitting up with edit summaries in case there was any particular issue that someone could address on the talk page.
::#: First true revert on my part, which was in response to the Victoria IP blanket reverting in that diff all changes in the previous edit, ref improvements, etc. and immediately slinging accusations of bad-faith in the edit summary. It was pretty clear the IP was going by ] and doing a pretty textbook disruptive blanket revert, so I reminded them in the edit summary to come to the talk page to discuss specific edits. That the one piece of lead text Leyo focused in on was a legitimate issue was not clear yet, just part of a large IP revert that seemed to have missed the description was directly sourced. There was another Victoria IP that very briefly visited the talk page on July 30, but they never really addressed specific content. was opened by another very low edit account {{noping|Jesse Flynn (pseudonym)}} on the 26th though, with comments later by another such account {{noping|Person568}}. It was odd seeing that many "red-linked" near-SPA accounts, but I decided to focus on content, not to consider a possible sock-puppet investigation, and just focus on that none of them really brought up specific issues with the lead text other than not liking it.
::#: This was an update to the original version I had in the previous diff on the lead text after Psychologist Guy removed it (without initial explanation). Based on the talk page shortly after their removal, it looked like there was just confusion that the text "anti-farming" (i.e., anti-livestock farming) was actually directly sourced and wasn't any type of editorializing. Once I had mentioned that, no one brought up any issues with that part of the text (and we were agreeing on ways to stubify the article), so it looked like the issue had been clarified enough that we were pulling the description directly from sources. That is why you see sources being moved up to the first sentence to avoid potential confusion on the origin. This was also very much a wordsmithing stage on talk, hence my very next edit summary {{tq|move production detail down, happy to chat on talk if more wordsmithing is needed, but we should be fairly solid for a stub now}}
::#:The last true revert, which was of the brand new account {{noping|Stonerock10}}'s calling the sources depictions of the film ridiculous on July 30.. Instead of reverting right away, which could have been valid but not great by just responding to personal editor ] (and a without talk page engagement), I instead posted to the talk page over 3 days prior to my last revert waiting for a response. I'm not sure if they are the Victoria IP from earlier based on context they've given, but it looked like Stonerock10 was continuing the trend of the previous IP of being combative and not really engaging. I did revert here basically as a response to personal editor ] after allowing plenty of time for them to explain if the issue was anything besides them not liking the source's depiction. Had someone spoken up on what the specific concern was, either prior to or after last edit, I would have been just using the talk page at that point as I alluded to in previous edit summaries.
{{cob}}
::I spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to ''protect'' articles from edit warring behavior as a non-admin for over a decade, so if my edits are a main focus while I'm out, I'd ask if given the full context, did they really fall outside (]) the norms of judgement editors are expected to exercise when dealing with these types of edits? In total, I only had two true obvious reverts (2 & 4) over about a week where that type of revert is not unexpected in how we deal with combative IPs/SPAs that are prone to just edit war their preferred text if there isn't some firmness. At the same time, I was also being measured in taking time to explain to them the content was sourced and to get them to bring up specific concerns on the talk page despite the sniping. There's no perfect way to deal with such IPs, but I've seen a lot of experienced editors deal with similar situations much more harshly rather than try to guide them to the talk page.
::If an admin had come to my talk page concerned about edit warring, I would have welcomed it and wanted to walk through all the different issues I was juggling to try get the talk page working smoothly. Despite all the indications I left at the article/talk for focusing on the talk page, even though Leyo was INVOLVED as an admin, nothing should have stopped them from first coming to my talk page as a regular editor to ask about the situation. Had Leyo approached it that way, I could have assumed ] and filled them in on what they had missed in the actual dispute even with my ongoing concern about their long-standing pursuit of me. ] (]) 22:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


-
Sorry for the late reply. I was on a multi-day mountain hike over the long weekend. I only returned late last night, i.e. too late to turn on the computer. As I need to leave for work very soon, I can only answer the most urgent questions now:
It's clearly a (slow) edit war over the phrase "'''vegan anti-livestock farming''' film" in the first sentence of the lede: After ] (which obviously was fine), the user started a (slow) edit-war (], ], ]), even though there was no consensus for this phrase on the talk page. In fact, there weren't any users who shared KoA's view. I certainly acknowledge that KoA engaged in the discussion on the talk page. However, especially during the holiday season, one cannot assume that the other editors were convinced and there is thus consensus, just because they didn't reply for a few days.
In order to prevent the edit-warring from continuing, I blocked both {{User|Stonerock10}}, an account that was created for the sole purpose of engaging in an ongoing edit-war, and KoA for having inserted the same wording in the lede four times (three of which being aware of the lack of consensus). As stated, this was clearly edit-warring in my view. I would like to ask fellow admins, how many additional reverting cycles they think would have been needed to wait? --] 07:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
:], I don't want to stress you out or push for more haste on your part, at all, but IMO you are answering only the ''least'' important question. I won't engage with what you say about the edit war; I'll just wait till you address whether or not you agree you were ], as many people above believe you were. That includes the OP, Doug Weller, who opened this review. Take your time. ] &#124; ] 07:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC).
::To add to this, I believe the other important question is how you found the dispute on this page. As far as I can tell you have never engaged with it, nor was the dispute reported at any other forum. ] (]) 11:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
:::@] I notified them as required by the instructions. ] ] 11:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Doug Weller}} Sorry, I was unclear. By "this page", I meant ]. ] (]) 11:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::That makes sense, thanks for the clarification. ] ] 13:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*I have decided to remove the block of Stonerock10(Leyo said I could take what action I felt appropriate); I feel an immediate, sitewide block with no warning beforehand was out of proportion to the conduct even as viewed by Leyo. I haven't dived into the depths of this discussion enough to be able to comment on the involved aspect. ] (]) 08:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


====3. Entangling and discouraging content consensus discussion with personal attacks, aspersions, and their use of administrator tools====
:Leyo, as others have said, it's more about INVOLVED. We've all dealt with this, so we can understand. Can you look into your own thinking and maybe reconsider? What I'd personally like to hear is something along the lines of, "Fair point, my bad. I'll be more careful in future." ] (]) 23:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
{{hat|Discussion of who may request a review. I suggest further discussion of this take place at ]. ] (]) 16:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)}}
* In my view, this review request should be procedurally declined without examination of the merits. The community should entertain unblock requests (including in this forum) only from the blocked user, not from third parties. Absent a complaint by the injured party themselves, we have no indication that this is a live issue that warrants examination. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*:@] No, the instructions clearly say "Any editor in good standing may request a review or participate in discussing an action being reviewed." I'm pretty sure I qualify to request a review.
*:While we are discussing procedurally declined, the review above that you initiated ignored procedure as "Before listing a review request, try to resolve the matter by discussing it with the performer of the action." You didn't do that. ] ] 11:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*::And of course you weren’t the blocked user in the review you started. ] ] 12:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::Yes, but as the admin whose block was overturned I am personally affected by the contested admin action. You are not personally affected by the block of another user. As regards the above case, there was discussion between Bishonen and me in the AN/I thread. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::Is this comment in the right place? It looks like it's germane to the hatted section, not Leyo's block of KoA. ] (]) 15:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*:I disagree. Requiring an editor who has been perhaps unfairly blocked to file a request here puts that editor at further risk, especially if the community ends up on balance disagreeing with them. ] (]) 12:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*::Yes, but that is the nature of our dispute resolution process. Conversely, if a third party requests the unblock of another user, this lets the blocked user avoid taking responsibility for their own conduct which led to the block. That should in my view not be accepted. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 13:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::If the user was blocked by an admin who 1. mistakenly believed they had done something wrong and 2. was involved, what do they have to take responsibility for? And even if that weren't the case, this didn't come here as an unblock request. It came here for review of a possibly bad block by an admin many are seeing as involved. ] (]) 13:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::@] I don't understand why you are still arguing this, which contradicts the instructions. If you want them changed, use the talk page. As it stands, any editor in good standing can initiate a review, as I did. Don't tell me I had right to do that. And you are changing your statement from your initial "The community should entertain unblock requests (including in this forum) only from the blocked user, not from third parties." Are you now retracting that and saying that anyone "who was personally affected" can do it, but I can't because all I did was the unblock of the affected user? Let's just follow the very clear instructions and not try to restrict who can bring cases here. ] ] 14:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*::::@], I have made my view on your request clear and do not believe it needs further elucidation. Your repeated personally confrontative comments here and on are problematic in view of ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*:::::If you disagree with the criteria or requirements to bring an issue to this board, you should seek a change in those requirements. The instructions clearly state that any editor in good standing can request a review. ] (]) 16:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
*:This isn't an unblock request. KoA had already been unblocked - and, yes, it was after ''they'' posted a request for review - for a day and a half before this was raised here. —] 13:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
{{hab}}


During consensus discussion over the content, an Administrator named Cullen (who has stated "It's too emotional for me", and other indications that they no longer want to be involved, so it's not my intent to involve them further) chimed in to the discussion. First Cullen provided Drmies with one of the links(ref18) that I had already provided to Drmies(ref19). They then expressed, and later reiterated, their dissatisfaction that an article was permanetly deleted, and expressed that they didn't know it was up for deletion, and is against its deletion. The article was on the same topic as one of the three sections of my edit, and was made under the content consensus discussion topic that I started on Drmie's talk page (since the article's talk page was being ignored by people deleting content). I had mentioned Cullen's statement on my talk page.
IMO we should have a "finding" even if no further action is contemplated. I propose the following:


Bbb23 confronted Cullen, and stated that I had mentioned Cullen's statements, and said that I "distort" facts, that me mentioning Cullen's statement was "insidious", that they have blocked me for 7 days, and had revoked my TPA for "refactoring"(]. and ]). This was obviously an effort to influence Cullen's opinion -- *over the content dispute in question*. I have verified that every single part of what I said was precisely true and in context.
It was a bad block. While the following are not findings individually:
#The main and most clear-cut concern concern wp:involved, followed by
#It's questionable whether KoA did even a minor violation of policies
#Even if the answer to #2 were "yes", the block was an overkill
Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 17:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


