Wikipedia:Administrative action review

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Shortcuts
Formal review processes
For RfCs, community discussions,
and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard
In bot-related matters:
Discussion about closes prior to closing:

Administrative action review (XRV/AARV) determines whether use of the

confirmed 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 the instructions below.

Purpose

Shortcut

Administrative action review may be used to request review of:

  1. an administrator action
  2. an action using an advanced permission

Administrative action review should not be used:

  1. to request an appeal or review of an action with a dedicated review process
    For review of page deletions or review of deletion discussion closures, use Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV)
    For review of page moves, use Wikipedia:Move review (MRV)
  2. to ask to remove a user's permissions:
    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
    request for arbitration
    , as appropriate.
  3. to argue technicalities and nuances (about what the optimal action would have been, for example), outside of an argument that the action was inconsistent with policy.
  4. to ask for a review of arbitration enforcement actions. Such reviews must be done at arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"), at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"), or directly to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment requests page ("ARCA").
  5. for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioural problems; use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ("ANI") instead
  6. for serious, entrenched or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking; use Wikipedia:Arbitration ("ArbCom") instead
  7. for a block marked with any variation of {{CheckUser block}}, {{OversightBlock}}, or {{ArbComBlock}}; Contact the Arbitration Committee instead
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias. Such requests may be speedily closed.

Instructions
Initiating a review

  1. Before listing a review request, try to resolve the matter by discussing it with the performer of the action.
  2. Start a new discussion by clicking the button below and filling in the preloaded template.
  3. Notify the performer of the action of the discussion.
    You must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. You may use {{subst:XRV-notice}} for this purpose.
    Use of the notification system is not sufficient.

Start a new discussion

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 bulleted endorse or not 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 is endorsed, not endorsed, or if there is no 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 at

WP: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.

Indefinite TPA revocation for “proxying while blocked”

While this discussion should not be interpreted as a referendum on the wider policy question (and such discussion should, if need be, take page at the appropriate venue if the question of appropriate talk page use while blocked needs to be addressed more broadly), there is clear consensus to endorse the TPA revocation in this instance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Action: Indefinite talk page access revocation [1]
User: Doug Weller (talk · contribs · logs) (prior discussion)

I’m opening this XRV on behalf of a senior editor who has lost their editing privileges. Those familiar with the situation will know that I’m not a fan of the AE process that led to the editor’s siteban by boomerang, nor of the subsequent appeal rejection. However, this XRV is not about relitigating the AE case but about the recent decision by Doug Weller (reaffirmed by Yamla in UTRS #86485) to indefinitely revoke the editor’s talk page access.

The reason for the TPA revoke (effectively a permaban) was given as: it makes little sense for an indefinitely blocked editor to be discussing anything with other editors... [2] Doug has also shared his views on this matter at Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Proxying_while_blocked. However, the consensus in that discussion leaned toward a less codified, more relaxed stance, as exemplified by Bishonen’s comment.

