Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review

RFC text

From Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Proposals:

Create a new process, Wikipedia:Administrative action review (XRV), that will determine whether an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy. XRV will use a structured discussion format, open to all editors and closed by an uninvolved administrator, to reach a consensus on whether an action or set of actions is endorsed or not endorsed. Acting on this consensus, if necessary, is deferred to existing processes.

• The goal of XRV is to provide a focused and constructive venue in which admins and other advanced permissions users can be held accountable to the community.
• Any action, or set or related actions, requiring an advanced permission and not already covered by an existing process (e.g. WP:DRV for deletions), may be referred to XRV.
• A structured discussion format, closed by an uninvolved administrator, will be used to reach a consensus on whether the action should be endorsed or not endorsed.
• Participation in XRV is open to all editors.
• The purpose of XRV is solely to reach a consensus on whether the use of the permission was appropriate, not to remove permissions. Acting on that consensus is deferred to existing processes:
  • Individual actions that are not endorsed can be reversed by any editor or administrator;
  • 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 WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:RFARB report, as appropriate.

References

Question

I was unable to find specific instruction, so I am going to ask: is this page specifically design only for admins to seek review of actions of other admins, or editors are allowed to request the same? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Santasa99: Any editor in good standing can request review subject to the instructions on the first page. I updated the instructions to specify this. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Lev, I missed to read part below the boxed text - it is a touchy subject for me to seek a review on actions of admin so I was/I am a bit nervous. Thanks, I appreciate it really. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You didn't miss it, I literally just added it after reading your question :-) Levivich (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Aha, :-) nervousness, not the best condition, I'll tell you. Cheers, Lev, and thanks. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq, RE XRV revert, on one hand, speedy closes and variations on them threaten the respect of XRV, but on the other, XRV is not a forum for SOCKs, and your WP:DENY action was justified. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that we should generally not revert or otherwise close reports unless exceptional circumstances arise. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Request of opinion in dispute

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.

---

Hello administrators. I am currently in a dispute with an administrator, but it may not be suitable for the noticeboard itself. I was wondering if uninvolved administrators are willing to provide input as part of the dispute resolution process. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

By my count, this is at least the sixth venue on which you've attempted to raise this issue, despite it having been indicated to you repeatedly that that behavior is inappropriate [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. "My feelings are hurt because an administrator correctly told me that continuing a certain behavior would be likely to lead to a block" is not, in fact, an ongoing dispute. This is not the first time you have engaged in this kind of disruptive forum-shopping and grudge-holding; if you continue to pursue this issue in any further venues, I will seek administrative attention to address your conduct. --JBL (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Per JayBeeEll. Calling a warning for disruption a dispute does not make it so. On the other hand, bludgeoning the process in multiple venues is potentially disruptive. Suggest an immediate moratorium on Thinker78's campaign. ——Serial 20:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129 I have to point out that JBL is an involved editor who I don't consider at all objective because of the kind of interactions they have had with me. For example, I contacted JBL regarding an issue, adding a post in their talk page, "Please read how consensus work". JBL decided it was a good response to simply remove my post and state in the edit summary, "rv tedious whining -- please do not post here again unless it is required that you do so".

  For some reason, even though they have asked me in such an uncivil fashion not to post in their talk page, they keep intervening around in posts I make in talk pages. Also, I believe JBL is misconstruing the replies I received and I will reply in their talk page given that they are accusing me inappropriately.

  Regarding bludgeoning, the reason I have contacted multiple venues is because I have been unable to get an input in the dispute, which is part of the dispute resolution process. Per WP:CONTENTDISPUTE,

  If you cannot resolve the dispute through discussion with the other editor, you may request participation from interested editors uninvolved in the discussion, to build consensus for your changes.

  But again, no editor has so far participated in the discussion, that's why I proceeded to contact other editors before too much time passes.

  I will request to @JayBeeEll to stop undue interactions with me trying to portray me in a negative light. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe the reason why no editor has participated in the discussion is that they agree with JBL, but prefer not to say so. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 14 January 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.

Bolded !vote by OP

XMcan, the point of boldface on Endorse or Do not endorse is mainly to make the closer's life a little easier. You've already expressed your overall view in your opening statement, and it'll be counted. You are welcome to elaborate later, but it's misleading to add another bolded statement of your preference. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, FFF. I'm not going to argue about this. I thought my follow-up statement after the 'vote' was pretty clear: "Additional input from an involved editor (also the OP)." Hopefully, the XRV closer is a human being who understands the subtlety of the English language. (Don't outsource this job to AI ;)) XMcan (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

If you won't argue, I won't either! Happy editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and by the way, FFF, you have had prior interactions with both me and the editor in question. May I ask why you haven't 'voted' or said anything? (Of course, feel free to ignore this inquiry ;) ) XMcan (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I've been following, but I don't have anything to say that hasn't already been said. I do anticipate participating in a follow-up policy/guideline discussion about talk pages of blocked editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)