Please note that I don't know how to format this template correctly.
:I agree that in principle every valid review should have a finding. A difficulty is that the nominator, ], did not make a clear statement of their desired outcome. From my reading, it was a bad block, at best a poor block. There appears to be a consensus that ] did not abide by the general rule stated in ]. Should Leyo be advised, chastised, warned?
:User: {{User3|Bbb23}} (])
:I would add that it is probably a bad idea to perform blocks closely preceding going offline for an extended period. ] (]) 02:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
''Brief explanation of why this action is being reviewed, including why you believe the action should not be endorsed and any background information necessary to understand the action:''
<s>::@SmokeyJoe, I didn't think it appropriate to suggest an outcome before discussion (and preferably before Leyo responded although I wasn't sure if they would be coming back soon). I still would prefer to hear from them first, although after that if they still doesn't accept that they were involved I think a warning would be appropriate. ] ] 06:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)</s>
::@] this board can only endorse or not endorse the reviewed action. If you desire chastisement or anything stronger then you need AN or AN/I. ] (]) 08:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
:::@]My bad. The instructions say:
:::"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." ] ] 12:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


These actions are, I believe, contrary to literally all of the applicable principles of Misplaced Pages. Administrators should (a) not block editors over content disputes when those editors are willing to discuss the dispute and to wait until consensus is reached, (b) not use administrator tools in disputes that they are involved in, (c) set a good example, and not engage in personal attacks and disparaging remarks (i.e. aspersions), and have a non-zero degree of civility and courtesy for editors.
BTW, the result of the RFC that created this board was based on a broad process. NONE of the other particular "rules" of this board has achieved consensus, they are there from a more or less random unreviewed process. IMO this board should make a finding or findings. It can be created by the process rather than the initial nomination/post. Again, a finding even if no further action is contemplated. I would not necessarily push for an admission of guilt as Doug recommended as that can have unintended future consequences in our sometimes weaponized systems. BTW, my proposed finding deliberately avoided a specific finding on "involved" Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 14:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


"Administrators are not exempt from any of Misplaced Pages's established policies; they are expected to follow them" ] ] (]) 16:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:] Why avoid a finding on "involved" - that's the central issue. If Leyo does conclude that they were involved, why not let them say so? We can't push them to it. I can't see where I used the word guilt. ] ] 16:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
::Indeed, it's the most serious thing on the menu. ] 16:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I agree as well. If not here, then we certainly to hear from Leyo somewhere, that they now understand ] and that they acknowledge that it was a mistake to make this block given the circumstances. ] (]) 17:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|Doug Weller}} {{Ping|Serial Number 54129}} I agree with both of you. Sorry that I was misleading by failure to explain. Regarding "no specific finding of involved" I was merely explaining the rationale of my 17:28, 7 August 2023 post. Which I considered to be a "safe" proposal, based on what already had been discussed, and playing it "safe" as someone proposing a finding vs. no finding. I agree that it would be better to make a specific finding on the "involved" violation. And sorry if the use of the word "guilt" was too strong in my summary of your post; I thought it was accurate but sorry if it was overkill. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 17:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


=== Discussion ===
Sorry for the delay in answering due to RL.
:'''Comment''' Pleas use the {{tl|oldid2}} template to revise your submission with diffs. That is, each ref# can stay the same, but you can make it a link to the diff in question, which will help everyone evaluate your complaint. ] (]) 17:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the article ], I am certainly not involved: I haven't contributed to the article or to its talk page. I have also rarely edited in articles related to the topics animal rights, veganism/vegetarianism or Australian agriculture. Furthermore, I haven't watched this film. Moreover, I'm not a vegan/vegetarian, nor is anyone in my family. My grandfather was even a butcher.
::I will provide key diffs tomorrow if I get time. Thank you. ] (]) 06:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
As for the user, I can partly understand why some people think I'm involved because of the warnings I've issued to the user due to his conduct. It is difficult to draw a line, where an involvement begins. <small>Doug Weller has recently blocked a user (]) with whom KoA has been involved in disputes and edit-wars. I'm not sure whether this admin was the ideal one to unblock the other opponent with the reasoning of admin involvement.</small>
:I will also request that you tighten up your complaint and identify the users you are complaining about near the top of the post. Long rambling posts like the above tend to make my eyes glaze over, i.e., ]. ] 17:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
As stated above, I strongly disagree that it was a bad block, if the admin performing it is not taken into consideration.
::I will attempt to rectify this tomorrow. Thank you. ] (]) 06:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I would also like to note that KoA seems to have two distinctly different approaches to content disputes, depending on whether he prefers the pre-dispute/edit-war version or the other one:
::I added a TLDR version at the top. I will add diffs to it later (within about 16 hours). ] (]) 15:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
* If he prefers the pre-dispute/edit-war version, he won't allow any changes, unless a consensus on the talk page is reached (which can't be reached since he opposes, even if the majority would agree). Even when KoA is involved in the reverting/edit-war (sometimes even as the only one from "his side"), he uses edit summaries that give the impression that he is acting as an uninvolved user or even as an admin. Examples:
:'''Endorse''' as there is no policy violation.{{pb}}You can be blocked for edit warring even if you didn't violate ]. The length of the block is up to the blocking admin's discretion.{{pb}}{{tqq|I maintain that I had reached consensus properly}}: No, you haven't. Per ], you have the responsibility to achieve consensus, and consensus was against your edits.{{pb}}Please see ]: {{tqq|if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment should be avoided.}} Please also see the section below that: {{tqq|Persistently formatting your comments on a talk page in a non-compliant manner, after friendly notification by other editors, is a mild form of disruption. After you have been alerted to specific aspects of these guidelines, you are expected to make a reasonable effort to follow those conventions.}} Taking this into consideration, I believe revoking your ] was allowed by policy.{{pb}}Upon request, Bbb23 has offered you a link to ]: {{tqq|Refactoring is a redrafting process in which talk page content is moved, removed, revised, restructured, hidden, or otherwise changed.}}{{pb}}] does not apply here: {{tqq|editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved.}} Bbb23 was not involved in that dispute; removing ] violation from your user page is completely unrelated.{{pb}}{{tqq|I'll note that Administrator Cullen also chimed in on Drmies' talk page, during the consensus discussion that I started there, regarding this edit specifically, and also indicated that he was also unsatisfied with the deletion of content without adequate discussion on this particular subject and stated specifically that he and others had spent a lot of work on content that had been permanently deleted without adequate discussion (other people I know personally are also shocked at the same deletion Cullen was talking about).}} This is incorrect. Cullen328 said {{tqq|I did not learn about the AfD until the article was gone.}} and from what I can tell, Cullen328 didn't indicate that the deletion was done "without adequate discussion"; see ].{{pb}}{{tqq|Administrators should (a) not block editors over content disputes when those editors are willing to discuss the dispute and to wait until consensus is reached}} You didn't wait until consensus was reached, instead, you reverted {{Diff2|1263347385|once}} and {{Diff2|1263390343|twice}}. Assuming you were right, you are still not allowed to edit war. ] (]) 19:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
** '']''
::*Editors are not required to "wait until consensus is reached ".
** '']''
::*I waited 6 months for people to respond on the talk page and no one did. Magnolia had been tagged on Drmies' talk page and did not participate in the consensus discussion there, where consensus WAS reached (with Drmies). Magnolia's talk page is locked. So I reverted. See ].
** '']''
::*I've apologized already for the second revert, however I will note that I consciously disengaged from the 'revert war' after that (unlike Magnolia677), did engage in dialogue (unlike Magnolia), and waited. I then received a warning with false accusations from Magnolia, in quick succession with an unjustified 7-day block from Bbb23. I have looked twice now, and I see nothing in the rules saying that a second revert is even against the policies, much less a blockable offense (correct me if I'm wrong). Some language about that should be added to the rule. A newbie mistake does not justify a 7 day block against a newcomer (see ]), and then advocating that they should be indefinitely blocked for no reason.
** '']''
::*I provided 3 examples of Bbb23's involvement, not just 1, and the content that Bbb23 removed from my userpage (which I was using as a sandbox) was on the exact same topic.
** '']''
::*Your entire 3rd paragraph is misleading. I did not do that. The page you link to (which does not construe itself as a rule, but rather merely an explanation and definition of the term) says outright that it's good to "refactor" in some situations. The rules specifically allow me to strikethrough my own text. I did not distort anything (as Bbb23 claimed repeatedly, while advocating that I should be indefinitely blocked, or to influence Cullen's opinion). People should stop trying to make it seem like I was somehow in violation of this. It is false, and constitutes aspersion. The TPA revocation was 100% arbitrary.
* As seen in ], the attitude is completely different, if KoA disagrees with the pre-edit-war version: In such a case, he considers several reverts to be fine, after only waiting a few days to see if the other users repeat their disagreement.
::*Bbb23 then made false and highly negative comments about me IN the primary consensus discussion to Cullen (as I explained). This discourages editors from even engaging in consensus discussion, and encourages further arbitrary deletions of well-sourced, notable, and ontopic edits under threat of false accusations, improper use of warning templates, followed by excessive use of administrator tools with what doesn't even amount to a lame excuse for the punishment.
That's all for now. --] 00:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::*Cullen stated that he and other editors spent 4 and a half years of work on that article, that it was deleted without his knowledge, and that he is unsatisfied with its deletion. My TLDR version was accurate, not verbatim.
::*The incivility and misrepresentations were not addressed in your comment. ] (]) 06:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::*While the ] is not mandatory, it is highly recommended that you follow it. You have the ] of achieving consensus, and being reverted most likely means that consensus for those edits wasn't achieved.
:::*Please see ] comment by Drmies.
:::*Please read the first paragraph of ]: {{tqq|An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Users who engage in edit warring risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable.}} You could argue that a 7-day block was too harsh, but in my opinion, it's fine.
:::*The ] violation might have been about the same topic, but it is still not the same {{em|dispute}}: {{tqq|editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved.}} I think ] doesn't rise to the level of ]. I'm not sure what the third one is; I'd appreciate it if you could clarify that.
:::*I believe Bbb23 was referring to you repeatedly and significantly changing your comments after you post them, and you modifying the reviewed unblock template. For the former, see ]: {{tqq|Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes}}, which you didn't do. For the latter one, I believe a ] would know not to modify the template.
:::*I couldn't find anything that was false (please quote what you referred to).
:::*The article being {{tqq|deleted without adequate discussion}} is still not what Cullen328 said. The only thing (unless I'm missing something) Cullen328 said was {{tqq|I did not learn about the AfD until the article was gone}}, which doesn't imply that the deletion was done "without adequate discussion".
:::*I'm not sure what you're referring to. I would also like to advise you – generally – to please read ] and provide proof for your claims. Thanks. ] (]) 18:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm not going to respond to this at this time, due to certain messages left here and on my talk page. If I am free to discuss this openly and politely, I may respond later, and I will note that I believe I should be allowed to do so. ] (]) 04:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::*Again, I apologize for the second revert. I had read that a long time ago, and it was my understanding at the time that I made the second revert that what I did would constitute an edit war. I still think it is vague and subjective, given that the other editors did not engage whatsoever on the talk page (until much later). And I think when a second revert can result in a 7-day block should perhaps either be clarified in that policy (which I would predict that would be difficult), or find some other way of reconciliation.
:::::*It is my personal opinion that I should not have been blocked, because I was willing to hear people out, and because I had stopped reverting. Magnolia re-reverted after I stopped, and it is apparent from the time stamps that I then left discourse on the talk page, and that I waited. I was then blocked by someone who had not attempted to communicate with me.
:::::*You say "While the Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is not mandatory, it is highly recommended that you follow it." You appear to implying that I did not do that (please correct me if I am wrong) -- and I do not understand why you are implying that. It should be clearly evident from a review of the Sonoma County talk page that that is precisely what I did. I have said this before: if someone had even left a comment on the talk page, I would not have reverted. I would have discussed the matter, and waited until there was community consensus.
:::::*The third example of Bbb23's involvement in the content dispute was his comment to Cullen, in which he stated that my statement was "insidious", that I "distort" things, that he had blocked me, and and that he had revoked my talk page for refactoring, either in an effort to influence Cullen's opinion, or knowing that it would influence Cullen's opinion, in the content consensus discussion.
:::::*I still don't know what you're talking about regarding refactoring. I believe that I did not distort anything. I certainly did not intentionally distort anything. I believe I copied and pasted the template from an above unblock request that had already been adjudicated and that's why it was formatted incorrectly (originally, not that I edited it later or something). The fact that I did not change it is evidence that I was not trying to distort anything and making an effort to leave the historical text in place faithfully.
:::::*It is my perspective that Bbb23's following statement, for example, was aspersion: "The user clearly is unable to edit Misplaced Pages in a collaborative manner. They distort the past to suit their own objectives and cannot be trusted to keep any promises they make about the future."
:::::*I'm not going to cite the rules at this time. I should be allowed to discuss this politely, and to cite the relevant rules. ] (]) 06:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::*I think we can agree that this dispute is complicated, it is different from the "usual" edit warring. You have made a good-faith attempt at discussing, although it could have been better (see ] comment), and after the second revert, you did attempt to discuss. Taking this into consideration, a 1-week sitewide block does seem too much.
::::::*When I implied that you didn't follow ], I said that because BRD states that upon being reverted, you should discuss, but you reverted twice instead, and only restarted the discussion after your second revert being reverted.
::::::*These two comments by Bbb23 ] ] are questionable. I'm curious about what others think about these.
::::::*I'm also unsure what Bbb23 was referring to as "refactoring". You repeatedly editing your comments might be a bit annoying, but I don't think it is grounds for revoking ], and those two template errors do seem to be genuine mistakes. ] (]) 12:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::*:Of note, the user talk page of the person who was reverting my edits is locked. Otherwise I would have put something on their user talk page (and waited for them to respond, without reverting the edit). This is the same person who was ignoring consensus discussion that they had been pinged in, and who issued the warning template on my page prior to me being blocked even though I had not made any edits after the warning. ] (]) 14:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


