Administrative action review (XRV/AARV) determines whether use of theadministrator tools or otheradvanced permissions is consistent withWikipedia's policies and guidelines. Any action (or set of related actions) involving a tool not available to allconfirmed 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 theinstructions below.
to arguetechnicalities and nuances (about what the optimal action would have been, for example), outside of an argument that the action was inconsistent with policy.
Participating in a discussion Any editor in good standing may request a review or participate in discussing an action being reviewed. Participation is voluntary. The goal of the discussion is to determine whether the action is consistent with Wikipedia's policies. Contributions that are off-topic may be removed by any uninvolved administrator. You may choose to lead your comment with a bold and bulletedendorse ornot 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 isendorsed,not endorsed, or if there isno 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 atWP: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.
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.
I want to report the administrator "311dot" for pressuring me to not appeal the removal of my user page. My userpage was removed and I wanted to appeal it, so I went to do that through the official means. I put it in the wrong place by accident and was told where to properly appeal the removal. But before I could do that, the administrator "311dot" came to my userpage and started an argument with me. He told me straight up to not appeal it, and then banned me when I wouldn't agree with him. When I requested to be unblocked, he literally said that one condition of unblock is to not appeal the removal.This is wrong behavior because as a user, I of course have the right to appeal a removal of my content. It can be denied in that process, I shouldn't be told by an admin that I will be banned if I go through the official procedure.
It took 3 days before another admin finally said that the whole thing is ridiculous and unbanned me with no conditions. For a full picture of the issue, you should read the entire user page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dino42
I have a right as a user to go through the procedures that Wikipedia has set up for us. An administrator should not block a user for saying that they might want to go through such a procedure.
This was a while ago, and I've been thinking about whether I want to report this. I now chose to do that, because this whole incident has made me not want to be on Wikipedia at all. I think that my contributions are valuable even if they are small, and I should not be blocked because I won't agree to not officially request a review of a deletion.Dino42 (talk)16:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say, a rather one-sided account of things, and IMO completely frivolous thing to bring here. (Also, I don't believe331dot has been notified, as required.) --DoubleGrazing (talk)17:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you think a userpage with "sup fuckers d-dawg42 here with some bitchin edits. hit me up" is appropriate? Really? You already complained about your userpage being deleted back in July, and weretold it wasn't appropriate. You attempted to get itundeleted at WP:RFU, and were denied. Here we are three months later, and you're still fighting for it to be restored? Really? You were told by admin asilvering back in August[2],"My advice to you, nevertheless, is to drop it. It's simply the smallest possible potatoes. The WP:LAMEest dispute to ever occur, anywhere. Absolutely nothing good would come of escalating this anywhere at all." You even agreed with that advice[3],"Thanks a lot for your reply and your great advice. I agree with everything you said." Enough time has been spent on this. asilvering told you"volunteer time is our most precious resource". Yet, here we are, months later, and you're still trying to get...what, justice? What,precisely, do you hope to achieve with this review request? --Hammersoft (talk)17:33, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not necessarily approrpiate. But it should be denied in the official process. I should not be banned for wanting to go through the official process. I'm not arguing for the page here.Dino42 (talk)06:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And no, I'm not trying to get it undeleted. I've said several times I'm fine with it being deleted. Please re-read what it is I'm actually complaining about.Dino42 (talk)06:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's inappropriate to ban someone for saying that they want to appeal a decision. I'm not arguing for the page. My number of edits is irrelevant.Dino42 (talk)06:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone object if I were to propose moving this to WP:ANI and asking for a community ban for Dino42, on the basis that it is a ridiculous waste of everyone's time, and that anyone incapable of understanding that clearly lacks the skills necessary to be involved in a collaborative project?AndyTheGrump (talk)17:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the question of competence for filer is not sufficiently clear for an admin to decide to block unilaterally. It would require a community discussion.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)21:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, I would object at least until they continue editing afterthis advice I just gave them. Hopefully they take it to heart. I concur with Black Kite, but maybe I'm too much of a softy hoping we can get a productive editor out of this. I don't know. Hopefully they choose well. --Hammersoft (talk)17:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From a procedural perspective, I don't think this thread should be moved. This page is for no-fault reviews of administrative actions, for both parties. Just start a proposal on another page, if you wish.isaacl (talk)21:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have indefinitely blocked Dino as Not Here as an uninvolved admin action. I do not think we need to waste community time looking for a C-BAN, but am not opposed if folks feel we need to go that route.StarMississippi21:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that this was handled by higher-ups, not the same kind of incompetent administrators that I'm complaining about in the first place. Because of this, this report can be discarded.Dino42 (talk)07:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dino42: as it says on top of this page, this process involves "community review". There is arguably no higher 'higher-up' than the community.
