Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Administrative action review

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: speedy keep. The MfD instructions are clear that already-operating process pages should not be nominated here. If you want to close or modify the process, please open an RfC. (For the record, I have not been involved in any of the RfCs that led to the creation of

WP:AARV, nor have I participated in the board itself since it was established.) RL0919 (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Previous closure attempt:

closed and reopened

The result of the discussion was: Speedy procedural keep: Wrong venue. Policies and noticeboards are not deleted, they are marked as historical if consensus to do so is found at a central non-MfD venue. This is described at

VPP (permanent link). Feel free to move all existing comments to a proper discussion venue and fix the CENT link afterwards. I'm personally not interested, I'm just closing this as clearly inappropriate. ~ ToBeFree (talk
) 19:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Indeed. For an even more pertinent example, see Wikipedia:Administrator review. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
(Note: It has been correctly noted that I may not be the ideal closer for this discussion, which is why I'm thankful for the endorsement by wbm1058 who has at least not participated in the
WP:RFA2021/P at all? I don't know.) ~ ToBeFree (talk
) 20:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

In the hope of someone uninvolved coming to the same conclusion (it's not that hard in my opinion), I'm re-opening this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrative action review

Wikipedia:Administrative action review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​


This page is an utter mess and embarrassment. I see there was an RFC but this surely cannot be what anyone intended. This should be blanked until a properly structured RFC agreeing if/how this will work has been completed.