*'''Endorse''' First of all, the block was certainly defensible, the OP was edit-warring against multiple editors. And there were three reverts, not two. Secondly, the OP says {{tq|I argued in my unblock request that Bbb23 shouldn't have blocked me because they had recently deleted content from my user page}}. Yes, they did - they removed a flagrant BLP violation from it. This is an admin action and does not make them ] ("''an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area.''"). I've got as far as these two issues, and find nothing problematic. I may review the rest if the OP manages to format their complaint so that there are relevant diffs. ] 10:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
**The fact that you can't see this as a bad block, while a decent sized group of experienced editors and admin DO see it as a bad block is troubling. More troubling than the bad blocks (plural) themselves. I would strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with current expectations of admin. Arb is littered with desysop cases where the admin dug in and saw no problem with their actions, even in the face of unanimous opposition. When you are the only one that thinks that it is ok, then it probably isn't ok. ] - ] 00:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*:*There were only two reverts without discussion and explicit consensus and alteration of the content addressing feedback. The first revert was justified because Magnolia677 was openly refusing to participate in consensus discussion, and their talk page was locked.
***I agree with what Dennis said. I also want to add that I find it very troubling that Leyo characterizes not having been INVOLVED with the film page as constituting not being INVOLVED. That's plainly not understanding what the administrator policy says, nor what editors here have been saying. This looks to me like it's going to ArbCom unless Leyo can turn this around pretty fast. --] (]) 01:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*:*In hindsight, I shouldn't have made the second revert. I wasn't the only one who revert warred. I was however the only one making any effort to engage in consensus discussion, and I'm the only one who can credibly claim that I didn't know that what I was doing was a violation of (unwritten but apparently standardized) rules. The second revert was a mistake, not a violation of the rules. If there's anything in the rules saying that a second revert is against the rules, or justifies a block, please quote where they say it. Again, this was a mistake, not a blockable offense, and I shouldn't have been blocked per the language of ].
** ], I share the concerns of the above users, but I am also hoping that you can answer my previous question: How did you discover that there was a dispute at ]? ] (]) 01:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*:*I was using my userpage as a sandbox. Bbb23 involved themselves in the dispute by making disparaging remarks about me in the content dispute both prior to the block, and then again made disparaging remarks in the content consensus discussion, and was partial to another editor who engaged in revert warring worse than I did.
*{{U|Leyo}} I'm trying to remember the last INVOLVED block issue that went to ArbCom that didn't result in a resignation or desysop. If you can't find it within you to say "I have been educated, and understand why ''I'' should not have been the one to place the block" then please just save everyone the drama and post at ] asking to have your bit removed. Harsh? Direct, certainly, but I really don't think you want what's coming if you don't acknowledge that the community's perspective--and the cast of characters chiming in here look pretty representative to me. This isn't a threat of action--I won't be the one filing an ArbCom case, and see no reason to comment if one is filed--but a warning of what my perspective on past similar cases suggests is coming next. ] (]) 06:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*:*I will reformat with key diffs within a few hours. ] (]) 14:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
*: As a brief reaction between two meetings: I apologize that I haven't expressed myself clear enough in my last edit (English was only the fourth language I had learnt). '''I do acknowledge that my block was inappropriate.''' Every now and then, I follow the RecentChanges, where I noticed that there is an ongoing dispute. Regarding "not having been INVOLVED with the film page as constituting not being INVOLVED": I had split my answer in two parts: Involvement in relation to the topic and in relation to the user. I only said that I'm not involved concerning the former. --] 07:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::* There were ''three'' reverts, because the first one (on 13th December) was restoring material that had been deleted. Two more reverts followed on the 16th. Meanwhile, a BLP violation is a BLP violation regardless of where it is, and any editor can and should remove it immediately. ] 14:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: {{tq|Every now and then, I follow the RecentChanges, where I noticed that there is an ongoing dispute.}} KoA made the edit at 21:45; 22:58 is when you took the first action in relation to this dispute. In between that time there were 6000 edits to articles; I'm sorry, but I don't find it plausible that you found KoA's edit in the RecentChanges log.
::*:*As I explained, the "revert" from 3 days prior was a significantly altered version, ''after'' explicit consensus, and I was told to "go for it", which addressed the concerns of the person who deleted the section (2 of the 3 sources were criticized as not meeting Misplaced Pages's standards; I provided at least 4 additional sources).
*:: My concern was that you were ] due to your recent disputes, and your reply has unfortunately not addressed that concern; if you were then it makes the ] issue significantly worse. ] (]) 08:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::*:*Just to be clear, the content that was removed from my userpage was sourced, and was accurate. And again, it's not just that that constituted involvement. There were two other examples.
*::: Well, as opposed to IP vandalism and similar, as always in such cases, it took me quite some time to go through the article's history and the talk page, to reflect (even while doing some simple admin stuff), to prepare the diffs, etc. --] 09:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::*:*I'll reiterate: a 7-day block over a good faith mistake (the rules don't prohibit it) (along with 1 single frustrated comment) was excessive, and clearly contrary to the language of ]. The TPA revocation was plainly arbitrary and punitive, and I (and editors in general) shouldn't have to worry about arbitrary misuse of administrator tools moving forward. There were multiple unsupported & false aspersions and personal attacks, along with ] (Bbb23's comment here is full of outright lies to try to negatively influence other people) for literally no reason / based on what were objective personal attacks and misrepresentations, in an effort to influence other administrators reviewing the unblock request. I disagree. I apologized for what I did wrong. People should not be defending misuse of administrator tools and personal attacks.
*:::I hadn't noticed it until you pushed on it BilledMammal, but as far as I'm aware, every interaction I've highlighted with Leyo has been a topic I've been working on where they come in after me. Whether it is tracking my contribs directly or singling me out of the recent changes list as they mention, I do get the sense they are following me around even outside the main content and behavior disputes in the GMO/pesticide area we've had.
::*:*I'll reiterate that I'm now going to include key diffs, starting with points that warrant clarification the most. ] (]) 14:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::That includes showing up shortly after I comment even outside mainspace like at ]'s user talk . They ended up in that first conversation about 4 hours after I first commented and immediately restarted the aspersion behavior with {{tq|Overall, actions of certain users seem to have led to a bias in the selection of references used in this field.}} That seems to be the recurring issue here of Leyo pursuing me despite multiple warnings about personal attacks, lobbing aspersions, etc. and still taking whatever opportunity they can to snipe at me instead of disengaging. Coupled with the hounding you describe, I am worried that a potential desysop still wouldn't put a stop to the hounding. ] (]) 18:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' per BlackKite and Kovcszaln6 . User should concentrate on fixing their own conduct issues that led to the block..] (]) 10:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::If one user is hounding another the usual remedy is an ] (IBAN), with blocks for breaches. If imposed (and it cannot be done here) this would be independent of any desysop, although some (many?) members of the community feel that an admin who needs an interaction ban should not be an admin this view is not universal. ] (]) 20:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*:*You are the one to whom Bbb23 made disparaging remarks about me, in consensus discussion, prior to them blocking me.] (]) 14:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, that's what I'm thinking if the message doesn't get across here (it never really quite came to a head before this), but yes, not something for this board to do in terms of sanctions. The main topic is under GMO/pesticide CT though, so that's something for admins, AE, etc. later if needed. In the meantime though, just reiterating the degree of hounding that led to the battleground attitude/INVOLVED aspect. ] (]) 20:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*:*:{{yo|Isonomia01 }} Really? I don't recall. Got a ] for reference? And that in no way changes the validity of my opinion. ] (]) 23:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: Several years ago, I became aware of a mass removal of references to websites of NGOs. While some removals were clearly warranted, they weren't in several other cases in my view (depending on the context). One of the NGOs affected was the ]. I added this article to my watchlist at that time, but since the topic is not within my primary interests, I haven't contributed to it until recently (two minor edits). On 2 June 2023, I noticed on my watchlist the many edits by ] to that article. Since I didn't remember having seen this user before, I had a look at their user page and current contributions. That's how I became aware of the discussion at ]. --] 21:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::When Leyo writes above about becoming aware of ], I think they may be referring to and , both of them from from June 2023, (and maybe others), and both of them now archived from the page in question. Am I right, ]? That page seems to be fairly aggressively archived, so it's helpful to use permanent links if you want people to be able to read what you point them to. ] &#124; ] 00:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC).
::::::::I can confirm that. Those links have been provided elsewhere, but those are the two conversations (no others) where we interacted on that page. The first you link is what I linked above with the {{tq|certain users}} comment, and the second is where I cautioned them about promoting organizations the push denial of the consensus on GMOs. Especially by the second discussion, it should have been an abundant reminder of how they were involved both in terms of content disputes within GMOs/pesticides with me, but also on the behavior side with the aspersions with my . ] (]) 04:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::Although I appreciate your comments acknowledging some culpability in the block, I continue to feel uncomfortable with the way that you are discussing these issues. There's a common thread running through that edit history, and it's KoA. Gtoffoleto was blocked for, pretty much, the same kinds of comments that you have directed at KoA. Above, you question the impartiality of Doug Weller in this, but that assertion is seriously misplaced. --] (]) 23:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I'm also concerned this is a "say sorry but continue the problem behavior" situation basically dismissing what led to this and instead are now passing off their attacks and sniping as "warnings" in their top-level comment: {{tq|As for the user, I can partly understand why some people think I'm involved because of the warnings I've issued to the user due to his conduct.}} That isn't recognizing at all what caused them to be involved. Then you have comments like {{tq|It is difficult to draw a line, where an involvement begins.}} when it started practically from the very start of the interaction in 2016 when they accused me of having an agenda on an article talk page followed by them being warned about the DS at the time and all the following warnings I had to give them basically about ] and the related aspersions issues in GMO subjects especially.
:::::::Obviously I'm getting a bit frustrated due to Leyo doubling down on mischaracterizations, but I think the continued bad-faith accusations on article talk pages and here show a battleground mentality that's relevant to an eventual close here. That attitude likely contributed to poor judgement on them somehow thinking they weren't involved but also insisting on a very different story at the Dominion article with the {{tq|if KoA disagrees with the pre-edit-war version}} comment despite what I said prior elsewhere many times, including my , and clarified at this board about how I approached the editing at the article. Had their depiction been true, I wouldn't have been working so hard on crafting content on the talk page, taking care with edit button, or trying to handle the situation BilledMammal described as #2 in their .
:::::::That's really enough from me since I've said enough (and it's really up to others to review at this point), but there is a point where Leyo is getting so loose with ] that they are getting too unwieldy to address, especially with limited time on my part. ] (]) 04:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