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.
13 September 2025 ECP indef protection atAntechinus by Jimfbleak
I have now been directed to this venue after being told at RfPP that ANI was correct and at ANI that AARV was correct. Policy should be adhered to when applying page protection. This has a very simple and obvious fix, but nobody seems to want to actually apply it.2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk)23:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Protection was correctly applied to prevent continuation of an edit war. Rather than more posts to AN, ANI, AARV, perhaps continue to discuss the disputed content on the article talkpage with alternative wording that better elucidates the source. You might also consider mechanisms likeWP:3O to get more eyes on the topic. --Euryalus (talk)00:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will you agree to stop edit warring and instead to continue to discuss changes on its talkpage so a consensus can be reached? That's the quickest way for the protection to be lifted. --Euryalus (talk)00:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The IP editor is probably right that indefinite ECP protection is probably not needed at this article. Since the recent disruption is coming from a single IP range, the IP range should be blocked from the article instead.MrOllie (talk)00:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I need to agree with Euryalus. You were told that the page would be unprotected when you 2 came to a consensus on the content dispute. Perhaps you should concentrate your efforts as has been suggested above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)00:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: Especially in the era of partial blocks so the IP can be only blocked from the article, I fail to see how it's in any way better to give one editor in this dispute the ability to continue to edit war if they wish to, but deny that to the other editor; and also deny every single other editor who is not extended confirmed the ability to edit the article. Blocking IPs can sometimes be ineffective so I can perhaps seen an argument semi-protection is warranted to force the IP to register if they want to continue to edit and that way if they both continue to edit war, they can both be blocked. But IMO and I've said this before, it never makes much sense that we say we don't want to block only one party or side but then protect in such a way that does actually give advantage to one side. I guess if you protect without paying any attention to whichWP:wrong version it currently is and warn that anyone who reverts again after you protection no matter what will be blocked, maybe that is fair but it's not clear to me that happened here and I'm sure that I've actually seen a lot of cases where the article is protected in some way which gives advantage to one side. And if it's not currently on the version preferred by that side, they're allowed to revert back to their version with no consequence.Nil Einne (talk)12:02, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW personally on the content issue I agree with Elmidae and frankly I feel the IP was maybe in the greater wrong given the content was both sources and had been there for a while. Although we're generally reluctant to take sides even there, I wouldn't personally mind if the IP was partially blocked from the article to force them to come to some consensus rather than just edit-warring even if this means taking Elmidae's "side" but my point is, if we are going to do that we should be explicit about it and do it in the fairest way which would surely be partially blocking the IP or rather the /64 instead of stopping everyone else who isn't extended confirmed from editing. Heck I wouldn't necessarily mind if it was semi-protection under the untested assumption partially blocking the /64 wouldn't work if it was explicitly done for that reason (I'd normally partially block the IP but fear they'll just use another). But the point is we either take a side or we don't. If we don't want to take a side than we shouldn't take a side but say we're not.Nil Einne (talk)12:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nil Einne: You've stumbled onto my dirty little secret. This is why I hate doing page protections. Much better toWP:PARTIALBLOCK the edit warriors from the article so the rest of us can get on with our lives. Now that you've hit me at a weak moment, I'll go on to@Jimfbleak: at this point I recommend removing the ECP, waiting to see, and then partial blocking any edit warriors that emerge. While I see the ECP as the solution at that time, it's time to see if that time has passed. And i agree (this can be the hard part) that we must avoid giving anyone an advantage by removing their "opponent" from the "struggle". Wikipedia should not be made into a battle field with opponents and struggles.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)12:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would give me the power to indefinitely keep this article from being edited by non-autoconfirmed users by simply not engaging in further discussion. This would give IP users a very easy tool to remove articles from general participation. (Can I have a "goddamn, they're right" at this point?)2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk)00:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Acroterion. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C, this isn't going anywhere. I encourage you to return tothe discussion about the material. There isn't anything wrongper se with gettingWP:3O, but given how many times this has been rejected I think that won't help you achieve what you're hoping to achieve. The article isn't permanently protected. It's indefinitely protected until an agreement is reached about the material or an agreement is reached to stop edit warring about it. There's a big difference between permanent and indefinite. I might not have used the level of protection that Jimfbleak used, but it's well within purview to do so. --Hammersoft (talk)00:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as Wikipedia's biographies of living persons or neutral point of view policies).
Furthermore, ECP should be used in the following cases:
escalation from semi-protection (there was none),contentious topics (hardly), ArbCom sanctions, high risk templates and page creation.
None of this applies here. Indef ECP is for Arab-Israeli conflict level stuff, not for a simple scenario where not even 3RR was reached. What I'm trying to argue here is that policy exists because it contains the accumulated wisdom of generations of sysops. In all but the most unusual cases, policy should be adhered to.2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk)01:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(apologies to Euryalus) Will you agree to stop edit warring and instead to continue to discuss changes on its talkpage so a consensus can be reached? That's the quickest way for the protection to be lifted. --Hammersoft (talk)01:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Euryalus andHammersoft: No, I have no particular interest inAntechinus. It is clear there is an entrenched position, and as far as I can see, no further progress can be made. The incorrect application of protection is a far more serious issue, which is what I have come here to discuss. I don't know why everybody is hedging their bets on me showing up to that article again.2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk)01:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you don't understand the difference between indefinite and permanent. Indefinite assumes that at some point it can be withdrawn or reduced, when the disruption stops or when an agreement is found in the content dispute. If you wish to argue process ad infinitum, we don't have much patience for that, we're here trying to write an encyclopedia, not eternally litigate.Acroterion(talk)01:20, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I too would have used indefinite semi-protection rather than ECP, but either way you can't edit the article until you settle your dispute concerning content.Acroterion(talk)01:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it were me, I would have used semi-protection. But not every admin is the same, and does exactly the same thing in every situation.User:Jimfbleak might be amenable to reducing the ECP to indefinite semi-protection. You've never asked Jimfbleak to do that. But even if they did do that, you still wouldn't be able to edit the article. So, we'd still be at the same place, editing wise. So I ask the question that I originally asked; what is it you are wanting to achieve here? --Hammersoft (talk)01:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Me being happy is not the issue here. There is no net value to pacifying one person who persisted against the odds to see a situation fixed. Net value comes from consistently appreciating the input from IP editors fairly and on equal footing, and renewed focus on the value of policy and granting due process.2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk)01:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's assume you're asking my advice rather than what makes me happy (because I don't think you should, as stated above). If you were asking my advice, I'd say, lift it since it's been a while, or if you feel you must keep it up, apply semi for not more than another month. Anything beyond that would be excessive. Put it on watchlist to cover your back.2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk)01:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, indefinite <> permanent. It's only in place until the two of you (and any others that wish to participate inthe discussion) come to an agreement or the two of you agree to stop edit warring over it. Nobody needs to watchlist this if that can be done. I do feel it's necessary to keep the protection since neither of you appears to have agreed to do this. --Hammersoft (talk)01:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