Spartaz Humbug! 16:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

argument about whether pinging is canvassing or not
*Comment: As this nomination clearly contradicts the outcome of the RfC, I'm pinging the RfC participants. In doing so, I'm relying on
WP:APPNOTE. /failed ping attempt of more than 50 participants in single edit commented out to save space/ thanks for participating. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
    • more than 50 pings in a single message doesn’t work. Anyway, found this MfD through other means. This Seems like using the pretext of Fram’s XRV filing to relitigate the RfC. Good faith dispute resolution would allow editors to address what went wrong and how we can remedy that, which is what’s happening on talk. I explicitly brought up the issue with too many ‘advanced permissions’ like rollback on the board and a tightening of scope being necessary. I don’t think this is an appropriate MfD, as the OP hasn’t engaged in any of those discussions and clearly doesn’t want to allow them a chance to take place either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don’t you dare start defining my intentions for me. How rude. You need to calm down. I started the MFD because I read the discussion on the talk page and the editors driving this were already not listening to feedback and blowing off concerns. This includes you in case you were in any doubt. Slow down for the love of god and behave collegiately instead of trying to ram your pet idea through regardless of what anyone else says.
        Spartaz Humbug! 17:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        It's not my "pet idea". I supported its establishment, and don't mind too much if it shuts down for various reasons, but clearly there's nothing reasonable about this exercise. As for "listening to feedback", I already supported the idea that changes are necessary. We were discussing what kinds of changes before derailings of the discussion followed by this MfD which short-circuited the discussion entirely. This inflames conflict, not helps bring us to a resolution. Most the comments here are about how it's 'redundant to AN/ANI' which is exactly relitigating the recent RfC. Your nomination, about it being "an embarrassment", is clearly referring to the recent G10 mess, which to me does seem like a pretext. It's like shutting down the
        WP:RFC process because a singular RFC in a contentious topic area (eg Holocaust in Poland) turned into a (predictable) shambles. It's not legitimate opposition to the process. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
        ]
    @Alalch Emis You can't ping more than 50 people in a single edit, you have to do it in separate batches. JBchrch talk 17:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JBchrch: Did certainly no one get pinged? Just to be extra sure. Edit: i thought I could do it in two templates... — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alalch Emis I'm reasonably certain that no one got pinged, even the "first 50". JBchrch talk 17:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tyvm. Here goes again: First batch: @
    John Cline, John M Wolfson, King of Hearts, Kudpung, Kusma, Leaky caldron, and Lee Vilenski: thanks for participating. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Second batch: /second batch of group ping due to not registering as a separate edit commented out to save space; repated below/ thanks for participating. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Blatant canvassing. I already notified this discussion at AN. For shame!
Spartaz Humbug! 17:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
When someone tries a backdoor method to supervote against the result of a well-attended and thoroughly advertised RfC that had seven days of discussion before thirty to forty days of voting, informing the people whose consensus is being ignored is not canvassing. Additionally, XRV is not meant to parallel AN, but DRV and similar, so your notification there is of unclear relevance. — Bilorv (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that second batch didn't go through properly (at least, I didn't get a ping.) I think it was because you didn't do it on a completely new line with a new signature [1].-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don’t do it again, there is clearly enough input coming in that you don’t need to canvass people from the previous RFC.
Spartaz Humbug! 18:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It's actually entirely appropriate per the canvassing guideline, as long as both supporters and opposers are notified. It's actually quite standard to notify editors in a past RfC when you (in a recent enough timeframe) start an RfC to overturn its result. And given that RfC was advertised on watchlists and at various policy pumps, there is clearly a
WP:CONLEVEL issue with overturning a more widely advertised RfC ran for 1.5 months with an AN-advertised MfD ran for a week. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I think more precisely it may be because the software didn't recognize the diff as containing a complete signature. Don't worry @Alalch Emis mass pings never work before the 6th attempt. JBchrch talk 18:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As half of the participants have been pinged already, I'm literally obligated ping the remaining half. Staying at an arbitrary half would simply be spurious. Thanks everyone for the feedback and assistance. My decision to mass ping and Spartaz' putting up the canvassing tag is specifically being discussed here:
MJL/P, Modussiccandi, Neutrality, Pawnkingthree, Piotrus, Pppery, Primefac, ProcrastinatingReader, Qwerfjkl, RandomCanadian, Risker, Ritchie333, Rschen7754, S Marshall, Sandstein, SandyGeorgia, Schazjmd, SmokeyJoe, Spinningspark, Swordman97, Tamwin, The wub, TheGeneralUser, Tim Smith, ToBeFree, Tol, TonyBallioni, Trainsandotherthings, Valereee, Vanamonde93, Wbm1058, Wehwalt, Whiteguru, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes, Xaosflux, and Ymblanter: thanks for participating. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Shameful.
Spartaz Humbug! 18:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete, as already handled at
    WP:ANI. No need to overlap the process, and the amount of administrative actions being reviewed is not a burden on those noticeboards. This just shifted the same amount of work and drama to a different pile that fewer people look at. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Deprecate (and/or delete) unless and until there is a clear consensus for a page with these functions to exist. The RfC cited established consensus for something very different to what has actually been established. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural speedy keep as the wrong venue. Consensus was established in an RfC, deletion or depreciation should be discussed in an RfC. Thanks Alalch Emis for the ping.