EXHIBIT A: Sennalen's Talk since her December 2023 siteban

REMEDY REQ.: Restoration of TPA privileges

Respectfully submitted, XMcan (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (OP). Thank you for the references to other cases. It was an interesting read, especially the case of Martinevans123 and his 400+ posts while blocked. His Talk is a very long read; for convenience, here’s the section where his TPA block is discussed. I have no issue with Martin’s case; I'm just pointing out that there was a lot more "proxing" and a lot more "chit-chatting" there than in this case. So, I don’t understand why Sennealen should be receiving different treatment. I guess I could speculate that she appears not to have as much social capital as Martin, or perhaps her cardinal sin was "venting" in her last post without proclaiming “Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa” loudly enough.
Let me rephrase that in more neutral terms. Should Sennalen lose TPA because:
(A) There is an unwritten rule that the only things a blocked editor is permitted to use their talk page for are appealing or seeking clarification regarding their block.
(B) There is a specific offending post or posts in Sennalen's talk that warrant her losing TPA.
If the answer is A, then the question is why others are receiving different treatment. If B, I’d like someone to point out what that offending post is, as I have not seen any that fit the bill. Finally, if there is nothing to list under B and the community doesn’t support general rule A, then fairness and logic dictate that Sennalen's ban should be overturned. XMcan (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to sound like an aging queer postmodernist, but these binary options just don't work for me. Reality doesn't have to be either a universal rule or a smoking gun. For one thing, in spite of the seemingly dismissive reference to social capital, a highly relevant consideration may be, based on their track record, what is the likelihood that this editor would ever make clearly and uncontroversially positive contributions to enwiki? I think the most relevant metaphor here to decide Talk page access might be a sliding scale, that takes context and anticipated future impacts into account.
From my own time at ANI (regarding a TBAN not a block, but still I think relevant), I know that a long history of positive contributions to a space - one that is itself subject to controversy - will not outweigh a much shorter list of contributions seen as disruptive. And so OWNTALK participation that takes the form of commentary from the sidelines concerning those controversies, or explanations of an editor's own rectitude, will quite correctly be weighed differently by admin than OWNTAK comments that could potentially contribute to a return to editing.
Concerning controversies, my perception now is that contributions to a contentious space, even "good edits" and proposals that may receive consensus or broad support, are "discounted" when editors trying to judge the extent of disruption can interpret these contributions as taking one side in a controversy. Editors in contentious topic areas need to go beyond following the normal standards of editorial conduct so they are actually seen as clearly positive contributors. Editors like Sennalen, who appear not to be interested in contributing outside of highly polarized topics, will not win their way back into the community if their rhetorical stance is to insist that they were right all along - even if they were right all along. Newimpartial (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A decision to let a senior editor back to editing articles is distinct from the decision to allow or not allow that editor to post on their own talk page. One does not imply the other, nor is the other being decided here. Case in point, Martinevans123 waited over a year to have his editing privileges restored after being given TPA back. As I stated from the outset, we are not relitigating Sennalen’s AE case here. XMcan (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are you defining senior editor? Including 3 deleted edits, Sennalen made 2,082 edits. 446 in main space. 795 to article talk pages. Hardly a senior editor. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those comments caught my eye too. Calling them a senior editor comes across as posturing or pretty drastic glittering generality, especially in the backdrop of an editor who was banned due to
WP:NOTHERE and just very clearly not getting it afterwards on their talk page or during appeals. KoA (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Bradv or another Check User can answer this better than I can. What I recall from the AE case is that the editor had to change her username due to legitimate privacy concerns. XMcan (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their account was created December 15 2021. What does that have to do with the AE case? Doug Weller talk 20:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And your account was created in 2009, your first edit was in 2011 and you’ve made 327 edits, 95 to articles, 96 to article talk pages.. Doug Weller talk 20:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sennalen asserted that they'd edited under a different account from 2014 through 2019, which raised further questions; Bradv noted Sennalen has given the name of their previous account to me by email, and I can confirm that it is not subject to any blocks, bans, or sanctions. They have also provided the reason they want to keep the previous account secret, and it is a legitimate privacy issue not related to their editing.[3] Bradv didn't go into numbers of edits. Whether any of that means they should be accorded the privileges of a senior editor is another matter - likewise, whether such privileges do or should exist. NebY (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Endorse. We only block users when there is a risk of disruption. If a user continues to be disruptive while blocked then removing talk page access is a good move. If they are genuinely interested in getting unblocked they will have submitted a clear and convincing unblock request after following
WP:SO, rather than trying to get others to make edits on their behalf. Awesome Aasim 19:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
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.

Vandalism of The Merchant of Venice by @Valereee

Action: The removal of factual material that is informative and educational from The Merchant of Venice article
User: Valereee (talk · contribs · logs) ([discussion])

I suspect that the Merchant of Venice article is subject to a chronic case of Groupthink:

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome ... The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup").

As discussed at length on the article's talk page, I have made changes to the article which are not only factual (direct quotes from the text, principally) but informative and educational. That is the whole purpose of an encyclopedia, and the repeated removal of that material is the definition of vandalism. Furthermore, arbitrarily withholding information from readers is censorship and arguably propaganda. My material should not be removed from the article simply because other editors have an irrational/prejudicial dislike of it, or an irrational/prejudicial ideology of what information should appear in the article. AlexAndrews (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrarily withholding information from readers is censorship and arguably propaganda. You need to learn the definitions of censorship and propaganda. Removing lengthy plot and copyright violations is not vandalism, censorship, propaganda or whatever you're trying to make it. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AlexAndrews, when an editor with less than 400 edits accuses a respected adminstrator with over 75,000 edits of such a severe offense as vandalism accompanied by other severe charges like arbitrarily withholding information from readers and censorship and arguably propaganda, then one would expect that convincing evidence would be provided simultaneously. You have provided zero evidence. This is (or ought to be) a routine content dispute. Your outlandish, evidence free accusations reflect far more poorly on you than they do on Valereee, who has done nothing to be treated this way. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrative_action_review&oldid=1220837420"