<yoda> Going in circles, we appear to be </yoda> Will you agree to stop edit warring and instead to continue to discuss changes on its talkpage so a consensus can be reached? --Hammersoft (talk)01:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really trying to wrap my head around why anybody would set up this one particular trigger (me continuing some particular pre-existing discussion) to (1) bring something back in line with policy in some weird way, and (2) without having any certainty that this trigger will, excuse me, get triggered. What's stopping you from just fixing it now? I see your Yoda and raise you the whole cast of Monty Python.2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk)01:59, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's stopping you from resolving your disagreement concerning the article, which is the whole reason protection, of whatever character and length, was instituted.? That's the whole point of protection - it goes away once the unsatisfactory editorial content is corrected by consensus. Protection is a tool to urge editors to improve the encyclopedia, nothing more.Acroterion(talk)02:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the issue here. The issue is whether the out-of-policy protection will be allowed to persist. We all know (well, those who've actually read and internalised the policy) that an ArbCom-level protection is really for ArbCom sanctions and a few other isolated cases. What will it take to remedy this bad precedent?2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk)02:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is agreeing with you that it is a bad precedent. 3 admins and 3 non-admins have all endorsed the ECP. After a careful examination of the biological vitals, evidence appears to concludethe horse is still dead. I'm not going to respond any further. I'm sorry you won't accept this outcome, but it is what it is. --Hammersoft (talk)02:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, it isn't rhetorical. I'm trying to get an understanding of what the IP is wanting to happen. "Correct application of protection policy" is the answer, but it's unclear what that means to the IP. --Hammersoft (talk)01:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note this venue is just to review the administrative action in question. I suggest discussing further actions by the filer somewhere else, such as on their talk page.isaacl (talk)03:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
*Endorse ECP. While I generally prefer partial blocks, I think in this instance ECP was the better choice.persuaded by Nil einne's and Extraordinary Writ's and Left guide's eloquence. ---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC) ---- Deepfriedokra (talk)01:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's easy. By now any user who was not auto confirmed then now is. So any disruptive user who was not yet auto confirmed is now prevented from being disruptive by the extended confirmed protection. Semi confirm protection would have been an advantage to any semi confirmed user over any anonymous user, which is explicitly against protection policy. And again, I probably would have partially blocked individuals instead of protecting the article.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)07:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Just read Hammersoft and JClemens below. I heartily agree. this is as good a time as any to apologize for any typos I missed that were caused by my stupid voice to text, which likes to put words in my mouth that I did not say.-- Deepfriedokra (talk)07:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No violation In order for there to have been a violation, the variance from policy must have contributed to an actual problem. No such problem has been articulated, nor has any benefit to the proposed solution (revert to semi protection) been articulated. We don't do "make someone follow the rules for the rules' sake" on Wikipedia; we will absolutely consider admin misconduct, but by definition misconduct requires a situation that is at a minimum unfair to a particular editor in an articulable way.Jclemens (talk)01:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: The benefit is that people, including those unrelated to any conflict, can edit, which is what this whole project is about. I will take no position as to the merit of the requested edit on the talk page, but will note that there has been one.2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:934C (talk)02:02, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you thought I was in any way interested in, or would be responsive to, your attempt at bludgeoning the process by replying to me. I'm not.Jclemens (talk)05:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ECP. Whether or not it was the optimal choice, it was a reasonable option to take, and perfectly within Jimfbleak's discretion to choose.