    talk) 17:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Both procedural close and substantive keep - (edit conflict) - this was established by an RfC, so the use of an MfD to remove it is beyond a valid scope. The correct methodology to remove it is an additional RfC. Substantively, it should be kept because it does add additional capability that ANI/AN doesn't, and the more nuanced procedure creation is continuing as normal. Only where either the proposal or the RfC discussion indicates that it should be viewed as a "in principle" creation, with workshopping to follow should the normal "be bold/adapt/discuss" methodology not be utilised. The editors voting !delete had all the opportunity in the world to render their disagreements with its conceptual existence during the RfC. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the RfC that established it. If it's irredeemably broken, it can be deleted in another MfD a couple of months from now like Esperanza was, but this is far too early for its entire existence to be on the line like this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the overlap argument is flawed, the scope of AN and ANI theoretically covers almost anything which might possibly require action from administrators, which is enormous and overlaps with numerous other processes and noticeboards. This isn't considered to make those other processes redundant. Sure, I don't see much point in some of the handful of discussions the page has had so far, and we could certainly change the scope to exclude things like rollback. But the process is still very new and it's too soon to write it off. As a regular at
    deletion review, which XRV is supposed to be similar to, I find discussions there a lot more constructive than the typical dramaboard thread. Hut 8.5 18:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The point is that what it is supposed to be (similar to) and what it actually is are not the same thing. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per above. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 18:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unusable as is. Need to have an RFC to flesh out the best ideas for scope and format. Creation was really premature and not authorized at the RFA RFC. What was agreed to in that RFC was to develop something else. We went straight to creating the page without getting ANY input, zero development. No wonder it is a failure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Profanity-laced speedy keep - Thanks for the ping. What the actual fuck? "Utter mess and embarassment". Did you want to be a bit more detailed than that? Oh yeah, let's delete it because some people think it's a mess; great deletion rationale! There was an RFC about this. It's disruptive to revisit it after barely a month. And with such a crap nom statement. Ugh, Spartaz, and rest of my dear colleagues wanting to delete this, come on. This is a fucking wiki and you can't tolerate trying something out for more than a month? Can you are least point to some concrete examples of how this page is harmful? Or how consensus has changed since November? What are some of you thinking? Sheesh! Levivich 18:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't like the mass ping since I had to dig into the diffs. Usually I just click on the notif since I'm on mobile, but this time I had to actually click the diff to see that I was mass pinged and wasn't actually "mentioned". Just leave a talk page template next time. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that overturning the RfC closure would be a matter for another board, but there are grounds to delete this attempt at implementing the RfC because it does not conform to the RfC proposal. That proposal was for a "structured discussion format", i.e. sectioned discussion and possibly word limits, similar to AE. What we have here is just a copy of ANI with its unreadable walls of text that are not conducive to structured discussion. Sandstein 18:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seams like an overly-bureaucratic niche whinge page, trying to address issues that could be handled better at existing venues. ValarianB (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: without a shadow of a doubt not the way to overturn community consensus. Astonishing behaviour from those supporting deletion. — Bilorv (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh I see now. It's
      peanut gallery drama spillover of some sort. Appears to be based on some hoax that had content revdelled, suppressed and then deleted, none of which I can even slightly follow. Very in vogue. How about an MFD of ANI instead? — Bilorv (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • (edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Delete - for now, until the actual details have been workshoped and put to a further RfC. That's the way it's always been done in the past for the successful engineering of new policies, noticeboards, or user rights, etc., and there was no reason to jump the gun here. Anything like this should clearly have been no more than an adoption in principle as per the RfC. The sky won't fall from just taking a while longer to properly dot the Is and cross the Ts on something that has a consensus to be done. Although I firmly opposed the creation of this new board as just another venue for disgruntled users to vent their spleen and a further playground for governance obsessives, I don't believe the original RfC is to be relitigated here even if it was completely tangential to 'RfA' (admin election) reform. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's early days: SOFIXIT could easily apply, it certainly doesn't mean chuck everything out with the bathwater. The way to deal with editors misusing / misunderstanding the page is their education, not its abolition—as we follow in every other area of the project. This is the same: the page will eventually find its optimum form like pancake mix on a waffle iron. Procedurally:
    a) A deletion nomination with an utter mess and embarrassment is the very essence of an
    argumemnt to avoid in deletion discussions.
    b) Re. canvassing: The original RfC was advertized at WP:CENT. SN54129 — Review here please :) 18:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per the fact it was developed via a well-attended and lengthy RfC, but yeah, it's clearly a mess and needs development. Maybe we suspend use while we work out how to use it? —valereee (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The arguments that it should be deleted as redundant to existing boards/processes don't make sense when the RfC clearly found consensus that it is needed. That there are some implementation pains is to be expected, and I would support putting the main page of the board on pause while the community works out the details on its talk page, but deletion is not needed for that. Schazjmd (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What the RfC found was needed is something completely different to what we have. The arguments that this is redundant relate to the board as established, not the board authorised (for want of a better word) by the RfC. There is therefore no contradiction and the arguments do make sense. Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is basically an attempt at a supervote and is premature. --Rschen7754 19:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus Rschen7754, surely you know better. Supervote? No one is saying to not make a board, they are saying that a discussion should have taken place instead of one person starting a page and have it turn into an unstructured mess. The RFC authorized a STRUCTURED board. We need a new RFC to decide the scope and format. That is what should have taken place. The issue that it will exist, that is already decided, but this format is unworkable and in fact, is contrary to the original RFC. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like AAR, and I don't think it'll solve anything, but MfD is not the right venue for this. Procedural keep. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - edit: I've struck my !vote, just because I sort of agree with some of the "delete and re-think/plan better" comments. In the end it really doesn't matter, we just need to find a way to agree and do this right.19:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC) I'm beginning to regret voting for this in RfC, but if it can become what was promised, being a drama-free board to get feedback for administrative actions, and not a place to look for anything other than that, it might be useful... I hope that's not asking for too much. That said, I'm afraid this MfD itself is a bit premature. In my opinion, even a unanimous "delete" would not prevent somebody from simply recreating the board, as it was decided by consensus. ASUKITE 19:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No board that handles user behaviour or use of their special rights will ever be drama free, be it the common kicking and yelling free-for-all of ANI or the slighlty better organised and disciplined Arbcom - that's why we call them 'drama boards'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. I have a tendency to think that more rules / more policy somehow equates to improvement, but it's starting to look like some things are just unavoidable. ASUKITE 19:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what wikipedia does not need more of is wall-o-text noticeboards for busybodies to hang around --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question - several individuals have said that this should be deleted because it's in opposition to what the RfC included. This would actually be a reasonable grounds for complaint, but I'm missing what significant way that is. Could individuals favouring that position cite bits of either the proposal or the close and the in-violation bit of the current nature of XRV? Nosebagbear (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    ANI for admin actions with the same walls of text, freewheeling discussions, etc. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    (edit conflict) A good example, given the comparative rapidity of closing of off-topic discussions, I would say the clerking aspect was met, but certainly it couldn't be said to be structured at the moment (personally I dislike the AE level of structure as it leads to admin-dominance, but it is a model). While (as of the start of this MfD, I've not checked on the myriad posts in the last couple of hours) there are some individuals on the XRV talk page who are stressing teh need for additional structure, I've not seen any full proposal of a structure to actually adopt, and without that, it seems odd to jump directly to an MfD. (apologies for odd bits, wiki is crashing on me, so this is take 5 of writing) 22:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 22:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFC authorized "a" board. What should have happened next was another RFC to determine the scope and format. All these problems would have been avoided if that happened, and the board didn't become a huge catchall ANI clone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Word limits, clerking, and arbitration enforcement were not mentioned in the proposal or the proposer's rationale, where he refered to deletion review and move review as models. isaacl (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    DRV and MRV are highly policy driven niche boards with relatively low traffic and a core of experienced and likeminded contributors. That isn’t what we have here. There is long standing informal clerking by the regulars at DRV. We can’t possibly develop that kimd of approach without getting the structure right first.
    Spartaz Humbug! 22:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Sure; I'm not discussing the structure of the page or its feasibility. I'm solely commenting on whether or not the items listed by Guerillero were contained in the proposal or its rationale. isaacl (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The actual scope of this board has never been clear and almost every submission to the board has had people complaining that it should be in ANI or AN or somewhere else. Leaving the fundamental question: What is even the point of this board? It's basically just a replica of AN without a clear purpose. If you think there should be a separate board, then y'all need to figure out what it's actually for and make that explicitly clear. As things are now, this just doesn't work and should be started from scratch with an actual decision on what it's supposed to be before implementation. Which should have been done in the first place here, but was clearly not. SilverserenC 22:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Let's see if it can be fixed. The editor corps feels the need for something. The admin corps will never permit admin recall,
    WP:AN
    is specifically designed for admins to consult with each other about how deal with complaint, which if the defendant is an admin herself that's problematic (others can participate, but the admin corps disposes, basically), so some sort of pressure release valve is needed. If not this, then what. The admin corps is 99+% fine folks doing 99+% fine actions, but still, it is frustrating and alienasting when an admin treats you badly or makes an egregious error (rare, but happens) and there's nothing to be done about it.
Something is wrong: we promoted seven new admins last year, I think. Seven. That is not sustainable, and there are other problems too. We need to do something. Yes using this board for rollbacks is silly, but I mean consider: User:David Gerard went off the rails (happens; maybe he's having a rough patch or whatever) and a regular editor would have surely taken a block, but he won't, and some editors don't necessarily find that a lovabe quirk in the system. It's early; let's look at in a couple months, work on tightening the rules, and if it's still now working I'll be glad to vote to delete it. There's no super hurry. Herostratus (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DG using first mover advantage to enact a policy based but still controversial change is hardly new. I remember when he and another admin removed all the spoiler tags from mainspace to a raucous reception. Happy days,
Spartaz Humbug! 22:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Administrative_action_review&oldid=1065920162"