I've read over this discussion, and looked into the editor's contributions. I didn't speedy close this - mostly due to WP:ROPE, and the hope that the editor will actually start to hear what the others on this page are trying to tell them. However, I'm going to leave a warning on the user's talk page that if they do not ], they are likely going to receive an indefinite block. And if the revert warring on ], continues, they'll be blocked from editing that page, regardless. I'll note here that, after reading this discussion, I very nearly blocked them myself. But I really would like to give them a chance to re-read here and perhaps start to understand why their behaviour is problematic and disruptive. - <b>]</b> 22:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC) - <small>, which included subst-ing the warning template: ].</small> - <b>]</b> 23:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Leyo, from this whole thread it was pretty clear that the main "involved" issue was your history with Koa, not your history with the article. Yet your post (to me) looks like "not involved at the article = not involved". IMO this indicates a lack or understanding and or a lack of reading this thread. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 12:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


:Well said. ] (]) 23:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:No. "Gotcha" is bad for this board. There are two issues, was it a bad block as a matter of substance (edit warring) and was this block bad as a matter of procedure (INVOLVED). And no, if you re-read the first comment Leyo, separates the two ("if the admin performing it is not taken into consideration"). They also followed up "I do acknowledge that '''my''' block was inappropriate." (emphasis added)
::I've been watching this, but refraining from commenting, partly because I don't think it's necessary and partly because I had my fill of reading the lengthy comments from Isonomia01 on their Talk page; it's wearing. However, I'm here to point out that Isonomia01's hardly "dropping the stick": see and . Isonomia01 would do a lot better to work on improving the project with non-controversial edits to article space. This is a user who first edited last May. Since that time, they have made 334 edits. About half of those edits were to user talk space, 75 to article talk space, and 38 to article space. That's all I have to say.--] (]) 13:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:On both issues, substance, it appears Leyo has a case, even if not every admin would do the same thing, as for procedure, Leyo has a mitigation, they viewed their warnings of prior behavior as administrative, but realize now because they were about in part behavior toward Leyo, they should not have been the one to block. ] (]) 12:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
* '''Endorse''', for now, for a month, and let’s see how {{User|Isonomia01}} develops from here. Ask Bbb23 to step back from Isonomia01 during this period. Dealing with aggressive newcomers is hard to reconcile with ]. Perhaps Bbb23 should have better blocked for 30 hours? It’s hard to know without hindsight. ] (]) 05:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::??? {{Ping|Alanscottwalker}} No "gotcha" was intended nor do I see it in my post. It was based on the only "involved" addressed was regarding the article, which is not the main "involved" discussed in this thread. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 16:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Endorse block, do not endorse length''', which is a bit weird to say I think the block is right but the length is too much, but yes. {{u|Bbb23}}, blocking for a week seems excessive for a first violation with a singular warning, and sitewide even. Good block, but should have been narrowed to the page in conflict, and shortened in duration. 24 hours would have easily sufficed, a week is a bit much. But all the same, Isonomia really needs to drop the stick, because that talk page is a doozy of paragraphs. TPA revocation didn't come soon enough. ] <sup>(]) </sup> 08:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::No, the article was not the only involved issue discussed, they addressed both, involved based in the article, and the involved based in prior warnings. ] (]) 20:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*:There was not a warning. To be more precise, the user had already stopped reverting prior to the warning. The block was issued without regard for the fact that the user had stopped in the act of reversions. User is allowed to make unblock requests; unless there was something outside the scope of the rules the user did. ] (]) 08:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
: (EC) That is not what I intended to express. I just discussed the two different forms of potential involvement (article/topic in general vs. user) separately. --] 12:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
*::You are certainly ''allowed'' to make unblock requests. You've mostly used them, I'm afraid, to repeatedly shoot yourself in the foot. Only ''11%'' of all of your edits have been to article space. Please, get back to article space, before someone blocks you for not being here to build the encyclopedia. Leave Sonoma County alone and find something else to improve. I know what happened to you feels unjust. I'm willing to believe it ''was'' unjust. But absolutely no one is going to prove it and do anything about it while you're writing these giant ] comments and doing nothing to improve the encyclopedia. That's what we're supposed to be here to do. You've got to get back to doing that. -- ] (]) 15:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::*It is my perspective that I was punished over a content dispute, which shouldn't happen. Editors shouldn't have to worry about things like that. The 7-day block, the literal instructions to file an unblock request, the promises of the rules (cited on my userpage), and then the aspersions against me have been, from my perspective, extremely disrespectful toward me, and of my time. From my perspective, it is worthwhile and productive to try to address this before moving forward.
*:::*This is not the correct venue for consensus discussion regarding the Sonoma County article, or to try to argue that I should not participate in that, at this point in time. There is literally only 1 single person who disagrees with me who either has not reached consensus with me, or with whom I have had a chance to discuss their concerns with. Furthermore, another administrator stated: "As a gesture toward good coverage of policing in Sonoma County somewhere on Misplaced Pages, whether it's the county's article or somewhere else, may I proffer some photos of the sheriff's department and Santa Rosa Police Department staging to intercept protestors during the George Floyd protests?"
*:::*Further blocks or threats thereof (without specific justification) continuously being put on the table, when my actions have been in strict compliance with the rules, is not appreciated. happen. Editors shouldn't have to worry about things like that. The 7-day block, the literal instructions to file an unblock request, the p
*:::*You are the one who refactored my usertalk page, deleting meaningful content from it, and accused me of refactoring in your edit summary.
*:::*All I did in the comment you are responding to is clarify that there was no warning prior to the block. ] (]) 16:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::*:Lordy. Well, I tried. For the record, regarding {{tq|You are the one who refactored my usertalk page, deleting meaningful content from it, and accused me of refactoring in your edit summary.}}, my sole edit to Isonomia01's talk page is ]. -- ] (]) 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::*::You made two edits to my user talk page. The first is when you declined the unblock request, the second was when you refactored the page, deleted my reply to your declination, along with other content. Can confirm on the revision history there are two edits from you. ] (]) 16:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::*:::What are you talking about? Asilvering has only ever made one edit to your talk page, and it was declining your unblock request. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 16:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::*::::I wonder if they're confused about ], which was by Bbb23, but mentioned me in the edit summary, since it restored to my edit. -- ] (]) 16:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Endorse''' - while we should encourage new users to learn the tools at their disposal and understand what acceptable behaviors they should follow, I see no issues here worth a AAR complaint. - ] ] 15:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
* Can someone please just indef Isonomia01 as ] already. ] ] 16:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:😲 ] (]) 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::{{yo|Pppery}} Should we take your comment as an endorsement of the block in question? 🤦‍♂️ ] (]) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::: Sort of. I haven't looked closely enough to see if the original edit warring block was justified. But even if it wasn't at the time that was overtaken by events. ] ] 16:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Eeww. FWIW, I don't like "NOTHERE." Misused. ] or ] are more fitting. To be clear, what I see in what I've seen of their edits is unrelenting ], ], ], and ]. ] (]) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::This is the third time you've encouraged escalation of drama. The first was on Drmies' talk page where you encouraged Bbb23 in his aspersions about me prior him blocking me. The second was when you encouraged JC here when he said he almost blocked me just by reading this. Now you're encouraging someone saying "can someone please just indef Isonomia01" here. My intent here is valid; I believe I was blocked primarily over a content dispute in place of consensus discussion, and then told outwardly that administrators can misuse tools without accountability with the TPA revocation. Regardless of what the consensus here is, I should not be attacked for my actions here, which are strictly allowed under the policies. ] (]) 16:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Endorse''' per Deepfriedokra above. I'd include personal attacks. An indefinite block is warranted. ] ] 16:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''': Editor has now been been blocked yet . I had a conversation with them about their behaviour and I wasn't satisfied then he would address issues with his editing and I'm definitely not satisfied now. I would personally be inclined to remove TPA since the user's ] seems unlikely to change. ] 17:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Their unblock request has been declined by ]. The editor has continued on their talk page, and I have responded . - <b>]</b> 06:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*It is just amazing how much time this has taken up. The indef block is proper, IMO. ] (]) 18:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== User:Amaury using rollback to revert constructive or good-faith edits without explanation ==
*'''Current concerns''' I have a few ongoing concerns here.

