Wikipedia talk:Requests for review of administrative actions

Untitled

Too many page moves...head hurting...→Raul654 16:19, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

I refactored the page, Anthony reverted, I re-reverted. I deem that I have used up my self-imposed "one revert per day" quota for this page.

If I took out too much sarcasm or nastiness, or otherwise misquoted you, please use the page diff to restore your remarks. --Uncle Ed 13:53, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I assume this whole page is a joke, anyway, so I'll let your re-reversion stand. Anthony DiPierro 14:10, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it's the replacement for Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship (see what links here). --Uncle Ed 14:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I know what it is, but neither page has accomplished anything. Anthony DiPierro 14:28, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The proliferation of admin pages did quite work out right somehow. When Requests for adminship starting being overrun by DE-adminship stuff, I created Wikipedia:Possible misuses of admin privileges to be what I thought was catch-all. Then someone decided there needed to be Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship anyway. (I am not sure why there could ever be de-adminship issues without being misuse of admin privileges, but there you go. Now this page has been renamed Requests for review of admin actions, which to my mind is a virtual synomyn of Possible misuses of admin privileges. Maybe they should be merged. Here endeth the Wikipedia history lesson. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:35, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to have them separate now. Wikipedia:Possible misuses of admin privileges is about what to do if someone has abused their powers, while this page can just be the list of current problems. Angela. 22:23, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

But I just found there is also Wikipedia:De-adminship, so now I'm confused. Maybe I'll merge Wikipedia:De-adminship with Wikipedia:Possible misuses of admin privileges, and Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions can stay as the list.

Proxy war

What is this? A proxy war of anti-H's? One for each new attempt? - Texture 22:23, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you're unfamiliar with our old friend Michael, read up on him sometime. He has an unhealthy fixation on Hephaestos for reasons best known to Michael. He reappears sometimes, and is a bizarre chapter in Wikipedia's history. Jwrosenzweig 22:25, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Seriousness

I am reposting this here, because I thin it is more relevant ;)

I agree that the purpose of this page is to review admin actions and, if necessary, hold them accountable. I think that the "good", "doubleplusgood" etc comments undermine the credability of something that should be taken seriously. We should not let our personal feelings about the complainants spill over onto this page, which should be solely for 'reviewing the actions of admins'. We should restrict ourselves here to discussions of the merits of lack thereof of the complaint or the action. A simple "this is without merit" does not do justice to even the most frivilous complaint. A one sentence explanation of an action does not seem to much to ask, and it does seem reasonale that, instead of simply saying that it is "good" that the questioned action took place, we should either keep our counsel, or contribute something more constructive. Mark Richards 16:31, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I have made an expanded response to Wik's claim in accordance with Mark's request that I believe was implied by other responders. - Tεxτurε 16:48, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Notice to the accused

It is elementary due process to give notice to the accused that their actions are under review. In the matter of Stevertigo, not sure they even know they are listed. Fred Bauder 14:56, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Use WP:RFC instead?

I believe we should use the WP:RFC page for these matters. There is nothing special about admins that should warrant a different procedure for complaints. This page predates WP:RFC and really should be merged with it. I believe that the procedures at WP:RFC, such as requiring two users to "certify" a listing, would help prevent some of the abuses that have occured recently here. These include retaliatory listings and listings that appear to be unsupported by anyone other than the affected user. UninvitedCompany 19:00, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Exactly - take this to Requests for Comment. john 19:29, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

As someone fairly involved in maintaining the RfC page, I'm currently agnostic about whether reviews of admin actions should be added there. UninvitedCompany makes an excellent point, however, about the usefulness of requiring "certification", which I think has helped cut down (though not eliminate) the pettiness there. Before I support consolidation, I would like to see opinions on one question - if we do consolidate, should we maintain a separate section for conduct related to admin privileges, or should all disputes be handled under one category? --Michael Snow 20:37, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that there is value in putting disputes about admins using admin powers on a separate page. There is no value in putting complaints about user conduct by users who happen to be admins on this page. Which seems to be what has been happening lately. john 20:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, administrators should be held to higher standards than ordinary users. Ergo, administrators need to be treated differently. -- John Gohde 06:53, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I understood UninvitedCompany's proposal to be that all matters should be on RfC, instead of having a separate page. But I certainly agree that people have been using this page a lot for what should be RfC user conduct disputes, if they can qualify. I don't know how closely you follow RfC, but the certification requirement has improved things, in my opinion, and could be beneficial if applied here as well. Naturally, the easiest way to impose a certification requirement is probably to fold admin-related matters directly into the existing page where that requirement already exists. And though I'm not enthusiastic about the increased maintenance RfC might need, I am sympathetic to the view that admins are not fundamentally different from other users, and should not be given different treatment. --Michael Snow 21:06, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe if this page were renamed something using the phrase "Misuse of administrative power" to make clearer that this is not the place for article content disputes that have you mad at an administrator? Snowspinner 21:09, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

