Wikipedia:Administrative action review

Diffs/logs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=183139136, and hundreds of other deletions

User: The Bushranger (talk · contribs · logs) (Not discussed, already have talked with the user about this before in email)

I am concerned The Bushranger is using revision deletion inappropriately. There is a difference between "purely disruptive material" and what is actually being deleted here, which is often innocuous things. Under my understanding, the revdelete tool is used for things that actually do not need to be seen, not for what is being done here. In the previously mentioned email, The Bushranger told me that the usage of RevDelete aims to prevent vandals from getting attention. While the person who actually made the offending edits is a known WMF-banned LTA, this type of response does not seem to be doing anything. Additionally, the subject of this AAR also told me that they only revdeleted named accounts instead of TAs because TAs "don't have very recognizable usernames" or something along that line. Anyway, what I do have to say is that this feels a bit heavy-handed and I'm looking for any input from other users about this. Cutlass ^Ciera 03:10, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

It's per WP:DENY for some of our worst LTAs, the one in question here has straight-up bragged about their content remaining visible on multiple occasions. As for named accounts vs TAs, it's because TAs are anonymous, versus named accounts being, well, named. (Although the bragging has led to some TAs getting the same treatment) If it's felt this is inappropriate, I'll stop, but I am not the only admin who believes this is an appropriate response to Andrew5. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Overturn I read RD3 as applying to disruptive content, not disruptive conduct. I think DENY means we shouldn't care what LTAs brag about (and it's a pretty sad thing to brag about, at that). voorts (talk/contributions) 03:18, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

• To facilitate review by non-admins: for the particular diff at issue here, the username was Whiaskeifcj, the edit summary was "Restore last clean version", and the edit itself removed several templates (Template:Pp-sock, Template:More citations needed, and Template:Dead link) and removed the brackets surrounding a link. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
  • After I made this comment, the requester added that he was also challenging hundreds of other deletions. I'm not sure AARV is really the best place for that, but suffice it to say that the recently revdelled edits from this sock farm run the gamut from removing a single space to vulgar sexual harassment. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

    If this isn't the best place to challenge the deletions, I don't know where else I would do it. The issue at hand is that revision deletion is being used indiscriminately and inappropriately. While some edits made by this LTA are in fact worthy of RevDel, the way it's being done here doesn't seem right. Cutlass ^Ciera 03:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

    • It's (IMHO) very discriminate. Andrew5 is a LTA who is here only to be disruptive, and to get recognition by have their name in lights on Wikipedia. Ipso facto, any edit by Andrew5's legions of socks is purely disruptive content. I absolutely agree that it's a sad thing to brag about (and the really sad thing is, if Andrew5 put a tenth of the effort into being productive they put into socking, they'd be one of our most prolific and respected editors). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

      From what you said, since they're block-evading and seeking attention, anything they make is purely disruptive content - fair game to revdelete?

      I can't really make sense of this explanation to be honest. The RevDel tool is not used for behavior control, it's for hiding content that should not be seen. This type of usage feels counterproductive. Cutlass ^Ciera 04:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

      That's pretty much my opinion, yes. They're a troll. Their purpose in editing is to be able to say "look at my edits on Wikipedia lol". So hiding the edits is, IMHO, the right thing to do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

      To be clear, I don't think you're being indiscriminate, I just think the revdels are wrong as a matter of policy. I understand and appreciate your position here, but who's to say these LTAs doesn't get more pleasure out of admins doing edit cleanup vs. bragging about trolling? (I'm sure they're thrilled that this has been brought to XRV.) voorts (talk/contributions) 04:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

      That's a fair point, and yeah, I had a bit of "well this is mildly awkward" at seeing this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

      The funniest part is that they were a relatively respected editor before getting blocked for sockpuppetry in a way A5 deemed unfair. And then he had to pull a solid Paradise Lost Satan and nuke his reputation, which I find hilarious and might write a whole fanfic about.

      Based on some off-wiki knowledge, I think there is a chance that some of his edits are semi-sincere. Regardless, that action of vowing to (trying his darn tootinous hardest) be our biggest mild annoyance seems to be worthy of the most point blank, spiceless WP:DENY. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

      That's the sad part; a lot of his edits, in a vacuum, are constructive and helpful. It's just that since he chose to dig to China and keep going, he can't make them. (If you look at the pattern of his gaming autoconfirmed, every sock's edits are perfectly within policy and improve articles - right up until it ticks over to autoconfirmed and then he instantly goes completely off the rails.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