*#That Leyo has been hounding KoA, and used admin tools to further this hounding. I am concerned about this because:

*#* Of the 191 blocks they have made, only one has been of an established editor - KoA. To put this in context, the second most prolific editor they have blocked, {{noping|Jellyfish042}}, has made just 55 edits. I find it difficult to believe that the first time Leyo blocks an established editor it is coincidental that they are one they have an ongoing dispute with
:Action: usage of the ] privilege – ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
*#* Of the history that Leyo has with turning up to discussions after KoA has engaged, despite no prior engagement on the relevant page
:User: {{User3|Amaury}} (])
*#* Of the long term dispute that Leyo and KoA have had.
Honestly I don't like that I had to come to this, but User:Amaury continues to use the rollback privilege to revert constructive / good-faith contributions without any given reason, despite my clear warning on their user talk page (seen in the "prior discussion" link above, as well as ] additionally). They have not responded to either of those messages, and the fourteen rollback diffs above are from ''after'' I posted the warning message about rollback misuse.
*#* The circumstances of the block (as discussed above) are difficult to reconcile with them not following KoA's edits, whether it is by looking at KoA's contribution page, or by taking special notice of KoA's edits when they turn up on ]. I note that in between the time that KoA made their edit and Leyo took action related to the dispute, Leyo blocked five other editors, protected one page, and dismissed one bot-reported vandalism case.

*# Leyo hasn't accepted that this was a bad block {{tq|if the admin performing it is not taken into consideration}}. Even without considering that, it was a bad block; KoA wasn't engaged in edit warring, and even if they were the dispute was very slow moving; under such circumstances the tool admins should be reaching for is a warning, not an immediate block, as there is no ] value to such a block.
Here's an explanation of each diff:
*# While Leyo appears to have accepted the consensus here that they are involved, it doesn't appear that they believe this absent the consensus; {{tq|As for the user, I can partly understand why some people think I'm involved because of the warnings I've issued to the user due to his conduct. It is difficult to draw a line, where an involvement begins.}}
* Diff 1: reversion of a correct grammatical change from 'girl' to 'woman', as the actress is an adult in their 30s now
*<li style="list-style:none;">For #3, to address this I think Leyo needs to present an explanation for how they will avoid ] blocks in the future; for #2, I would want to see Leyo accept that is was a bad block in general, as well as pledge to be less quick with blocks in the future.{{pb
* Diff 2: reversion of a grammatical change of 'alternate' to 'alternative' which seems better for flow
}}For #1, I am not certain how best to address this. A one-way IBAN might be in order, or alternatively, particularly if Leyo doesn't present a suitable explanation for how they will avoid involved blocks in the future, a topic ban from blocking extended-confirmed editors? Such a topic ban would not be unprecedented - see GiantSnowman's ] - and should have no impact on Leyo's normal behavior, given that the only extended-confirmed editor they have ever blocked is KoA, but should prevent repeats of this incident. Of course, neither of these can be imposed here, and we would need to transfer the discussion to ]. ] (]) 05:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
* Diff 3: reversion of the word 'fever' being wikilinked
:: Regarding 3: I'm not sure if I fully understand the second part of your first sentence with the two negations. As for the quote, it is from an earlier response (i.e. not my current view). Regarding 2: At the time, I was of the opinion that this was a crystal clear case. Unfortunately, it seems that my memory was affected by standard admin responses to slow edit-wars in other WMF projects, in which I am active. I realized and acknowledge that the perception here is different in this regard.
* Diff 4: reversion of expansion/updates to the cast list of an article about a TV series
:: In any case, I will be taking an admin break for at least half a year, except what concerns files moved to Commons (including the passive right to review deleted local versions of potentially incomplete/incorrect transfers). I have already unwatched the relevant admin boards. --] 08:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
* Diff 5: reversion of a technically correct category addition to a navigational template
{{archive-bottom}}
* Diff 6: reversion of a new talk page post complaining about the NPOV of an article. While the message may have sounded rude or seemed like an off-topic rant about the person, I don't see how this isn't a valid post criticising the NPOV of the article
* Diff 7: reversion of an actor name being wikilinked. The code of the template at the top may have become "untidied" because of VisualEditor bugs, but comparing the edit before and after the rollback, the untidyness of the code didn't seem to affect the output at all
* Diff 8: reversion of the addition of producers to the infobox of an article about a sitcom. It may be unsourced / original research, but this is ''not'' clear vandalism to me
* Diff 9: reversion of the addition of relevant-looking portal templates to the bottom of an article
* Diff 10: same thing as diff 9
* Diff 11: reversion of a copyedit / attempt to improve the grammar/spelling of an article's body text. The copyedit may have been of poor quality but this does not look like blatant vandalism to me
* Diff 12: same thing as diff 11
* Diff 13: reversion of 'Just Fine (2013 theme song)' being wikilinked. This one was a redlink, but to my knowledge there is no rule against adding redlinks that have a possibility of becoming blue in the future, and I don't think adding redlinks is vandalism either. The editor who added the link was even publishing a draft at that article title at the time
* Diff 14: reversion of the addition of citations (re-used ones)
I fail to see how ''any'' of these fourteen total diffs meet the "valid uses of rollback" (e.g. obvious vandalism or highly disruptive edits) found under the ']' section over at the Misplaced Pages:Rollback guideline page. None of these 14 edits were made with a custom edit summary (point #6) either. —&nbsp;] ] 05:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

===Discussion===
*Number 6 looks like a ] violation that might need ] and would have merited a warning of some sort. (back to sleep.)] (]) 08:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*Diff 1 was a poor starting point for this report -- yes, the actress is in her 30s now, but the character (who is the subject of the sentence) is a girl, so I don't think you've characterized Amaury's revert correctly. And I agree with Deepfriedokra about diff 6. But you're clearly right to this extent: to comply with the rollback guideline, these uses of rollback would have required a custom edit summary. For this offence, I hereby administer to Amaury the frowny face and waggy finger of mild disapproval.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 12:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Do not endorse''' obviously, except for diffs 1 and 6. A few of the diffs are fair enough cases for rollback (see number 6, that's somewhat of an aberration in this report compared to the others), but what I'm more concerned about is them not appropriately warning editors. Diff 6 was actually a BLP violation, but the talk page of the IP is still red-linked. The other diffs resulted in no notification to the editor that their edit had been reverted or why, and that's something I think Amaury should commit to before this discussion is closed. Otherwise, yeah, like S Marshall says, waggy finger and a frowny face. ] <sup>(]) </sup> 18:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

*The roll back issue has been going on for quite sometime, even without explanation of the reason behind the revert. I had issues a few issues with this user as I would disagree with this user reverts and it would get into an edit war without a reason behind the revert. I have also noticed this with other users as well and when other users or I would go to the talk page to ask why there would be no communication on Amaury's talk page. My issues where a few years ago, but still have them on and off every so often. ] (]) 21:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Amaury}} could you respond here to these concerns? ] (]) 21:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
* I think this is more of an ANI issue than something for ARRV. AARV is generally for reviewing whether a ''specific'' action was appropriate (similar to DRV), while this clearly shows a chronic issue that has continued past warnings. Amaury was alerted of their inappropriate use of rollback, ignored it, and continued misusing the tool. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">] <span style=color:red>F</span> ]</span> 21:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
* The question here should be whether the diffs represent the use of an advanced permission contrary to policy.
*:Associated questions are:
*:* Was it raised with the user?
*:* Was there failure to respond a failure of ]?
*:* Does it really matter? Is Rollback an advanced permission above a threshold worth bringing here? Is rollback just an easier option than the Undo button? Is Rollback not different to Undo without an edit summary?
*:* Is the documented policy out of step with policy-in-practice? Are the diffs representative of normal accepted practice?
*:] (]) 23:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:CFA and SmokeyJoe are both correct. <em>However</em>, since AARV seems to me to be evolving into a somewhat less toxic version of ANI, it might be worth keeping this here. If Amaury says “feedback accepted, everyone, sorry and thanks” then we saved the world from an ANI thread. If the unexplained rollbacks continue, then ANI would be next. All that’s really needed is a recalibration of Amaury’s “obvious problem edit” criterion. ] (]) 23:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:20, 31 December 2024

Process to review use of administrator tools Shortcuts
Formal review processes
For RfCs, community discussions,
and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard
In bot-related matters:
Discussion about closes prior to closing:

Administrative action review (XRV/AARV) determines whether use of the administrator tools or other advanced permissions is consistent with Misplaced Pages'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

Administrative action review may be used to request review of:

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

Administrative action review should not be used:

  1. to request an appeal or review of an action with a dedicated review process
    For review of page deletions or review of deletion discussion closures, use Misplaced Pages:Deletion review (DRV)
    For review of page moves, use Misplaced Pages:Move review (MRV)
  2. to ask to remove a user's permissions:
    Permissions granted at WP:PERM may be revoked by an administrator if XRV finds them to be misused.
    Repeated or egregious misuse of permissions may form the basis of an administrators' noticeboard or incidents noticeboard report, or a request for arbitration, as appropriate.
  3. to argue technicalities and nuances (about what the optimal action would have been, for example), outside of an argument that the action was inconsistent with policy.
  4. to ask for a review of arbitration enforcement actions. Such reviews must be done at arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"), at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"), or directly to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment requests page ("ARCA").
  5. for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioural problems; use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ("ANI") instead
  6. for serious, entrenched or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking; use Misplaced Pages:Arbitration ("ArbCom") instead
  7. for a block marked with any variation of {{CheckUser block}}, {{OversightBlock}}, or {{ArbComBlock}}; Contact the Arbitration Committee instead
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias. Such requests may be speedily closed.