As long as we have a separate page for admins, it will be a magnet for people who want to target admins. Especially if the threshold to keep a dispute open is lower than it is on RfC. --Michael Snow 21:19, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Is having admins under a higher standard of review a bad thing? Snowspinner 21:29, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

No. However, having a higher threshold to open a dispute discussion in the first place is not tantamount to a higher standard of review. I don't think it's too much to ask that the complaining party find someone else who agrees with their sentiments before bringing them to the whole community. UninvitedCompany 21:44, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Right. I think it might indirectly lead to a higher standard review actually, as presently valid signal might be lost amongst the great deal of noise that currently prevails on this page. - Hephaestos|§ 21:48, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

UninvitedCompany beat me to the answer. There's some inherent tension in the system here. On one hand, we try to keep adminship from becoming a status symbol, which for intellectual consistency demands that admins be treated the same as everyone else. On the other hand, admins have certain technical abilities that should only be used with good judgment and discretion, which suggests that we should hold admins to higher expectations.

I think the place to hold admins to a higher standard is when considering how to view their conduct (and what discipline to apply, if it comes to that). Such a standard is primarily relevant after the complaint has shown it has a legitimate basis. As a result, I don't think using different thresholds to "certify" a complaint does very much to create a higher standard of review. --Michael Snow 22:04, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Not at all, for those admins who were aware this "higher" (one might as easily say "double") standard when they agreed to accept the position. But, with the strict exception of their admin powers, no such standard was stated, and to impose one now, particularly in the absence of consensus to do so, seems like bait-and-switch. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:43, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

A proposal

Forgive this for being long. I've been writing a Masters thesis, and I forget how to be short. I think that administrators ought to be held to a higher standard, first of all - after all, the vote of the community that they would make a valuable administrator amounts to a vote that they already achieve a higher standard - the obligation is not to some previously unwritten set of rules, but to the community - one should continue to be worthy of the responsibility that one has been given.

That said, a higher standard and continual aggravation are not the same thing. I think that what happened to this page yesterday, with a bunch of people putting specious requests for review that were motivated purely out of being mad about being brought to arbitration (again) needs to not happen. Irismeister, and, frankly, Mr. Natural-Health both had no real complaints.

However, I do think it's important that administrative actions be under closer watch - regardless of the attitude that admins are normal users. And I think that there's a case to be made that all administrator actions are, by their nature, administrative - having an edit disagreed with by an administrator takes on a different tone than having it disagreed with by a regular user - simply put, no matter how nice and good the administrator is, the fact that they can block you if you edit war with them is always there. (Note: This is not some criticism that any of the administrators are irrational. To be honest, I can't think of an out-and-out bad administrator we have right now. It's just that, well, administrators have power, and that's one of the results of having power)

Accordingly, I think that this page should survive, but with some major changes to its format. First of all, submissions to it should have to ascribe to a format - name of administrator, name of complainant(s), actions in question, articles in question, comments by complainant, comments by administrator, general discussion. Secondly, I think this page should have a certification procedure, much like RfC. However, whereas RfC demands that the certifier also have raised the issue, I think here it should be sufficient that the certifier has looked at the articles and agrees that the actions of the administrator are questionable. If no one does this within 48 hours, the complaint is deleted. All certified complaints, however, should be archived.

This is not a massively higher standard - this page should not be given the power to strip administrators of their status or anything like that. What it does do, however, is that it makes it easier for users who feel like administrators are pushing them around - whether through explicit means like deletions and blocks, or through implicit means like forceful statements saying "Stop doing this." (Which can carry an unintended "or else" when they come from administrators) - to get people to look at the situation. The effect is that it becomes easier to get people to look at an admin's actions, without it becoming easier to punish the admin.

Thoughs? Snowspinner 15:00, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree - this might reduce the number of spurious harrassment claims, while providing assurance that real complaints will really be dealt with. We should also use this as a forum to review actions, not vent about what we feel about a specific user. Mark Richards 19:48, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

AOL! I think Snowspinner's proposal has a great deal of merit. After some of my experiences on requests for comment disputes, I found that a format that channels complaints to specific violations of specific policies can and does cut down on baseless complaints and unfocused whinging.