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)01:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ECP. I've been going around in circles with the IP, but it's really getting nowhere. I've spent the last ~2 hours trying to untangle this, but to no avail. I don't want to spend another 2 hours on this. I would have used semi-protection in this case rather than ECP, but the use of ECP wasn't out of line. Arguing about thelevel of protection is rather pointless. The edit warring was stopped. That's the point. Barring consensus by both parties or an agreement by one of the other to stop edit warring, I don't see any reason to lift the indefinite ECP at this time. I'm sure Jimfbleak will continue to monitor. It's time to move on. --Hammersoft (talk)02:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I would have used semi, and indefinite-until-the issue-is-resolved, but nobody needs to devote so much time to pseudo-legalistic argument over something so inconsequential as this. We all have other fish to fry. This isn't really an IPs are humans argument, this is more like an autoconfirmed accounts are humans argument, which is a new one. As admin discretionary items go, this is about as inconsequential as they come.Acroterion(talk)02:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as others have mentioned here, this discussion stems from a perennial conundrum faced by administrators who do not wish to endorse one side or another in an edit war.Acroterion(talk)12:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the protecting admin, I have no problem if the level of protection is reduced one level, but since the editwarring ip is unwilling to talk to other participants, I can't see how the edit warring could be allowed to continueJimfbleak -talk to me?08:24, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see howTalk:Antechinus#Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution indicates an unwillingness to talk. Basically as very often the case, I see limited discussion with neither side really agreeing with each other so there isn't any actual consensus and the most we have to fall back on isWP:STATUSQUO which to be fair does favour Elmidae & no real attempt by either party to use some form ofWP:dispute resolution to resolve the dispute. As I noted above I do fairly favour Elmidae both for status quo reasons but also because the text the IP is disputing is sourced as even the IP seems to agree they just feel it's insufficiently clear which would be a reason to reword and not remove. So if we really wanted to take Elmidae's side fine I guess. But if the problem is the IP then the solution is to block them. I mean heck even a full block of the /64 seems better than the current solution although also unnecessary. And if we decide this gets too much into taking one side in a content dispute then we have to consider Elmidae is equally in the wrong for edit warring with that limited discussion which didn't achieve consensus. So there's no reason to protect in such a way that ensure they "win" the dispute.Nil Einne (talk)13:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove protection or change to full protection: A good-faith content dispute between an IP and an EC editor should not be resolved with EC protection. Protection policy atWP:ECP is clear that:
Extended confirmed protection should not be used…to privilege extended confirmed users over unregistered/new users in valid content disputes
If the IP was unambiguously on the "wrong side" from a content standpoint (i.e. vandalism), they would've been blocked and that has not occurred AFAIK.Left guide (talk)08:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove protection or change to full protection or partially block one or both parties: I'm largely with Extraordinary Writ and Left guide here as I said in my comment above before I read what they said. I won't repeat it all, but suffice to say it makes no sense to say we are protecting so we don't take one side over the other when we clearly have. Either Elmidae is enough in the right that it's fine to partial block the /64 or they're not. If they're not then we either need to fully protect or better, partially block both Elmidae and the /64. There's no real reason to doubt partial blocking the /64 would work here but even if it fails, the solution would be to semi protect and block any autoconfirmed socks that appear. If it gets too much of a whackamole then we can ECP. I might have sympathy to the current solution if Jimbleak had protected without paying any attention to the wrongversion and made it clear anyone to revert further in that dispute without consensus would be blocked but this didn't happen so it's too late now. In practice & this gets to the heart of why I hate the way we handle this so much, probably 99% of the time despite supposedly us doing this because we don't want to take sides, what happens is we semi or ECP protect, and if it doesn't happen to be the right wrong version then the confirmed or extended confirmed editors are allowed to revert back to their wrong version without consequence. So we've actually decided the confirmed or extended confirmed editors are in the right but for some reason are going to punish all non confirmed (really mostly IPs or I guess temp accounts soon) or extended confirmed editors even those uninvolved in the dispute just because we want to pretend we're not taking a side so cannot block only one side. To be clear, I was extended confirmed long before I began to realise how unfair this all was, I met the requirements way before the arbcom case which lead to it. So this is never something which affected me. And while this annoys me no end & I've said that before to some admins, it's not really the fault of any particular admin since way way way too many do that and as this discussion shows even the community generally tolerates it. But if it comes up for discussion I am going to push back on it.Nil Einne (talk)12:52, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