Instructions
Initiating a review

  1. Before listing a review request, try to resolve the matter by discussing it with the performer of the action.
  2. Start a new discussion by clicking the button below and filling in the preloaded template.
  3. Notify the performer of the action of the discussion.
    You must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. You may use {{subst:XRV-notice}} for this purpose.
    Use of the notification system is not sufficient.

Start a new discussion

Participating in a discussion
Any editor in good standing may request a review or participate in discussing an action being reviewed. Participation is voluntary. The goal of the discussion is to determine whether the action is consistent with Misplaced Pages'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.

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.


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

Bbb23's block was unanimously endorsed and the reporting editor has been subsequently been reblocked indefinitely. – Joe (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2024 (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.

TLDR:

  1. Bbb23 issued a 7 day block on a newbie for a second revert, after the newbie had stopped engaging in reversion and had went back to discourse. The newbie had previously tried to engage in content discussion on the talk page, and the other user was ignoring this and making false statements on the user's page.
  2. It is argued that Bbb23 was involved in the content dispute.
  3. Bbb23 made false and disparaging remarks about the user they blocked to try to influence the opinions of other administrators, advocated that the user should be blocked indefinitely without justification, and attempted to influence content consensus discussions with aspersion about the user both before the block, and while the block was in place.
  4. Bbb23 accused the user of "refactoring", the user asked for clarification and was ignored, and then Bbb23 revoked TPA for the user while the user was blocked.
  5. Editors should not have to worry about administrator tools being applied excessively and over content disputes that can and should be / have been resolved through discussion, without unnecessary drama.

Note: Statements supported by references have (ref) attached. These references can be provided on request, to diffs.

1. Abuse of Administrator Tools

a. Blocking me over a content dispute

To distill the facts as much as humanly possible, I was blocked(ref1) for two reasons (even though only one of these was mentioned in the block justification): (1) a second revert, after which I stopped; after that a warning was issued on my page, and then I was blocked even though I had made no edits, and (2) a frustrated response to the warning template in which the user made false accusations against me and distorted the facts (specifically, the accusation of "disruptive edits", and that I was not engaging in consensus discussion were not just false, but also applicable to the user issuing the warning template). I can't identify anything else significant or remotely relevant that I've done.

I maintain that I had reached consensus properly, and that the talk page should have been utilized by the other parties (this is not incompatible with that I shouldn't have reverted the second time).

I was blocked over a content dispute, where the other parties are choosing not to engage in consensus discussion, and instead resorting to the use of administrator tools, and aspersion, in place of consensus discussion.

The block was issued *without* discussion (or rather subsequent to cursory discussion **without me making addditional edits**), and in spite of my willingness and receptiveness to discussion and to be educated about the rules. It's not like someone told me "a second revert can be considered a breach of the rules in a case like this" (and I continued reverting) prior to the block.

The block was for 7 days, which is an overly long period of time (7x customary(ref2)) for a "first offense" for actual revert warring (bit of a stretch from what I did, considering that I stopped and no discussion or warnings took place prior to me stopping, before blocking me)(ref3).

b. Revoking TPA Improperly & Willful Violation of WP:ADMINACCT

Bbb23 accused me of "refactoring"(ref4). I had no idea what they meant, repeatedly asked them to clarify(ref5) (even quoted the rules that require them to answer my request for clarification(ref6)), and reviewed the edits in question and openly asserted that I am challenging the truth of their statements, and that I am allowed to strikethrough my own text(ref7). They refused to clarify. Again, I have no idea what they were talking about.

I submitted an unblock request, which was declined by Administrator Asilverfox. Their justification for rejecting the unblock request literally has a reply button. I couldn't use reply buttons while I was blocked; I had to edit pages to reply, so I assumed (after I checked the template for indications not to and saw nothing) there was no problem with replying to the rejection (which had a reply button), and did so (within the adjudicated unblock request template).

Without discussion or any attempt at clarification or anything, my TPA was revoked by Bbb23(ref8).

-

2. Lying

a. Indicating that they didn't delete content that I had added(ref9)

I argued in my unblock request that Bbb23 shouldn't have blocked me because they had recently deleted content from my user page(ref10) (in addition to making disparaging remarks about me personally to others during content consensus discussion on Drmies' talk page(ref11)), therefore constituting a content or other dispute / "involvement"(refs12). I made this argument several times(refs14) and it is not reasonable to believe Bbb23 didn't know about this argument. They finally responded to my question, but stated that they had *not* deletete content(ref15). They used the phrase "from this page" (the talk page, as opposed to the userpage). It is unreasonable to believe that they did not know that they had deleted content from my userpage, and it had been specified repeatedl, so their phrasing in their negative response is irrelevant.

b. "Refactoring" and "Distortion"(refs16)

As I stated above (in the Revoking TPA section), Bbb23 accused me falsely of refactoring (the second accusation notwithstanding as petty and irrelevant -- this is about the first accusation) and "distortion"(refA, refB). Their accusation was challenged. They openly refused clarify, and have continued to make this accusation (after being challenged and refusing to clarify), and that I "distort the facts", with no examples or support(ref17), and which I dispute the truth of. As I mentioned in the above section, I reviewed the edits they referred to and all I did was strikethrough my own text, which I'm allowed to do.

-

3. Entangling and discouraging content consensus discussion with personal attacks, aspersions, and their use of administrator tools

During consensus discussion over the content, an Administrator named Cullen (who has stated "It's too emotional for me", and other indications that they no longer want to be involved, so it's not my intent to involve them further) chimed in to the discussion. First Cullen provided Drmies with one of the links(ref18) that I had already provided to Drmies(ref19). They then expressed, and later reiterated, their dissatisfaction that an article was permanetly deleted, and expressed that they didn't know it was up for deletion, and is against its deletion. The article was on the same topic as one of the three sections of my edit, and was made under the content consensus discussion topic that I started on Drmie's talk page (since the article's talk page was being ignored by people deleting content). I had mentioned Cullen's statement on my talk page.

Bbb23 confronted Cullen, and stated that I had mentioned Cullen's statements, and said that I "distort" facts, that me mentioning Cullen's statement was "insidious", that they have blocked me for 7 days, and had revoked my TPA for "refactoring"(ref20 A. and B). This was obviously an effort to influence Cullen's opinion -- *over the content dispute in question*. I have verified that every single part of what I said was precisely true and in context.

Please note that I don't know how to format this template correctly.

User: Bbb23 (talk · contribs · logs) (prior discussion)

Brief explanation of why this action is being reviewed, including why you believe the action should not be endorsed and any background information necessary to understand the action:

These actions are, I believe, contrary to literally all of the applicable principles of Misplaced Pages. Administrators should (a) not block editors over content disputes when those editors are willing to discuss the dispute and to wait until consensus is reached, (b) not use administrator tools in disputes that they are involved in, (c) set a good example, and not engage in personal attacks and disparaging remarks (i.e. aspersions), and have a non-zero degree of civility and courtesy for editors.

"Administrators are not exempt from any of Misplaced Pages's established policies; they are expected to follow them" WP:ADMINCOND Isonomia01 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment Pleas use the {{oldid2}} template to revise your submission with diffs. That is, each ref# can stay the same, but you can make it a link to the diff in question, which will help everyone evaluate your complaint. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I will provide key diffs tomorrow if I get time. Thank you. Isonomia01 (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I will also request that you tighten up your complaint and identify the users you are complaining about near the top of the post. Long rambling posts like the above tend to make my eyes glaze over, i.e., Misplaced Pages:Too long; didn't read. Donald Albury 17:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I will attempt to rectify this tomorrow. Thank you. Isonomia01 (talk) 06:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I added a TLDR version at the top. I will add diffs to it later (within about 16 hours). Isonomia01 (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Endorse as there is no policy violation.You can be blocked for edit warring even if you didn't violate WP:3RR. The length of the block is up to the blocking admin's discretion.I maintain that I had reached consensus properly: No, you haven't. Per WP:ONUS, you have the responsibility to achieve consensus, and consensus was against your edits.Please see WP:REDACT: if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment should be avoided. Please also see the section below that: Persistently formatting your comments on a talk page in a non-compliant manner, after friendly notification by other editors, is a mild form of disruption. After you have been alerted to specific aspects of these guidelines, you are expected to make a reasonable effort to follow those conventions. Taking this into consideration, I believe revoking your WP:TPA was allowed by policy.Upon request, Bbb23 has offered you a link to WP:REFACTOR: Refactoring is a redrafting process in which talk page content is moved, removed, revised, restructured, hidden, or otherwise changed.WP:INVOLVED does not apply here: editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. Bbb23 was not involved in that dispute; removing WP:BLP violation from your user page is completely unrelated.I'll note that Administrator Cullen also chimed in on Drmies' talk page, during the consensus discussion that I started there, regarding this edit specifically, and also indicated that he was also unsatisfied with the deletion of content without adequate discussion on this particular subject and stated specifically that he and others had spent a lot of work on content that had been permanently deleted without adequate discussion (other people I know personally are also shocked at the same deletion Cullen was talking about). This is incorrect. Cullen328 said I did not learn about the AfD until the article was gone. and from what I can tell, Cullen328 didn't indicate that the deletion was done "without adequate discussion"; see the AfD in question.Administrators should (a) not block editors over content disputes when those editors are willing to discuss the dispute and to wait until consensus is reached You didn't wait until consensus was reached, instead, you reverted once and twice. Assuming you were right, you are still not allowed to edit war. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Editors are not required to "wait until consensus is reached ".
  • I waited 6 months for people to respond on the talk page and no one did. Magnolia had been tagged on Drmies' talk page and did not participate in the consensus discussion there, where consensus WAS reached (with Drmies). Magnolia's talk page is locked. So I reverted. See WP:PRESERVE.
  • I've apologized already for the second revert, however I will note that I consciously disengaged from the 'revert war' after that (unlike Magnolia677), did engage in dialogue (unlike Magnolia), and waited. I then received a warning with false accusations from Magnolia, in quick succession with an unjustified 7-day block from Bbb23. I have looked twice now, and I see nothing in the rules saying that a second revert is even against the policies, much less a blockable offense (correct me if I'm wrong). Some language about that should be added to the rule. A newbie mistake does not justify a 7 day block against a newcomer (see WP:BLOCK), and then advocating that they should be indefinitely blocked for no reason.
  • I provided 3 examples of Bbb23's involvement, not just 1, and the content that Bbb23 removed from my userpage (which I was using as a sandbox) was on the exact same topic.
  • Your entire 3rd paragraph is misleading. I did not do that. The page you link to (which does not construe itself as a rule, but rather merely an explanation and definition of the term) says outright that it's good to "refactor" in some situations. The rules specifically allow me to strikethrough my own text. I did not distort anything (as Bbb23 claimed repeatedly, while advocating that I should be indefinitely blocked, or to influence Cullen's opinion). People should stop trying to make it seem like I was somehow in violation of this. It is false, and constitutes aspersion. The TPA revocation was 100% arbitrary.
  • Bbb23 then made false and highly negative comments about me IN the primary consensus discussion to Cullen (as I explained). This discourages editors from even engaging in consensus discussion, and encourages further arbitrary deletions of well-sourced, notable, and ontopic edits under threat of false accusations, improper use of warning templates, followed by excessive use of administrator tools with what doesn't even amount to a lame excuse for the punishment.
  • Cullen stated that he and other editors spent 4 and a half years of work on that article, that it was deleted without his knowledge, and that he is unsatisfied with its deletion. My TLDR version was accurate, not verbatim.
  • The incivility and misrepresentations were not addressed in your comment. Isonomia01 (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • While the Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is not mandatory, it is highly recommended that you follow it. You have the WP:ONUS of achieving consensus, and being reverted most likely means that consensus for those edits wasn't achieved.
  • Please see this comment by Drmies.
  • Please read the first paragraph of WP:EDITWAR: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Users who engage in edit warring risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. You could argue that a 7-day block was too harsh, but in my opinion, it's fine.
  • The WP:BLP violation might have been about the same topic, but it is still not the same dispute: editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. I think that single comment by Bbb23 doesn't rise to the level of WP:INVOLVED. I'm not sure what the third one is; I'd appreciate it if you could clarify that.
  • I believe Bbb23 was referring to you repeatedly and significantly changing your comments after you post them, and you modifying the reviewed unblock template. For the former, see WP:REDACT: Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes, which you didn't do. For the latter one, I believe a reasonable person would know not to modify the template.
  • I couldn't find anything that was false (please quote what you referred to).
  • The article being deleted without adequate discussion is still not what Cullen328 said. The only thing (unless I'm missing something) Cullen328 said was I did not learn about the AfD until the article was gone, which doesn't imply that the deletion was done "without adequate discussion".
  • I'm not sure what you're referring to. I would also like to advise you – generally – to please read WP:ASPERSIONS and provide proof for your claims. Thanks. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not going to respond to this at this time, due to certain messages left here and on my talk page. If I am free to discuss this openly and politely, I may respond later, and I will note that I believe I should be allowed to do so. Isonomia01 (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Again, I apologize for the second revert. I had read that a long time ago, and it was my understanding at the time that I made the second revert that what I did would constitute an edit war. I still think it is vague and subjective, given that the other editors did not engage whatsoever on the talk page (until much later). And I think when a second revert can result in a 7-day block should perhaps either be clarified in that policy (which I would predict that would be difficult), or find some other way of reconciliation.
  • It is my personal opinion that I should not have been blocked, because I was willing to hear people out, and because I had stopped reverting. Magnolia re-reverted after I stopped, and it is apparent from the time stamps that I then left discourse on the talk page, and that I waited. I was then blocked by someone who had not attempted to communicate with me.
  • You say "While the Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is not mandatory, it is highly recommended that you follow it." You appear to implying that I did not do that (please correct me if I am wrong) -- and I do not understand why you are implying that. It should be clearly evident from a review of the Sonoma County talk page that that is precisely what I did. I have said this before: if someone had even left a comment on the talk page, I would not have reverted. I would have discussed the matter, and waited until there was community consensus.
  • The third example of Bbb23's involvement in the content dispute was his comment to Cullen, in which he stated that my statement was "insidious", that I "distort" things, that he had blocked me, and and that he had revoked my talk page for refactoring, either in an effort to influence Cullen's opinion, or knowing that it would influence Cullen's opinion, in the content consensus discussion.
  • I still don't know what you're talking about regarding refactoring. I believe that I did not distort anything. I certainly did not intentionally distort anything. I believe I copied and pasted the template from an above unblock request that had already been adjudicated and that's why it was formatted incorrectly (originally, not that I edited it later or something). The fact that I did not change it is evidence that I was not trying to distort anything and making an effort to leave the historical text in place faithfully.
  • It is my perspective that Bbb23's following statement, for example, was aspersion: "The user clearly is unable to edit Misplaced Pages in a collaborative manner. They distort the past to suit their own objectives and cannot be trusted to keep any promises they make about the future."
  • I'm not going to cite the rules at this time. I should be allowed to discuss this politely, and to cite the relevant rules. Isonomia01 (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I think we can agree that this dispute is complicated, it is different from the "usual" edit warring. You have made a good-faith attempt at discussing, although it could have been better (see this comment), and after the second revert, you did attempt to discuss. Taking this into consideration, a 1-week sitewide block does seem too much.
  • When I implied that you didn't follow WP:BRD, I said that because BRD states that upon being reverted, you should discuss, but you reverted twice instead, and only restarted the discussion after your second revert being reverted.
  • These two comments by Bbb23 1 2 are questionable. I'm curious about what others think about these.
  • I'm also unsure what Bbb23 was referring to as "refactoring". You repeatedly editing your comments might be a bit annoying, but I don't think it is grounds for revoking WP:TPA, and those two template errors do seem to be genuine mistakes. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Of note, the user talk page of the person who was reverting my edits is locked. Otherwise I would have put something on their user talk page (and waited for them to respond, without reverting the edit). This is the same person who was ignoring consensus discussion that they had been pinged in, and who issued the warning template on my page prior to me being blocked even though I had not made any edits after the warning. Isonomia01 (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse First of all, the block was certainly defensible, the OP was edit-warring against multiple editors. And there were three reverts, not two. Secondly, the OP says I argued in my unblock request that Bbb23 shouldn't have blocked me because they had recently deleted content from my user page. Yes, they did - they removed a flagrant BLP violation from it. This is an admin action and does not make them WP:INVOLVED ("an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area."). I've got as far as these two issues, and find nothing problematic. I may review the rest if the OP manages to format their complaint so that there are relevant diffs. Black Kite (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    • There were only two reverts without discussion and explicit consensus and alteration of the content addressing feedback. The first revert was justified because Magnolia677 was openly refusing to participate in consensus discussion, and their talk page was locked.
    • In hindsight, I shouldn't have made the second revert. I wasn't the only one who revert warred. I was however the only one making any effort to engage in consensus discussion, and I'm the only one who can credibly claim that I didn't know that what I was doing was a violation of (unwritten but apparently standardized) rules. The second revert was a mistake, not a violation of the rules. If there's anything in the rules saying that a second revert is against the rules, or justifies a block, please quote where they say it. Again, this was a mistake, not a blockable offense, and I shouldn't have been blocked per the language of WP:BLOCK.
    • I was using my userpage as a sandbox. Bbb23 involved themselves in the dispute by making disparaging remarks about me in the content dispute both prior to the block, and then again made disparaging remarks in the content consensus discussion, and was partial to another editor who engaged in revert warring worse than I did.
    • I will reformat with key diffs within a few hours. Isonomia01 (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • There were three reverts, because the first one (on 13th December) was restoring material that had been deleted. Two more reverts followed on the 16th. Meanwhile, a BLP violation is a BLP violation regardless of where it is, and any editor can and should remove it immediately. Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    • As I explained, the "revert" from 3 days prior was a significantly altered version, after explicit consensus, and I was told to "go for it", which addressed the concerns of the person who deleted the section (2 of the 3 sources were criticized as not meeting Misplaced Pages's standards; I provided at least 4 additional sources).
    • Just to be clear, the content that was removed from my userpage was sourced, and was accurate. And again, it's not just that that constituted involvement. There were two other examples.
    • I'll reiterate: a 7-day block over a good faith mistake (the rules don't prohibit it) (along with 1 single frustrated comment) was excessive, and clearly contrary to the language of WP:BLOCK. The TPA revocation was plainly arbitrary and punitive, and I (and editors in general) shouldn't have to worry about arbitrary misuse of administrator tools moving forward. There were multiple unsupported & false aspersions and personal attacks, along with advocating for an indefinite block (Bbb23's comment here is full of outright lies to try to negatively influence other people) for literally no reason / based on what were objective personal attacks and misrepresentations, in an effort to influence other administrators reviewing the unblock request. I disagree. I apologized for what I did wrong. People should not be defending misuse of administrator tools and personal attacks.
    • I'll reiterate that I'm now going to include key diffs, starting with points that warrant clarification the most. Isonomia01 (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I've read over this discussion, and looked into the editor's contributions. I didn't speedy close this - mostly due to WP:ROPE, and the hope that the editor will actually start to hear what the others on this page are trying to tell them. However, I'm going to leave a warning on the user's talk page that if they do not drop the stick, they are likely going to receive an indefinite block. And if the revert warring on Sonoma County, California, continues, they'll be blocked from editing that page, regardless. I'll note here that, after reading this discussion, I very nearly blocked them myself. But I really would like to give them a chance to re-read here and perhaps start to understand why their behaviour is problematic and disruptive. - jc37 22:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC) - Here's the link to the warning, which included subst-ing the warning template: Template:Uw-point. - jc37 23:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Well said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I've been watching this, but refraining from commenting, partly because I don't think it's necessary and partly because I had my fill of reading the lengthy comments from Isonomia01 on their Talk page; it's wearing. However, I'm here to point out that Isonomia01's hardly "dropping the stick": see this edit and this edit. Isonomia01 would do a lot better to work on improving the project with non-controversial edits to article space. This is a user who first edited last May. Since that time, they have made 334 edits. About half of those edits were to user talk space, 75 to article talk space, and 38 to article space. That's all I have to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse, for now, for a month, and let’s see how Isonomia01 (talk · contribs) develops from here. Ask Bbb23 to step back from Isonomia01 during this period. Dealing with aggressive newcomers is hard to reconcile with WP:BITE. Perhaps Bbb23 should have better blocked for 30 hours? It’s hard to know without hindsight. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse block, do not endorse length, which is a bit weird to say I think the block is right but the length is too much, but yes. Bbb23, blocking for a week seems excessive for a first violation with a singular warning, and sitewide even. Good block, but should have been narrowed to the page in conflict, and shortened in duration. 24 hours would have easily sufficed, a week is a bit much. But all the same, Isonomia really needs to drop the stick, because that talk page is a doozy of paragraphs. TPA revocation didn't come soon enough. EggRoll97 08:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    There was not a warning. To be more precise, the user had already stopped reverting prior to the warning. The block was issued without regard for the fact that the user had stopped in the act of reversions. User is allowed to make unblock requests; unless there was something outside the scope of the rules the user did. Isonomia01 (talk) 08:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    You are certainly allowed to make unblock requests. You've mostly used them, I'm afraid, to repeatedly shoot yourself in the foot. Only 11% of all of your edits have been to article space. Please, get back to article space, before someone blocks you for not being here to build the encyclopedia. Leave Sonoma County alone and find something else to improve. I know what happened to you feels unjust. I'm willing to believe it was unjust. But absolutely no one is going to prove it and do anything about it while you're writing these giant WP:IDHT comments and doing nothing to improve the encyclopedia. That's what we're supposed to be here to do. You've got to get back to doing that. -- asilvering (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • It is my perspective that I was punished over a content dispute, which shouldn't happen. Editors shouldn't have to worry about things like that. The 7-day block, the literal instructions to file an unblock request, the promises of the rules (cited on my userpage), and then the aspersions against me have been, from my perspective, extremely disrespectful toward me, and of my time. From my perspective, it is worthwhile and productive to try to address this before moving forward.
    • This is not the correct venue for consensus discussion regarding the Sonoma County article, or to try to argue that I should not participate in that, at this point in time. There is literally only 1 single person who disagrees with me who either has not reached consensus with me, or with whom I have had a chance to discuss their concerns with. Furthermore, another administrator stated: "As a gesture toward good coverage of policing in Sonoma County somewhere on Misplaced Pages, whether it's the county's article or somewhere else, may I proffer some photos of the sheriff's department and Santa Rosa Police Department staging to intercept protestors during the George Floyd protests?"
    • Further blocks or threats thereof (without specific justification) continuously being put on the table, when my actions have been in strict compliance with the rules, is not appreciated. happen. Editors shouldn't have to worry about things like that. The 7-day block, the literal instructions to file an unblock request, the p
    • You are the one who refactored my usertalk page, deleting meaningful content from it, and accused me of refactoring in your edit summary.
    • All I did in the comment you are responding to is clarify that there was no warning prior to the block. Isonomia01 (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      Lordy. Well, I tried. For the record, regarding You are the one who refactored my usertalk page, deleting meaningful content from it, and accused me of refactoring in your edit summary., my sole edit to Isonomia01's talk page is Special:Diff/1264449314. -- asilvering (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      You made two edits to my user talk page. The first is when you declined the unblock request, the second was when you refactored the page, deleted my reply to your declination, along with other content. Can confirm on the revision history there are two edits from you. Isonomia01 (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      What are you talking about? Asilvering has only ever made one edit to your talk page, and it was declining your unblock request. C F A 16:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
      I wonder if they're confused about Special:Diff/1264595348, which was by Bbb23, but mentioned me in the edit summary, since it restored to my edit. -- asilvering (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse - while we should encourage new users to learn the tools at their disposal and understand what acceptable behaviors they should follow, I see no issues here worth a AAR complaint. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Can someone please just indef Isonomia01 as WP:NOTHERE already. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    😲 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Pppery: Should we take your comment as an endorsement of the block in question? 🤦‍♂️ -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sort of. I haven't looked closely enough to see if the original edit warring block was justified. But even if it wasn't at the time that was overtaken by events. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Eeww. FWIW, I don't like "NOTHERE." Misused. WP:CIR or WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE are more fitting. To be clear, what I see in what I've seen of their edits is unrelenting WP:IDNHT, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:BLUDGEON, and WP:STICK. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is the third time you've encouraged escalation of drama. The first was on Drmies' talk page where you encouraged Bbb23 in his aspersions about me prior him blocking me. The second was when you encouraged JC here when he said he almost blocked me just by reading this. Now you're encouraging someone saying "can someone please just indef Isonomia01" here. My intent here is valid; I believe I was blocked primarily over a content dispute in place of consensus discussion, and then told outwardly that administrators can misuse tools without accountability with the TPA revocation. Regardless of what the consensus here is, I should not be attacked for my actions here, which are strictly allowed under the policies. Isonomia01 (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Deepfriedokra above. I'd include personal attacks. An indefinite block is warranted. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Endorse: Editor has now been been blocked yet again. I had a conversation with them about their behaviour and I wasn't satisfied then he would address issues with his editing and I'm definitely not satisfied now. I would personally be inclined to remove TPA since the user's siege mentality seems unlikely to change. Fantastic Mr. Fox 17:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Their unblock request has been declined by Acroterion. The editor has continued on their talk page, and I have responded here. - jc37 06:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • It is just amazing how much time this has taken up. The indef block is proper, IMO. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Amaury using rollback to revert constructive or good-faith edits without explanation