A bit of history is also instructive. When I arrived here, the only centralized place to discuss user conduct disputes was Wikipedia:Problem users (later renamed Wikipedia:Conflicts between users). That page resembled this one very closely: anyone could bitch about anyone else in whatever fashion they pleased, for whatever reason they chose; complaints lingered forever; and nothing meaningful was done. Unsurprisingly, the page was nothing but a flamepit and was eventually replaced by RFC and the rest of the dispute resolution process, which turned out to be more effective (albeit not perfect).

Therefore I have worked up a template (mostly based on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user) for this page, and I would like comments on it. —No-One Jones 19:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Proposed template

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for review of administrative actions, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {{insert UTC timestamp}}), the page will be deleted.

Please note: This page is for review of actions that are limited to use by administrators only, specifically these actions and their converses:

• protection
• deletion
• blocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves) please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

---

• (Example sysop | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct.

• Description:

{{Add summary here; It should NOT be signed. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}}

Powers misused

• Protection (log):

1. {{list page or pages protected}}

• Deletion (log):

1. {{list page or pages deleted}}

• Blocking (log):

1. {{list user or users blocked}}

Applicable policies

• Protection policy

1. {{explain violation of protection policy here}}

• Deletion policy

1. {{explain violation of deletion policy here}}

• Blocking policy

1. {{explain violation of blocking policy here}}

• Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links)

• Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~~~~):

• Other users who endorse this dispute (sign with ~~~~):

Response

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy

{{Add summary here; It should NOT be signed. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

{{Add summary here; It should NOT be signed. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Comments on this template

If we decide to use this format, I'd also like to use subpages for each complaint, for reasons of space and clarity; I don't especially care whether the subpages are linked to RfC or to this page (or both). —No-One Jones 19:59, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This all looks good to me. john k 15:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. - Hephaestos|§ 16:08, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If the summary is not to be signed, how is anyone else to know whether the author/s has/ve committed the sin of participating in further discussion? --Phil | Talk 16:27, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

I like this in general, though perhaps we can discuss the particulars for a bit before implementing it. I'd like to see some more guidelines on what the second person on the complaint is actually doing: Are they agreeing with the complainant that the administrator abused sysop powers? Are they fact-checking a statement of facts? Are they just saying they don't think the complaint is ridiculously trivial? moink 18:06, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I yanked that bit straight from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user: there, I think its purpose was to prevent every petty conflict of egos from ending up on RfC. Both certifying users had to show evidence of failed attempts to resolve the conflict, thus demonstrating that the user whose conduct was disputed was, in fact, misbehaving. I don't know if it's necessary here: a simple demonstration, by one user, that a sysop misused his or her powers and ignored attempts at discussion, might be sufficient. Sysop-only powers are held to slightly stricter standards than ordinary editing actions, are they not? —No-One Jones 23:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Deleting items from the article page

How long does one of these complaints need to stay here before it gets deleted? RickK 23:36, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

For as long as necessary until you get banned. --Cantus 23:54, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• • • Posting a comment such as this disguised as a minor edit is unacceptable behavior. I dare to stand up against you any day. RickK 04:28, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

I would say, Rick, that if a complaint has gone 2 weeks without comment, it should be removed. That's personal opinion only, of course. The complaint remains in the page history - I don't know if there is any additional archiving being done. Jwrosenzweig 00:11, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Two weeks without activity seems reasonable. Mark Richards 02:02, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration and de-adminship. Proof of blatant double standards

(moved from project page by —No-One Jones)

Request here ? was removed. There is ABSOLUTELY NO place in public Wiki space where this can be put without it being immedately removed or redirected by wikipolice to some 'quarantaine quarters. On the contrary, if admin complainants care to carry active editors in ludicrous "arbitrations" without trying to resolve dispute first, such complainants are heard and pampered viz. titillated. So they feel encouraged to "admin" even more in such masturbatory styles. Alas, they are also, by this very action, de facto, and automatically requesting review of their own administrative actions, AND desysoping. As I ALREADY stated, redirecting or CUTTING my request is NOT, repeat NOT a REVIEW of admin actions - but Wikipolice "maintanance" as usual. I therefore LEAVE WIKI having made my final point. - Good bye, and good riddance :O) irismeister 14:27, 2004 Jun 11 (UTC)

Fascinating as this is, I can't really understand what admin action you are asking folks to review. Can you clarify, or it will be removed from here too. Mark Richards 17:07, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

At least two people? Resolution?