    • I think this is the correct venue to determine whether this is an appropriate use of revdel for the banal edits; I don't think anyone would seriously consider contesting revdeling vulgar sexual remarks or threats. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:03, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
  • For what it's worth, I would overturn Special:Redirect/logid/183139136 basically per voorts: RD3 is about the content rather than the editor, and I don't think damnatio memoriae is a very effective strategy for dealing with socks (or much of anything else). I don't think we need to review the hundreds of deletions separately; if we overturn the one deletion, I'm sure The Bushranger will get the message and adjust his revdel practices accordingly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
    • Yeah, as I said, if it's agreed this isn't within policy, I'll stop doing it and move on. No big deal. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:23, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• Courtesy ping to @Hurricanehink: (who just today was asking me how to do this w.r.t. Andrew5's "contributions") so they at least know not to do this while this is going on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• Overturn: My understanding of revision deletion is that it's to hide bad content, not bad conduct. So, revision deleting edits not because of their content, but only because the user making them is an LTA is not allowed by policy. The diff (as Extraordinary Writ describes it) does not fit any of the criteria for redaction. It does not contain harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks, or any other material that would make it eligible for RD3.That leaves us the question of whether hiding edits like this improves or maintains Wikipedia. I'm sympathetic to the idea ignoring the rules a little to deny recognition, but I don't think this actually does that. By going out of your way to revision delete these edits, you're giving the LTA more attention. Contrary to WP:DNFTT, you're giving the troll more food. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• This discussion is bureaucracy on steroids. It's not useful to ask if The Bushranger has messed up because the point should obviously be about whether it would help the project if some LTAs were revdelled. It's not as if The Bushranger is doing anything other than working hard to protect the community. The issue should be framed not as an accusation but as a question regarding whether this case is desirable given that the WP:REVDEL policy ddescribes a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". Johnuniq (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

  I agree that this sounds more like a policy discussion than questionable/problematic admin conduct. Part of the nice thing about revdel is that it's got more eyes on it--any admin can see/review/undo--than oversight does. It's an intentionally more lightweight process, and even though it's been around for years, I doubt our understanding of it is really as nuanced as our understanding of oversight. Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

  I don't think it's fair to say that Cutlass framed this as an "accusation". Nothing about their post was accusatory or hostile towards The Bushranger. I think they are here in good faith after discussing the issue with The Bushranger. Editors should be allowed to challenge use of admin tools without being accused of acting in bad faith. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

• "I have come here to chew bubblegum and kill socks...and I'm all out of bubblegum." (apologies to John Carpenter) I'm very sympathetic to The Bushranger's efforts here and agree with Johnuniq. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• Agreed that the relevant question here is whether this is in fact an effective deterrent, which reasonable people may disagree about, not whether this violates the letter of the policy about revedels. In any case, Bushranger has made a judgment call in a case that clearly avoids any of the actually problematic misuse of revdel the policy is meant to guard against. Rusalkii (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

  I disagree. The question at XRV is whether The Bushranger's use of revdel meets the policy. I and other editors have pointed out that RD3 applies to content, not conduct, and I personally would object to expanding the scope of RD3 for that purpose. A discussion on changing RD3 would need to take place at VPP with T:CENT notice. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

• I agree with The Bushranger's actions (and thanks for the courtesy ping). This is a LTA who is only looking for attention, and does the same behavior over and over again, which is costing a lot of time and energy. Granted, the trolling makes me just want to edit more, and to give praise to the people try fixing this whack-a-mole game. There are many people who have been dealing with this troll for a long time, including myself. It's a small sign of progress that the actions done yesterday were of a confirmed account, as opposed to a temporary account, and speaks positively of Cutlass's statement - Additionally, the subject of this AAR also told me that they only revdeleted named accounts instead of TAs because TAs "don't have very recognizable usernames". Short of protecting every weather/road/election article, I think this is a reasonable strategy. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• This is counterproductive. These revision deletions are giving more, not less, recognition to this lowlife; he clearly hasn't been dissuaded from damaging the encyclopedia at all. On the contrary, the extra few clicks it takes to revdelete an edit that's already been reverted also damage the encyclopedia, in that they divert you - and now, everyone else here too - from doing something more useful with their time. —Cryptic 18:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• Overturn. I don't see how the wording of RD3 justifies deletions under WP:DENY. Katzrockso (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
• Given this, I've reverted the revdels on the article directly linked here, and will not be DENY-ing using revdel in the future, although I will of course continue to use it for the genuinely trashy stuff (which, unfortunately, our LTA friend seems to be increasingly stooping to). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:00, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

  In that case I think it's safe to say that this can be considered a settled matter. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley ${\displaystyle \lor }${\displaystyle \lor }investigateᛅ} 16:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

  Settled like silt. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply