Wikipedia:Administrative action review

---

Diffs/logs: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 October#Twitter and Talk:Twitter#Requested move 18 October 2025

User: Pppery (talk · contribs · logs) and Timrollpickering (talk · contribs · logs) (User talk:Pppery#Closure of Twitter Move Request and User talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 22#“Moratorium” on Twitter RM discussion)

I’m requesting review of two administrators’ decisions (but not necessarily misuse of tools) and a determination of whether a valid moratorium exists. I recently submitted a move request to move “Twitter” to “X (social network)”. As described in the talk page, the debate over this move or others like it has gone on for some time.

The relevant timeline is as follows:

• 24 July 2023 through 30 March 2025: Multiple move requests end in either a consensus to keep the name or failure to reach a consensus to change it. (See summary from talk page.)
• 9 April 2025: Move request closed based on discussion over the course of more than a week. (Talk:Twitter/Archive_13#Move_request)
• 9 August 2025: Move request closed five hours after the request was made under speedy close by Timrollpickering per WP:SNOWBALL, stating, “This subject keeps being brought up here ad nauseum and endless discussions are unproductive.” Further stated “set six month moratorium on all discussions about the article name.” (Talk:Twitter/Archive_14#Requested_move_9_August_2025)
• 18 October 2025: I made a move request based on the understanding that the six-month moratorium was from the 9 April request. Again, speedy close by Timrollpickering, stating, “Moratorium means moratorium.” (Talk:Twitter#Requested_move_18_October_2025)
• 19 October 2025: I submitted a move review. (Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025_October#Twitter)
• 4 November 2025: Move review closed by Pppery: “Closure endorsed; no consensus to overturn the moratorium, which means it remains in force.” (Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025_October#Twitter)

Timrollpickering’s speedy close of the August move request and declaration of a six-month moratorium effectively created a ten-month moratorium by enforcing an undeclared moratorium from the April request, and then extending that moratorium a further six months. This decision was made without seeking input, and without any other editor requesting a moratorium. See WP:SUPERVOTE.

Contrary to Timrollpickering’s suggestion upon speedily closing the October request, there is no procedure for challenging a moratorium. This is because a moratorium is based on convention—not actual Wikipedia policy. Productive requests that provide new information should not be shut down because of a purported moratorium in any circumstance. However, even if we presume that convention is binding, Timrollpickering’s moratorium defied convention. Typically, a moratorium is for three to six months from the last substantive discussion. The speedy closure of the August request prevented substantive debate in August. The expectation would then be that debate and discussion could resume not later than six months after the last substantive discussion. See WP:MORATORIUM.

Pppery compounded Timrollpickering’s error by upholding the moratorium based on a failure to reach a consensus. Editors in the move review were divided on whether to uphold the moratorium, but editors supporting upholding the moratorium appeared to do so based solely on general support for the notion of a moratorium.See [1] below. No consideration was given to the unusual length of the moratorium, although some comments endorsing the close seemed to indicate that the moratorium should not be longer than six months after the last substantive discussion.See [2] below. See WP:CONLEVEL.

In this case, upholding the moratorium because a sufficient number of editors registered their support without substantive discussion risks setting a precedent in support of status-quo stonewalling. I do not believe this was the intent, but the effect is that one admin unilaterally declared a moratorium inconsistent with established convention, and that decision stands because enough people registered agreement. In the end, no one had to justify the unusual length of the moratorium because once it was declared, the bias toward preservation of the status quo kept it in place.

The potential for abusive exploitation of this scenario is obvious. The actions of Timrollpickering and Pppery should be overturned, and a move request should be allowed to move forward.

[1] Examples from the move review:

“We have to agree with the RM closer…” “You say moratoriums can’t be formed without community support, here it is.” “Moratorium means moratorium.” “Whether the moratorium was justified in the August 2024 close is not the scope of this review.” (This raises the question: where can a moratorium be challenged?)

[2] Full comment: “The close of the last full discussion was 23:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC). The default six-month moratorium runs from then. Disallow any RM for the page until 9 October 2025.” Dustinscottc (talk) 05:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I move to indef Dustinscottc as only here to right great wrongs and not to build an encyclopedia. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: do you really think this will be successful? Katzrockso (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Katzrockso: this is not ANI. Boomerangs are supposed to be out of scope here. Might wanna start a thread at WP:ANI if you wish to seek sanctions against a user. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dustinscottc: Would you mind fixing those internal links? They are setting off my OCD and they are unsightly. Thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly try, Dustinscottc (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra

I wasn't the one seeking boomerangs, I was just curious if this editor really believed dragging this debate to another forum was going to end in success. Katzrockso (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Katzrockso: Ack! Fooled by the lack of indent. Thanks. @Pppery: This is not ANI. Boomerangs are supposed to be out of scope here. Might wanna start a thread at WP:ANI if you wish to seek sanctions against a user---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC). -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know how I’m supposed to gauge my probability of success. I think I’ve laid out the problem fairly clearly, and I think this exposes risks of gaming the system (although I want to reiterate that I don’t think either admin here is actively or consciously trying to game the system). I’m surprised that @Pppery is apparently offended to the level of moving to indef me because I certainly don’t think it’s such a long shot that it constitutes bad faith (see, e.g., WP:NNH). Maybe it’s worth clarifying that I’m not trying to get the move approved here. Just something saying that the original moratorium was improper and that the closure of the move review was improper on that basis. Dustinscottc (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how that move review could have closed differently than how Pppery closed it. Do you really think there was a consensus to overturn there? Katzrockso (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that’s not what I’m actually arguing. I’m saying that there was no consensus to implement the moratorium in the first place, and defaulting to the moratorium is improper unless there is consensus to implement or keep the moratorium, which there is not. Dustinscottc (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then what misconduct are you alleging Pppery partook in? Even if you are correct that the original moratorium was improper (not a conclusion I or many of the editors at the MR believe), move review is not the forum to discuss such impositions and you have the burden confused for such a forum. Katzrockso (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not alleging that Pppery engaged in misconduct. This is a forum to determine “whether use of the administrator tools or other advanced permissions is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines” and covers “any action (or set of actions” involving the use of administrator tools.

If MR isn’t the forum, then what is? Because Timrollpickering seemed to believe that was the forum. Which makes sense, because the moratorium was the only cited reason for the close, so determining the propriety of the close hinges on the propriety of the moratorium. Dustinscottc (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Everything that has happened thus far appears to be within administrator discretion. I'm sorry that you don't like the outcome, but sometimes we have to accept outcomes that we think are wrong. The best thing to do at this point is to stop challenging the process, and prepare for an actual requested move in February/March that addresses the issues with the prior move discussions. Mackensen (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that the discussion at Talk:Twitter/Archive 14 § Requested move 9 August 2025 did not discuss imposing a discussion respite. (I disagree that the closing statement retroactively imposed a discussion respite from April to August.) Given the history of the topic, however, personally I think it's a reasonable approach. I don't think move review is the best venue in this situation to review the discussion respite. Although nominally it is a review of whether or not the closure of the August discussion is appropriate, since there is no specific English Wikipedia guidance on respites, enacting a respite should be based on a community consensus in support of it. For this specific case, I think the best way to establish community consensus is to hold a discussion on the article's talk page.
• All that being said, the reality is that the absence of a formal respite from requested moves won't compel anyone to engage in discussion if they think the request isn't raising any new information that's hasn't already been covered many, many times. Editors don't want to continually rehash the same points over and over. Voluntarily waiting at least six months to discuss the topic again is very sensible. Arguing about whether there should be a formal respite in this circumstance is ironically likely to encourage people to support a formal respite. isaacl (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that move review is not the best venue, but what other venue is there? The moratorium is for move requests. If an administrator closes a move request without allowing an opportunity to discuss, then we don’t really know what the consensus is. And of course editors don’t want to rehash the same points, but this is not something like “yogurt” vs “yoghurt” where the arguments may change but the facts stay more or less the same. This one depends on facts that are rapidly changing since a relatively recent event. The discussion will continue to come up. A minority who do not want to confront that discussion should not be able to stonewall the discussion. Dustinscottc (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I gave my viewpoint on that question already regarding the best place to establish a consensus viewpoint. Regarding new information, it isn't accumulating so quickly that there would be a significant change in two months. The topic has been discussed a lot, so I don't agree that interested parties haven't been able to weigh in. isaacl (talk)

Wrong forum. Contested MRV closes belong at MRV. You can be assured of an independent close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are MRV closes themselves really within the scope of MRV? @SmokeyJoe The page says "For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: Administrators' noticeboard", so I would assume the proper forum would be WP:AN Katzrockso (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. DRV and MRV closes are in scope at DRV and MRV. AN can also be used, and might be considered more appropriate if the review is more about the close or the closer than about a deletion or page rename. In any case, bringing this here fails XRVPURPOSE NOT #1. Maybe it would be OK if it is a story of systematic abuse by an admin, or misuse of technical tools, but it’s not close, this is about moratoria on the long running time wasting repeat Twitter RMs. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DRV and MRV closes are in scope at DRV and MRV – citation needed. Has anyone ever done that before? AN reviews are rare, but they do at least happen. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s rare that a DRV closer makes an error in closing so badly that a formal review is warranted. I think a DRV review of a DRV close has happened. I don’t think that an MRV review of an MRV close has ever happened. But neither forum is in the habit of speedy closes.

XRV is different, it was set up with a lot of concern about scope creep. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree that this is not the right forum, sorry if my question digressed. I was just curious about challenging a DRV/MRV close (not that I plan to do that) and the right forum for doing so. Katzrockso (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I took this to MRV, I would be told that it’s not the right forum. Because it’s not. Nothing in MRV says that it can be used to review an MRV. More than that, I’m asking for review of multiple actions taken together. Since there is no other review process, this is the right forum. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’d be shot down, but not because it’s the wrong forum. The problem is that you’ve got not substance to your complaint.

“Is there a valid moratorium?” If you read my comments in the MRV, you can see that I argue “no”, the default moratorium is already expired. But there’s more advice, can you mount a better fresh RM nomination than all of the previous rejected nominations? SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did mount a better RM nomination. And it was shot down immediately based on the purported moratorium. There was zero discussion about the merits. I would very much like to have the discussion on the merits, but even discussions on the talk page are shut down based on the supposed persistence of the moratorium. So even though there is no official process whatsoever related to moratoria, the fact that @Timrollpickering declared one effectively prevents any discussion—even discussions that present new evidence and new perspectives. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are really this passionate, bring it to ANI and ask to overturn the moratorium and then craft a good RM. The problem is that there is little reason you can't just wait until the currently imposed one expires - the continual dragging this issue from one noticeboard to another seems like WP:IDHT and could result in a boomerang sanction at ANI. Katzrockso (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI isn’t the right forum either. It will have been ten months since the last substantive discussion by February. This isn’t the way things are supposed to work. And WP:IDHT isn’t supposed to work that way either. I’ve gone to multiple forums now because at each step, someone says this isn’t the right forum. IDHT is about ignoring the consensus—not attempting to find the right forum to determine the consensus. But the threat of a boomerang is a pretty effective tool to keep users from questioning the decisions of individual administrators. I don’t know how to fix that. Dustinscottc (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close as wrong venue: The correct place to appeal or challenge an MRV close would be WP:AN. No administrative tools or advanced permissions were used, so this matter is out of scope for this venue. Appellant should be advised that WP:BOOMERANG applies at AN, so if they appeal there, they do so at their own peril. Left guide (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What’s the real risk of a boomerang here? Because that threat appears to mostly be used to discourage users from taking advantage of the procedures that are available to them. Dustinscottc (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I note that this isn't a typical RM issue, but one where each passing week removes us farther from when the article name was the legal name of the company and its product. It's obviously a politically sore point, because the assertions that everyone still calls X "Twitter" reflect nothing more than an echo chamber of those who have themselves moved to Threads or BlueSky. The longer we dig in our heels and insist on anachronistic labeling, the stupider we look. Whatever the right venue is, moratoria are transparent tools to protect the wrong version of the article name. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  because the assertions that everyone still calls X "Twitter" reflect nothing more than an echo chamber of those who have themselves moved to Threads or BlueSky I don't think that's true - I use Twitter and call it that. I haven't read the talk page in detail to see the arguments or if this is outdated, but I did find some polling suggesting a majority of Twitter users still call it Twitter too [1]. Katzrockso (talk) 07:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse moratorium While I agree that moving the article to "X" with "Twitter"" redirecting to "X," is the right decision, if the matter has been talked to death without a consensus for the move, then a moratorium on rehashing and wearing people out is the way to go.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Diffs/logs: Special:Diff/1124354835

User: Bbb23 (talk · contribs · logs)

There is no discussion link, because Bbb23 is no longer an admin and is retired.I was looking at usages of Template:Uw-botuhblock, and I was very surprised to see a usage of it on User talk:IotaSigmaRho, because the username doesn't have the word "bot" in it. I assume that the deleted contents of the userpage User:IotaSigmaRho are the reason for the block (it was deleted for U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion in userspace), and it was just a simple mistake when the block reason was chosen. —⁠andrybak (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this was intended as a {{spamusername}} and may have been a misclick. While I wouldn't have blocked for that userpage, it does fit the definition. I don't think we need a thread here since BBB23's blocks have been otherwise addressed. Any admin is welcome to modify or unblock as they see fit. Star Mississippi 02:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrybak: If you get the chance, would you mind clarifying what action you're seeking? Is this editor looking for an unblock? -- Euryalus (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To modify the block that is blatantly incorrect. —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you're looking for it to be reversed? Has the user asked to be unblocked? If not, why have you brought this up? 331dot (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To replace it with a block that has a valid reason. Not to reverse it. Did I use the word "modify" incorrectly in this context? —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much difference that makes, but I've changed it to promo name hard block instead.

I agree with Star Mississippi, it was probably a misclick, since the two block reasons are next to each other on Twinkle. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the problem I reported was obvious, but other users were double checking for clarification and even DoubleGrazing, who fixed the problem, qualified it with I don't know how much difference that makes. Was this report an inappropriate use of this venue? —⁠andrybak (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could have take this to AN, assuming it needed taking anywhere, if all you wanted was a simple 'clerical' admin action. (Others may have different views.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with DoubleGrazing; you didn't necessarily disagree that a block was generally incorrect, you just wanted the reason adjusted; I'm not sure it was necessary either(it could have been addressed if and when the user asked to be unblocked), but it's all good now. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably better overall if this board does has a decent number of low stake, "nobody's getting desysopped but yes this admin action should be overturned"-style posts. Makes it easier for non-regulars to raise genuine concerns if they see the bar's pretty low, makes it easy to regulars to !vote to overturn an action without feeling the need to escalate further, which could limit counterproductive kneejerk defenses to poor actions. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 10:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]