Basically I really like this. I have one small issue, and one larger one though. First off, I don't think that two users should need to have tried to resolve the issue. I think it should be enough for one user to have tried and failed. Asking that two do would not really provide much benefit, and be a considerable burden. The purpose should be to provide rapid review of admin actions by a broader slice of the community. Secondly, I would like to see the format move towards a resolution of the issue - ie does the policy support the action, if not what remedy is to be applied? As I said though - I like this. Mark Richards 14:44, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Mark in almost all of the above, except for his minor first point. We do have users here who communicate badly. Sometimes they may have a legitimate issue with an admin, but approach it in a hostile manner that prevents resolution. Requiring another person to talk to the admin may prevent the case from ever reaching here -- many admins, I think, are willing to admit they've botched something, as long as the person they're talking with isn't out for blood. Obviously, both people could be out for blood, but we at least increase the chances that the admin has had the opportunity to realistically admit fault and back down. Furthermore, it means that many of the lone trolls around here will be far less able to bring these requests frivolously -- you've got to get them agreeing, and it's been my experience that most of them don't play well together (with notable exceptions, of course). Jwrosenzweig 16:47, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I see where you are going with that, and wouldn't oppose the two person thing, it just that I think that in practice it would make legitimate claims more difficult and encourage sock puppet trolling for those with frivilous claims. I agree also that a less confrontational way of dealing with this would be great. An admin would find it much easier to deal with 'could you check this please, I think it may benefit from a second glance' than 'I demand you be de-sysopped and banned for this crusade against me!'. Mark Richards 20:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am finding myself in a personality conflict with an abusive administrator. I no longer trust this person to build consensus. I would ignore this person — as he says I am spamming and ranting — but as of today find it impossible. He deletes my communications to him, and additions to articles I hope to improve. I want someone higher up to watch him and his actions. I have been a contributor in good standing to Wikipedia since November 1, 2003 and find arbitrary editing decisions to be not beneficial to Wikipedia's goals. Is this template something I can use to deal with him? Or is it a work in progress? - Sparky 05:58, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just chiming in my support for using and enforcing this template for future complaints about admin actions (naturally, since it's based on the template Mav and I designed for RfC). I support the two-person requirement, which I don't think is that much of a burden. For non-frivolous complaints, I expect that some concerned individual will be willing to investigate the issue and certify along with the primary complainant.

As for having the format move toward resolving the issue, I wholeheartedly agree with Mark, and encourage anyone to suggest ideas for this. If we can come up with anything good, it ought to be used for RfC pages too. --Michael Snow 00:02, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I support the template.

I think for this page to build community rather than tear it down, there has to be some way to avoid retaliatory listings from individuals who list every admin that acts against them. Such listings have made this page essentially useless for substantive discussions of genuine problems, because few users take it seriously.

I believe that the best way to do this would be to only allow new listings to be made by other administrators. If a non-administrator has a legitimate complaint, it should not be difficult for them to find a sympathetic administrator who would sponsor the listing. I beleive this would be more constructive than the "two-user" rule, and I believe it would encourage more and better discussion of the few genunine problems we do have since the page as a whole would no longer have the highly polarized flamewars it presently entertains.

UninvitedCompany 16:48, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I do not feel I can support UninvitedCompany's suggestion that we require admin sponsorship for a listing in place of the two-person requirement. Particularly since the issue here is allegations of improper conduct by admins, allowing only those complaints brought by other admins would promote in many minds the impression that admins are a cabal. While it might not be that difficult to find an admin to sponsor a legitimate complaint, I think it detracts from the appearance of fairness in the process.

I recognize that requiring two users to certify a listing is not a complete barrier to frivolous complaints. There may be attempts to use sockpuppets for certification, and there may be instances where different users - all of them nuisances to the community - join forces to register a complaint against a blameless admin (in my opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa Knott is one such case). But sockpuppets can be identified, and as for the second case, I believe the best solution is for the community to express its support for the admin and treat the illegitimate complaint with the contempt it deserves. --Michael Snow 19:01, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How can sockpuppets be identified? I agree that the most transparent cases can be, but what about more subtle ones? Mark Richards 20:32, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

For the purpose of the template, I would guess most sockpuppets will be transparent enough. Trying to develop a non-obvious sockpuppet for the purposes of making some future complaint about an admin would take too much time and effort for its creator, compared to the amount of disruption the complaint would generate. --Michael Snow 21:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Template: When and where?

So everyone seems to agree that this template is a Good Thing, and that we should use it; now the only questions are: When should we convert the page to this format, and should we continue using Wikipedia:Requests for review of administrative actions, or should we link these disputes from Wikipedia:Requests for comment? —No-One Jones 18:44, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've redirected the page to RfC, adopted the new template there, and left this discussion (linked on the RfC talk page) for historical purposes. I hope people will find that acceptable. --Michael Snow 20:06, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

redirect target

WP:AN currently says that for "Evasion of blocks, abuse of admin tools, or other incidents" one should go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, yet this redirect currently points to WP:AN. Is there a consensus to re-target the redirect to ANI? betafive 22:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)