Action: usage of the rollback privilege – diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6, diff 7, diff 8, diff 9, diff 10, diff 11, diff 12, diff 13, diff 14
User: Amaury (talk · contribs · logs) (prior discussion)

Honestly I don't like that I had to come to this, but User:Amaury continues to use the rollback privilege to revert constructive / good-faith contributions without any given reason, despite my clear warning on their user talk page (seen in the "prior discussion" link above, as well as on here additionally). They have not responded to either of those messages, and the fourteen rollback diffs above are from after I posted the warning message about rollback misuse.

Here's an explanation of each diff:

  • Diff 1: reversion of a correct grammatical change from 'girl' to 'woman', as the actress is an adult in their 30s now
  • Diff 2: reversion of a grammatical change of 'alternate' to 'alternative' which seems better for flow
  • Diff 3: reversion of the word 'fever' being wikilinked
  • Diff 4: reversion of expansion/updates to the cast list of an article about a TV series
  • Diff 5: reversion of a technically correct category addition to a navigational template
  • Diff 6: reversion of a new talk page post complaining about the NPOV of an article. While the message may have sounded rude or seemed like an off-topic rant about the person, I don't see how this isn't a valid post criticising the NPOV of the article
  • Diff 7: reversion of an actor name being wikilinked. The code of the template at the top may have become "untidied" because of VisualEditor bugs, but comparing the edit before and after the rollback, the untidyness of the code didn't seem to affect the output at all
  • Diff 8: reversion of the addition of producers to the infobox of an article about a sitcom. It may be unsourced / original research, but this is not clear vandalism to me
  • Diff 9: reversion of the addition of relevant-looking portal templates to the bottom of an article
  • Diff 10: same thing as diff 9
  • Diff 11: reversion of a copyedit / attempt to improve the grammar/spelling of an article's body text. The copyedit may have been of poor quality but this does not look like blatant vandalism to me
  • Diff 12: same thing as diff 11
  • Diff 13: reversion of 'Just Fine (2013 theme song)' being wikilinked. This one was a redlink, but to my knowledge there is no rule against adding redlinks that have a possibility of becoming blue in the future, and I don't think adding redlinks is vandalism either. The editor who added the link was even publishing a draft at that article title at the time
  • Diff 14: reversion of the addition of citations (re-used ones)

I fail to see how any of these fourteen total diffs meet the "valid uses of rollback" (e.g. obvious vandalism or highly disruptive edits) found under the 'When to use rollback' section over at the Misplaced Pages:Rollback guideline page. None of these 14 edits were made with a custom edit summary (point #6) either. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Number 6 looks like a WP:BLP violation that might need ] and would have merited a warning of some sort. (back to sleep.)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Diff 1 was a poor starting point for this report -- yes, the actress is in her 30s now, but the character (who is the subject of the sentence) is a girl, so I don't think you've characterized Amaury's revert correctly. And I agree with Deepfriedokra about diff 6. But you're clearly right to this extent: to comply with the rollback guideline, these uses of rollback would have required a custom edit summary. For this offence, I hereby administer to Amaury the frowny face and waggy finger of mild disapproval.—S Marshall T/C 12:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Do not endorse obviously, except for diffs 1 and 6. A few of the diffs are fair enough cases for rollback (see number 6, that's somewhat of an aberration in this report compared to the others), but what I'm more concerned about is them not appropriately warning editors. Diff 6 was actually a BLP violation, but the talk page of the IP is still red-linked. The other diffs resulted in no notification to the editor that their edit had been reverted or why, and that's something I think Amaury should commit to before this discussion is closed. Otherwise, yeah, like S Marshall says, waggy finger and a frowny face. EggRoll97 18:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • The roll back issue has been going on for quite sometime, even without explanation of the reason behind the revert. I had issues a few issues with this user as I would disagree with this user reverts and it would get into an edit war without a reason behind the revert. I have also noticed this with other users as well and when other users or I would go to the talk page to ask why there would be no communication on Amaury's talk page. My issues where a few years ago, but still have them on and off every so often. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Amaury: could you respond here to these concerns? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I think this is more of an ANI issue than something for ARRV. AARV is generally for reviewing whether a specific action was appropriate (similar to DRV), while this clearly shows a chronic issue that has continued past warnings. Amaury was alerted of their inappropriate use of rollback, ignored it, and continued misusing the tool. C F A 21:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • The question here should be whether the diffs represent the use of an advanced permission contrary to policy.
    Associated questions are:
    • Was it raised with the user?
    • Was there failure to respond a failure of WP:ADMINACCT?
    • Does it really matter? Is Rollback an advanced permission above a threshold worth bringing here? Is rollback just an easier option than the Undo button? Is Rollback not different to Undo without an edit summary?
    • Is the documented policy out of step with policy-in-practice? Are the diffs representative of normal accepted practice?
    SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    CFA and SmokeyJoe are both correct. However, since AARV seems to me to be evolving into a somewhat less toxic version of ANI, it might be worth keeping this here. If Amaury says “feedback accepted, everyone, sorry and thanks” then we saved the world from an ANI thread. If the unexplained rollbacks continue, then ANI would be next. All that’s really needed is a recalibration of Amaury’s “obvious problem edit” criterion. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: