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

No consensus closes

What exactly is the immediate impact of a "no consensus" close wrt an admin action? Is it to allow the action in question to stand, or would it be a reversal of that action to the status quo ante bellum? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It should be read as "no consensus to overturn". The admin action would therefore be allowed to stand.-- Aervanath (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that'�s the standard at all WP procedure. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Good question Chess. I'd say the immediate impact is exactly that the community at large gets a bit short changed while the admin corps gets a free-pass on accountability by virtue of the closure itself. DGG and Aervanath were correct in their respective answers regarding how things are done in practice, but perhaps, could acknowledge that discussions of admin actions that achieve no consensus at closure should overwhelmingly reverse the action and, as you have said, restore the status quo ante bellum. I believe if admins actually held their selves to a higher standard instead of just saying they are held to a higher standard, things would be a lot better. Thanks for your question and be well.--John Cline (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Reversing is also an action unto itself. An appeal is a request to take an action (that action being reversal) and if there is no consensus to take the action, the action isn't taken (challenged action is not reversed). — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I held the same belief as you Alalch Emis, until a recent re-read of WP:NOCON. Please read it yourself and let me know if it affects your answer. Thank you and best regards.--John Cline (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

In the interest of focusing on this review process, perhaps we could have discussions about Wikipedia great wrongs on another page? isaacl (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

My comment is about this review process, I mistakenly used a metaphor in poor form and have removed the inconsiderate flippancy by copy editing the prose. I meant to suggest that we can either keep doing things as we have, or we can begin doing things as we are supposed to. I do know that the difference between interpreting the review of an admin action that achieves no consensus upon closure to mean "do nothing; maintain status quo" instead of "reverse action; restore status quo ante bellum" is huge. And choosing to do it wrong doesn't make sense to me.--John Cline (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not feel it is suitable, in this discussion, to attribute a majority of ills (by any metaphor) to a single labelled group of editors. isaacl (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand what you meant now. I agree, apologize, and have modified the prose to remove the indiscretions. Thanks for setting me straight.--John Cline (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, usually due to the structure of WP:WHEELWAR, if an action performed by another admin is reverted it follows WP:BRD more or less. If an action is challenged we reverse the action if there's no consensus. This would be a somewhat big change. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@John Cline:, @Chess:: I don't actually object if "no consensus" means "no consensus to endorse" instead of "no consensus to overturn"; this board is generally intended to mimic WP:DRV and WP:Move review, which use that as a general standard. However, I certainly understand why use of admin tools might fall under a different rubric. I'm not active on WP:AN, so I'm ignorant on what the standard is there for reviewing admin actions. This board is intended to move review of admin actions from WP:AN and change the character of the discussion, not change the standard by which they're judged. I will support whatever is the current practice at WP:AN. Cheers, -- Aervanath (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Aervanath. In all discussion except those listed at WP:NOCON, no consensus does in fact mean that nothing is done and the status quo remains intact. Among the exceptions are admin actions. Because admins are held to a higher standard, their actions are expected to be unequivocally proper and unambiguously clear. A no consensus close (in such a review) is evidence that the reviewed action was questionable and should therefore be reverted (policy at wp:nocon says "normally reverted" so there is room for exceptions, but normally should at least mean most often and it surely doesn't mean never). I need to review the archives for AN/ANI, but I don't think they have a good record of following this and I think they should. Anyway, it is a matter of policy and has been for over ten years. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• An RfC related to this section is in the final stages of development Anyone helping set up this board is welcome to help in its development. Any ideas or help you may wish to contribute before the RfC goes live will be appreciated. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  I should point out that the planned RfC has been marked "historical" and is no longer being pursued. The policy provision that would have been the RfC's crux was removed with this edit and the matter is resolved to where it began; no consensus closures will apparently result in maintaining the status quo.--John Cline (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed rules

Proposed rules:

1. Before initiating a review here, the initiator must have attempted informal resolution. A link to that discussion must be included in the nomination.

2. The initiator must concisely detail the problem, and their desired outcome.

3. In the discussion, others may submit other proposed outcomes. The purpose of the discussion is to seek a consensus on a statement of the problem, and a consensus for the outcome.

4. The discussion must be closed by one or more bureaucrat. Any outcomes established by consensus shall be implemented by the closer.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I strongly believe any discussion of how to structure this should be held at WP:VPP as opposed to here. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Beeblebrox. The current mess is the result of too few opinions being considered before thinking things are ready, if there is any future for this board then that must not happen again. Thryduulf (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that improvements to this page should be discussed at the VPP. The VPP is too noisy, discussion following by Watchlist is nearly impossible, and the bias of active participants is not good. Also, the edit history of the discussion is forever complicated. Have the discussion here. Advertise at the VPP, yes. Transclude the discussion at the VPP, ok. Ratify the consensus developed here at the VPP, in a single thread there, ok. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to discussing some of this at VPP, but I think that before a proposal is discussed there, we ought to first discuss it here, to iron out the different POV amongst editors most interested in seeing this effort succeed. At the same time, I am not convinced that the esteemed and highly knowledgeable eyes that are watching this process now, as it develops, are somehow incapable of achieving a best possible solution, to all things in need of improvement, right here on this talk page. Even with the likes of me involved. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

John Cline was an important person in the start up of WP:MRV. It succeeded, the preceding WP:RM problems mostly went away, and MRV is a pretty orderly process. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Could you give me an example of one other page on this project where its associated talk page cannot be used to discuss improvements to it? – Joe (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice leading question Joe, I expressed my opinion, I never said nor implied it was a rule. I simply feel that gathering the broadest possible spectrum of input will yield the optimal result. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that statement 100%. Would you be satisfied, User:Beeblebrox, if this were to have been well advertised, and if the results are to be ratified at VPP? SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. A reasonable set of XRV rules. — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
       No particular opinion on the requirement that a bureaucrat close. /I had some thoughts on this further down/ — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• Per WP:NOTBURO I don't see the necessity of discussions being closed by bureaucrats. At best, it might be preferable if outcomes that can only be implemented by bureaucrats are closed by bureaucrats, but even then it's not an absolute necessity. JBchrch talk 13:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  The call for bureaucrats as closers is because this page immediately looked like AN and ANI, with its culture of hyperactivity and knee jerk emotion driven WP:Supervote closes. It needs to SLOW DOWN. Bureaucrats are known for calm and conservative calling of “consensus”, not for reactive supervoting. The requirement for bureaucrats to close could be dropped later, but to get it going, this page needs a respectable start. It needs to be the case that outcomes are base on WP:Consensus, and is seen to be closed on WP:Consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose all All this misses the point of the venue. It is not a conduct dispute resolution venue. It isn't RFC/U, there shouldn't be a bunch of statements analysing the problem with editors supporting random summaries, and crats closing discussions as if they lead towards some kind of desysop. Any admin can currently close something at AN like a third-party block review and implement an unblock, so it's absurd to set higher standards here. What this venue should provide is a depersonalised venue for legitimate feedback to be given on the merits of an action, which doesn't happen at AN with its high-temperature atmosphere which often naturally leads to either circling of the wagons or forceful criticism. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that #3 is missing the point of the venue. The venue is intended to review a specific action taken. Thus there isn't a goal of reaching a consensus on some to-be-clarified problem. There is a narrow focus on determining a consensus view on the suitability of that action alone. Other situations will continue to be dealt with elsewhere. isaacl (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  You two are completely wrong. Have you ever participated in reviews? DRV. MRV? Real world reviews? Real world dispute resolution? I have. It is absurd think that this could work blind to conduct.

  Requiring “desired outcome” is exactly what will make it NOT RfC/U. RfC/U lacked constraints, meaning that it could endlessly meander. “Desired outcome” is what ties discussion to the realistic and practical.

  Formal review MUST be a higher standards venue. I really have no idea how you could imagine otherwise, beyond lack of experience.

  Point #3 is necessary. Nominators will include whingers who just want to rant. Others need to be able to respond equally, and with boomerangs. It can’t just be a review of an action, review/resolution processes have to be directed to actionable results.

  I say the original intent was for actions to be dealt with elsewhere. That was stupid. Problem and Desired Outcome have to be different sides of the same coin. Desired outcome can be euphemistic for “what should have been done instead”. The process needs to address corrective actions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  No to real world dispute resolution, but as for real-world reviews, there are some strong differences between real-world reviews and Wikipedia reviews that mean real-world concepts can't really be applied to Wikipedia. For one, there's considerably less fact-finding involved in, or necessary for, Wikipedia dispute resolution. It's more about getting people onto the same page (consensus etc).

  As for actions elsewhere: acting on the conduct aspect of XRV is directed elsewhere. The action itself can be overturned if the consensus is to overturn it. If consensus doesn't endorse the block, it is undone after the review here with no further discussions elsewhere. If consensus doesn't endorse the edit to the title blacklist, the entry is removed. If it doesn't endorse a page protection, the protection is reversed to its previous state. There's not really a need for the nominator to state anything else. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  The nominator must minimally link the preceding attempt at informal resolution, make a concise statement of the problem, and clearly state their desired outcome. Without requiring a preceding informal resolution attempt, the forum is prone to frivolous cases. Without the other two, the process is likely to snowball out of control. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I did not say the review should be blind to conduct. Personally, I think rants should be removed. isaacl (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Isaacl, the question of clerking to remove/move/hide inappropriate stuff is a good question. If poorly done, it can make things worse. I think it is the same question as at RfA. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• I certainly think someone bringing an admin in here ought to have tried to discuss the action with the admin and provide a link to that discussion, but the rest of it, I don't see the point of. A 'crat to close every discussion? Why? —valereee (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• Bureaucrats are not super-closers. I disagree with extending their purview to close reviews of editor actions. isaacl (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  What’s a “super-closer”? Someone who can divine a Wisodm of Solomon close from a rambling mess? No, bureaucrats are not known for that. NAC-ers and admins at ANI are better known for trying that.

  Bureacrats are known for being conservative closers.

  I have reviewed, I guess, a couple of thousand disputed closes over fifteen years. Burearocrats have a style. They are not the “best” closers. I would name two non admins as the top two closers, in terms of ability to read consensus from a complicated discussion. That’s not what’s needed here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• I disagree with using bureaucrats to close the discussions. Any uninvolved administrator should be able to both assess consensus and perform all actions that a bureaucrat can do. Bureaucrats can de-sysop, but this process doesn't allow for the removal of rights as a direct outcome of a discussion as this process is for discussing individual actions. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  In admin action review, the concept of an uninvolved admin will be murky. Bureaucrats are much better selected for ability to read consensus, as opposed to emotional supervoting as is common at AN(I), and is already in the history of this page and it’s MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Like a Constitution coming into force. Later on, it will require amendments. I'll leave the latter bits, up to the rest of yas. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• I just want to note that I also dislike the idea of a bureaucrat being required to close. It seems to be a general concept here that most anything can be closed by anybody equipped to implement said closure, and we should be consistent. It also seems ironically... bureaucratic. I also want to pre-empt somebody coming up with the idea of XRVRV.. can we not? This entire process should just be for feedback or advice – not binding decisions, but most possibly the precursor to such decisions. Just inserting my two cents again, but I fear we are overthinking this. ASUKITE 04:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Multiple issues, but decent starting point - Why on Earth does this suggest needing a bureaucrat to close, I firmly oppose even needing an admin to close. Then point 1 needs to note that the permissions holder themselves may want to bring the case, which obviously can't be solved by informal resolution in the way proposed. And in those cases, and some others, it may be hard to pinpoint a specific desired outcome, unless we want to specifically note "figuring out what a good outcome would be", which is a bit broad. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Alternative rule #4 Each discussion must be closed by a Wikipedia editor in good standing not holding administrator tools. Jclemens (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Again I get what you're trying to get at here and that one of the things we want is an atmosphere that this isn't run by admins (who may be suspected of protecting one another), but that just seems like a magnet for attention-seekers bouncing up and down trying to be the closer. The same people who come into RfA and ask a question because everyone can ask up to two! I could see discussions being closed and reopened and reclosed multiple times because every time someone new stumbles across the noticeboard, that's yet another person who has to learn that just because you can doesn't mean you should. (And in my experience, many don't learn even after they've had the opportunity.) I'm not sure how to avoid that. valereee (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Have you ever seen a bureaucrat, even a future bureaucrat, (post RfB appointees), engaged in an edit war, let alone a discussion close war? SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  SJ, I think what you're getting at is this is another reason we need a bureaucrat to close here? I just don't see the benefit of a crat over any experienced editor. I think any editor who has done a couple dozen closes, including at least a few complex ones with well-thought-out rationales, could probably close here. I don't see the benefit of limiting to crats. It's not like crats aren't (almost always) admins themselves, so they could end up here too. valereee (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose per Valereee and AGF. JBchrch talk 22:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  This will need some rules for closing, until a culture norm for closing is accepted. Most critically, for a difficult and emotive case, the culture of closing needs to be different from the culture of closing WP:AN threads, which I call sometimes hasty and supervotey.

  The advantage of asking bureacrats is that they are already tested and approved on their ability to call a consensus, and they are a steady group. There is no need for micromanagement if the closers are proven good closers.

  Jclemens’ rule against admins is in a similar vein, in addressing the fear that closes could be perceived as admins closing ranks and protecting each other. While this never happens, it is easily mis-perceived.

  If good standing NAC-ears we’re to do the closes, then the process will need explicit closing rules. Does the closer need any experience with the permission that was misused? Is it being assumed that the NAC-er is one of the few pseudo-admin expert closers? SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe: How about this: The discussion can not be closed by anyone other than a bureaucrat if a third of participants in the first seven days have requested that the discussion be closed by a bureaucrat. Making this request would be done as a part of the original (or any subsequent) comment in a particularly formatted way to make it easier to see. (Talking about if a bureaucrat needs to close and about other's requests in this respect would not be allowed). Example: Overturn [BC] (BC meaning "bureaucrat close"). When a bureaucrat has closed, the review outcome can't be challenged at AN. If a sysop or non-admin have closed, it can. This would resolve two things: who can/should close and where can the close be challenged. — Alalch Emis (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  I’ve written a number of times already why I think this page is more likely to take off successfully with bureaucrats doing the closings. A simple rule, which can be weakened much more easily later than introduced later. One of the reasons is that anything else will require complicated rules for closing.

  Your suggestion is an example of a complicated rule. It means that !voting participants must individually be aware of, and think through the question of the closer, and then !vote with a format to communicate their wish. This is a fair complication to their mental effort, which should better be focused on the actual reason for participation.

  I think the closes have to be very conservative closes of the consensus of the discussion; I think the culture of the closings has to be very different from the current culture of closings at WP:AN; I think that the set of bureaucrats have both the capacity and respect for them to do this, and “XRV closes by a bureaucrat” is a very simple rule that will provide confidence to complainees and participants.

  I, 100%, expect that in practice XRV closes will be unchallengeable without destroying the respect for the entire XRV process. Highest court decisions can’t be simply overturned.

  I have fair experience with DRV and MRV, and these processes enjoy the respect that their results deserve. This XRV should be anticipated to make critical statements on actions by powerful personalities, and the risk of XRV failing to win respect due to a dubious close or two is high. I also have fair experience with real world dispute resolution, all of: courts, social-family disputes, and workplace, separately. All depend critically, in terms of practicality and efficiency, on the respect for the decision pronouncer in making a good, and valid, pronouncement. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  I couldn't get crats to agree to, in principle, removal adminship from an admin who says at RfA "My term will expire after ten years" after ten years, if the community supported such an idea. Good luck to getting them to do this. — Bilorv (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  They are slaves to community consensus. If the community consensus is for them to do this, they will. If there is not, they will not. “Support” does not read “consensus”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  If they're genuinely made to do it (doubtful), and are not doing it because they're personally into it, they won't do such a good job at closes. "Oh I have to do this now... eerrm yeah, whatever, 5-3, endorsed." — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  They would have to be asked. They might not agree, but if there were a strong community consensus to ask them, I think they would agree.

  Note that they are to be asked to conservatively call the consensus of the discussion, not to make and express their own judgement. Note that conservative consensus is usually “no consensus”. If a specific question is unsolved by XRV, there would remain the avenue of an RfC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  I understand the critique. It's too complicated. I'm still looking in the direction of a "compromise" however. How about this: The discussion needs to be closed by a bureaucrat when the XRV appellant requests it, but a bureaucrat can decline (it has to be waited seven days for the bureaucrat to accept or decline, i.e. the discussion must be given time to develop). After the first bureaucrat has declined, the discussion can be closed as usual (admin/NAC). The guideline for bureaucrats for when they shouldn't decline is if the matter is WP:TOOLMISUSE or in it's vicinity. — Alalch Emis (talk)

  “XRV closes by a bureaucrat” is too basic for “compromise”. Alternatives? Alternatives could include: “Contested discussions must be closed by a panel of UNINVOLVED experienced closers of consensus-building discussions”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  How about panel (edit: or bureaucrat) mandated if XRV nominator makes a passably coherent sentence in which they cite WP:TOOLMISUSE (you supported linking the policy requirement in #Header suggestions, here's a way to make use of it). Purpose of clerking as discussed in #Clerking could be to designate the appeal as a TOOLMISUSE appeal early on. That would tie everything up: who should close, is it possible to appeal the review close at AN (if a panel/bureaucrat closed – not), does the appeal need to include a policy link (yes), and what could clerking do for the board (categorizing cases) — Alalch Emis (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  What's so special about TOOLMISUSE? Even if there were consensus that an admin had committed a TOOLMISUSE, the power to desysop would still lie exclusively with Arbcom. The involvement of a bureaucrat would not result in a different outcome than a NAC close. JBchrch talk 13:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  TOOLMISUSE involves all of the most serious situations when tool use is inconsistent with policy. This is the proper venue for TOOLMISUSE-based appeals to actions, and not all appeals would involve it. It is not redundant to Arbcom, because this is about overturning an action. An action can be reversed when it is overturned based on consensus that TOOLMISUSE has taken place. In TOOLMISUSE cases, I agree with SmokeyJoe that an extra authoritative close is needed, and that the usual norms for closing (uninvolved experienced editor in good standing) may not be enough. When the thing about a wrong action that is not quite TOOLMISUSE, the usual norms should apply. — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  In TOOLMISUSE cases, I agree with SmokeyJoe that an extra authoritative close is needed. Based on what policy? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy (I know I'm going to get blocked at some point for invoking NOTBURO every three comment) and bureaucrats have no other authority or legitimacy beyond what their tools allow them to do. Some editors, on the other hand, are really good closers and have the chops to read and close difficult and controversial discussions. JBchrch talk 14:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily want to prolong this thread, I just want to clarify that the above ideas about who should close are not based on policy, but are novel (and would require consensus). — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll just chime in here that I can see no reason to saddle 'crats with this task. Look at this. This is every single active 'crat. "Active" is defined for 'crats as one action every three years. We'd be asking a group of about fifteen people to permanently oversee this process, without any apparent consideration of what we would do if they should simply not do so. There is no way to make them do it, nor should there be. This really doesn't align with what is expected of 'crats either. Most of what they do is flipping switches once a consensus is clear, and initiating a "'crat chat" to establish their own consensus when it is unclear. That model would not work well on a noticeboard of this nature. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. Has anyone even asked the 'crats whether they would be willing to do this? Historically they haven't been very receptive to suggestions of giving them more work along similar lines. Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, my suggestion is that we agree that at least one crat close each XRV case (leaving the option for them to do a crat panel). The requirement is call the consensus for the discussion. Is that a big chore? If it is a chore, who else would you trust? There is no asking them to do it as a group.

"Most of what they do is flipping switches" means that this group of highly tested, highly trusted, both with knowledge of permissions and ability to call a consensus under pressure, is a most under-utilised resource. I have read every word in every RfB, and they are obviously the most respected group in the project. It is even a great honour to be seriously considered, including if your fault is being too interesting.

"A noticeboard of this nature"? You mean an AN/ANI-like noticeboard? This is exactly what needs to be avoided. AN/ANI is disparaged, it lakes the confidence of the community. This page needs to be NOT such a noticeboard, but a ponderous review forum. And as a ponderous review forum, it is likely to come up with pronouncements that are both subtle and deep, exactly the sort of thing that AN with it's shoot from the hip closes is not suitable for.

Thryduulf, if there is not consensus to ask them, as a group, then it would be inappropriate to ask them as a group. Individually, they are most welcome to read and comment. If I understand a little bit the way of the crats, they are conservative, ponderous in the crat duties, and think it inappropriate to comment on this while it is a mere discussion with no clear support. However, if the community expressed a clear consensus that the community would like them to do this, be the consensus callers of XRV cases, then I am sure they would do it. And if cases lagged too long without closing, then we can change the rules, or we can allow someone else to boldly close in a serious, conservative, crat-like way. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's the thing: One thing they do is close RFAs. There are clear numerical rules for passing and failing. Closing an RFA outside the discretionary zone actually requires no judgement at all, you just need access to the ability to flip the switch. Another crat task is assigning the "Bot" permission. WP:BAG does the actual vetting of the bot op and the bot's proposed function, and once it is approved, 'crats grant the rights. These two tasks are the bulk of the modern 'crat workload. I have nothing but respect for them as a group, they are all highly trusted users, but their primary task clearly is not evaluating consensus in long, involved discussions. That is primarily done by any old admin or other experienced user on every other noticeboard we have. While I would trust them as a group to do this, there is no reason to expect it of them, exactly because there are so few of them. They are able to handle the current workload because RFAs and new bot approvals are not something we see several times a week, or even several times a day, as it seems will be the expected norm at this board. It simply is not a fair request to make. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Closing RfA's was supposed to be per consensus. I consider the numerical clamps placed on RfA reducing bureaucrat discretion to have been insulting to the bureaucrats. In RfBs, candidates are challenged and assessed aggressively on their ability to read consensus. Asking them to close consensus discussions on reviews of the correct applications of admin functions, which they grant, seems to me perfectly reasonable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There only needs to be one new rule for now. Self-reporting only.
We can figure out the other rules later. If someone does something that you think needs an XRV thread and they won't start one, take it to ANI. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Disagree obviously about the “only one rule”. There is plenty of need for a rule on duration and closing, scope could be implied but a rule on scope reduces the barrier for others, and format is important too.

Are you suggesting that access to XRV should be via WP:ANI? Why ANI and not AN? Isn’t ANI about emergencies that require an administrator to do something, and AN is for issues regarding administrators? I think that expecting a prior discussion at AN, establishing that there is a contentious issue, and that inviting community input at XRV, is a pretty good idea. If fits my belief that this forum needs to be slower than AN/ANI, or else it may as well simply be AN. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I like this...hm...that appears to be not easily pingable via the reply tool? @力? Okay, that looks like it worked. FWIW, user:powera doesn't appear to be helpful for contacting you? So we maybe require contact with the admin in question and try to deal with the issue. The admin in question then could choose to open a section here, in which case they could choose their preferred format. Which provides to an admin the motivation to open the section yourself. valereee (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Length of discussions

I’d suggest we had a minimum period before any thread can be closed. That takes heat out of discussions at DRV and ensures all the arguments can be aired and makes a clear point this is a place of considered judgement and considerstion rather than a kangeroo court. Shall we say 72 hours is the minimum time a thread should be open for? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

DRV is a week, sometimes longer, with things closed early for self-reverts and other things that moot a discussion. This board isn't for anything remotely urgent, so I would tend to prefer a week for consistency's sake, and if anything to allow even more laconic deliberation. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, 72 hours, perhaps more. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I only suggested 72 hours as I thought a week would not be supported. I’d prefer a week myself in truth, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I think a set review period is a defining feature of DRV and MRV and in a positive light. I would support that here. Where it gets tricky is things that might be more time limited. But we can figure that out. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

You can snow at DRV but its usually short-circuiting in really obvious cases, here I’d image it would be even less frequent unless both side have reached agreement or an admin agrees to reverse themselves. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The current guidance for this review process is already 7 days (as determined in previous discussion). isaacl (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• I think, as per my proposals that threads must be closed “per consensus”, by a bureaucrat, that the thing that must be avoided is too-fast Supervotey closes. I mean, if a close on this board is a bad close, where to from there?
  I think the expectation should be 1 week, and meaty discussions might stay open for several weeks, just like DRV, MRV, and MfD discussions on difficult complicated cases.
  Speedy closes should be criteria-based and unambiguous. Speedy closing an appeal against a perceived procedural injustice can be so easily perceived as closing ranks. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we can just use common sense. Everyone knows if you close something too early that close will be reverted. Some complaints will deserve speedy closure, and I doubt a codified set of rules will anticipate all of these situations. Really I think less structure is better. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• I think 7 days as a guide is probably good, but really discussions should be closed when it's clear one of the following situations applies
  1. XRV is clearly the wrong venue for the report, or it's otherwise not relevant (e.g. it's spam, unintelligible, just a rant, etc.)
  2. Everybody has come to a clear agreement and discussion has basically finished
  3. There is a clear consensus among uninvolved parties and even though not everyone is happy there is no likelihood of that changing
  4. There is very clearly no consensus and no likelihood of consensus, especially if more heat than light is being generated. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Minimum durations can actually backfire. If someone is blocked and the action is being reviewed, do we really want to say they must wait a week even if the block is obviously bad? If we have to have a minimum, 24 hours is plenty. That is the same minimum we have for ban discussions, which are obviously more impacting than the average review here. WP:COMMONSENSE should apply. I'm reminded of a sign I used to have in my office, "Make any task idiot-proof, and they will just make a better idiot.". Duration isn't a guarantee of quality or justness. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Just for clarity: with the exception of cases with overwhelming support, community site ban discussions now require a minimum of 72 hours of discussion. isaacl (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think rather than using a time limit, a limit on responses and replies should be used. As some of you may have seen, I've been involved in some needlessly long threads recently, and a lot of that is the same people, who will never agree on each other's points, talking back and forth.

The editor under review should be able to respond to each statement, if they wish to rebut or offer a counterpoint. The editor who made the statement gets one reply back, and that's it. At that point arguments and points have been made and there ratio of progress to drama quickly begins to shift in the wrong direction. Other editors can make a single reply to another editor's statement, to point out anything they see as incorrect, or to offer additional information. The original editor can make a single reply to that editor, which will hopefully be a concise, "thanks, I see, I've changed my !vote," or, "sorry, not convinced." Editors offering the same response, argument or information to multiple editors get warned, then page blocked off it continues. The information is already there, AGF that participants are reading the whole thread.

This process is supposed to be smooth and drama free, and extended back and forth arguments between people who won't ever agree are the easiest way to ruin a discussion, and create enmity between editors. These limits will also cause discussions to come to a natural end much quicker when statements have been made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

There are occasions however where it takes multiple messages to reach an understanding, each step making progress. One size, maximum or minimum, does not fit all. Rather unproductive discussions should be shut down as soon as they are clearly unproductive rather than have an arbitrary limit that hinders productive discussion too. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Then you take it to one of the editors' talk pages, and leave a little note saying "continuing discussion at User talk: ScottishFinnishRadish" and if an understanding is reached you can just strike out your original, and place your updated statement with a link back to the discussion. Same way extended discussion at RFA is brought to the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Per Thryduulf. JBchrch talk 16:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I am noticing that our model of consensus building through discussion involves an awful lot of commentary that begins with "I think" and hardly enough (if any) bothering to establish any kind of foundation, with something like "in accordance with WP:WHATEVER". The lack of foundation in discussions walled with well intentioned opinion creates opportunity for the belligerents at large who lie in wait to Billy Jack their way in and derail our efforts with every strawman ever known and win battles we'd be better off never having had to fight. It's already happened (with this very issue of duration) where we were attacked about instructions to keep discussions open for 7 days, unable to defend how we came up with such an arbitrary number leading to a strong arm closure of a review on our project page with a closing summary saying in part that "... we would ordinarily [not] have a noticeboard thread open for 7 days ..." diminishing our functional process, sending us cowering away with tails between legs to I think our way into the next attack when they quasi shut us down again with name calling and labels like an embarrassing clusterfuck and the rest as the pull our navigation pointers and direct traffic away. We need to organize better, task force some of this stuff on project subpages with todo list and the likes. When the smaller committee like groups have worked out the foundation details and me-thinked a few reasonable exception examples, then bring it here for the fortifying tweaks the wider view will accommodate. In other let's build this board like a WikiProject. I'm sorry for the rant, and I am not angry with anyone here, I just don't want to see our efforts shamed, and brought to ruin by the fait accompli of a bunch of malcontent haters. All of the dismantling BS was instituted and accomplished durin a single shift at work, while I was away. I swear and promise if I had not been away, quite a lot of that BS would have seen at least a 1RR and maybe a 2RR objection from me. I guess a lot of you were away too, but nothing, as far as I can tell, saw even a 1RR objection, including TB's BS closure which may be one of the worst closures ever. And it will probably survive closure review at AN for lack of gives-a-damn. If you are still here, thanks for letting me vent, and for the record WP:WHENCLOSE is the foundation, showing that 7 days has been right all along, with exceptions of course.--John Cline (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Agree.

  Seven days mean once-per-week editors can participate. Excluding once-per-week editors means biasing towards daily editors, and biasing towards the frenetic. This is undesirable because review processes should be pensive tending ponderous. Review processes are not for emergencies, not even for urgency, but are for reflection and inclusion of multiple perspectives.

  Agree that the quality of closes on a review forum should be of dramatically higher quality than the cultural norm at WP:AN. "Nothing more to be usefully said here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)" is another example of a poor close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  There is no point working on details till we have some idea where we are going, and I see no agreement on that. That's completely different from a wikiproject, which is a group of like minded people who have agreed on a common goal that affects only those who want to work on that, rather than something which will basically affect decision-making in every process in Wikipedia. If we go to committees on different details, they will waste most of the efforrt discussing things that will never be used, just as much as it would be wasted doing the details first here. There is no point focusing on the detail of proposed process when we are proposing something that will in effect be policy; if we don't have agreed principles we will produce a monstrosity which will, just as John Cline says, not be approved; examples of how things work intended to show the feasibility will demonstrate just the opposite if they go wrong. The details we write do not matter; what matters is how we will use them, and the examples show that every bit as much as the present ones at ANB or ANI or DS or ArbCom. We would never have adopted any of them if we thought they would work as they do now. thee's an example--the various WMF procedures for office actions. They have been well designed procedure, because they weren't designed by consensus--but we have rejected them all as applicable here because we disagree with the entire concept behind them. (That we may be forced to submit to them is another matter; there are many things we are forced to submit to by forces outside enWP)

  Here's what I think the problem is: DelRev works because it focuses on articles, not people. No sensible person minds losing an argument at DelRev--no one should be that attached to any one article one way or another. ; any sensible person will mind losing at ANI. We've designed this after the model of ANI, and the people arguing that we should stick with ANI have missed the point completely: 90% of wpedians would never go there if not forced, myself among them. The ones who do like it there are exactly the ones who are too rule-bound, and should never be judging others.

  Perhaps there is a different model: the teahouse, or WP:AFCHD, the AfC help desk, where people are reasonably comfortable with compromise on results they might not really like. I participate there, because nobody will take it personally what I say. I think I'm going to propose that as an alternative tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC) , DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• I think User:Beeblebrox's 38 hour close Wikipedia:Administrative action review#Indefinite block of Desertambition by Ymblanter is a slap in the face to this thread, and to any ideas that this forum will be different to WP:AN. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • This forum is entirely redundant to AN/ANI, has no actual rules, no actual scope, and is supposed to be basically on hold at the moment. It was self-requested review of a single action, and consensus was obvious. I'm pretty much at the point where I'm inclined to just walk away from this hopeless train wreck anyway thougm, so re-open it, or do whatever you want, I really don't care. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

    I don't have an issue in principle with closing discussions with overwhelming agreement early, though I understand the reasoning of those who lean more towards keeping discussions open longer. (On the one hand, there is no urgency in closing the review request in question. On the other, with the process being placed on hold, it's reasonable to close the last remaining request when its outcome is clear.) I appreciate that various commenters over the last few days disagree with the actual rules and scope as written on the process page. Perhaps we can demonstrate the patience that we hope for with participants in all our review discussions, and seek out common ground, including the views of those who supported the original RfC? isaacl (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

    @Beeblebrox Your input is critical to the proper implementation of this page and I encourage you to please stay. I have no legitimacy whatsoever to say this but IMO your close was good, especially since there's no enacted policy at the moment. JBchrch talk 14:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe: What actual benefit would arise from leaving the discussion open until an arbitrary length of time has elapsed? There is no relevant factual information not presented, no relevant policies or guidelines not mentioned, and no likelihood that consensus will change and it's not fair to any party to leave things hanging longer than necessary.

  @Isaaci: Many of the "actual rules and scope as written on the process page" clearly do not have consensus. For example the 7 day duration was based on one person's read of a discussion that was 5½ hours old and where most of the participants were actually in favour of 7 days as a guideline and either explicitly supported or didn't oppose early closures. The thread continued after the instructions were changed and ended without a clear consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  Seven days as a standard with flexbility for specific circumstances, as with most Wikipedia guidelines, has general agreement as no one's argued against it. Having been discussed since mid-December, it has more consensus than a lot of the views that have been expressed in the last five days. I'm the one who continued the conversation, and it did not discuss the 7 day-period. In any case, there are no open requests, so perhaps there can be a focus on working together. isaacl (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  User:Thryduulf, you ask about the relative harm/benefit of leaving the discussion open seven days?

  Seven days is not arbitrary. Seven days is a very standard week cycle. Many non-frenetic editors work according to a workplan, typically a week-based workplan, as opposed to responding immediately off a watchlist, or checking this page at least every day. There is a bias separating these sorts of editors.

  Closing at 36 hours denies non-frenetic editors from being able to take their usual time to contribute.

  This should be a *review* page, not a noticeboard. This page should not be WP:AN, as that would be utterly pointless, as WP:AN already exists. The push to have this page necessarily implied a desire for this page to be *different* to WP:AN. Closing at 38 hours makes the page just like WP:AN, and biases the behaviour on this page to be like it is at WP:AN.

  WP:ANI is for emergencies.

  WP:AN is for non urgent problems that need a fix. When the fix is identified, fix it.

  WP:XRV should be different to WP:AN/I, it should be slower, it should not be for emergencies or things *needing* to be fixed quickly. The benefit of leaving the case open for a minimum of seven days, is the same as for leaving DRV, MRV, XfDs open for a minimum of seven days, is to support a culture non-frenetic participation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Well that would certainly discourage me from bringing a review of my actions to this board rather than AN. When the consensus is clear I want to be able to move on, and very likely so will whoever was impacted by my action. I don't understand why there is a need foe everybody and their dog to have a say on every discussion? What benefit does it bring for a once weekly editor to agree or disagree with a firmly established consensus? Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  I do discourage you from bringing a review of your own actions to this XRV. You should use WP:AN if all you want is quick comments. This review forum is better reserved for actual difficult questions.

  If you really want to bring your action for review here, I guess you must not be stopped, but why do you want only the opinions of frenetic editors?

  Do you really think 36 hours of the quick responders establishes consensus? I don’t. Have you ever seen the plots of RfA versus time? Often, these show +ve SNOW-worthy support over the first 36 hours, before some deeper things are raise, and the percentage support swings.

  Consensus requires discussion. It requires early opinions to be challenged, and reflected upon. Consensus is made clear by participants expressing explicit agreements, it is not made clear by counting votes.

  I think your comments suggest that you don’t understand “consensus”, and you confuse it with “we need a decision quick”. 36 hours is not consistent with the meaning of “review”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• The notion that we take 7 days to discuss a single use of rollback is obviously ridiculous. Everyone agrees with that right? So the scope question is directly tied to the length of discussion question. DRV and MRV discuss important things (global consensus as to whether a page should exist or what title it should have). Admin actions can have equal or higher importance, but not every use of any advanced permission is important. So if we have a broad scope, we need flexibility with regard to things like minimum discussion time. A day is good for some things, 72hrs for others, a week for the most important. As it is now, it takes 72hrs to site ban an editor and 7 days to delete a page, so those are benchmarks of importance that can guide us. Levivich 15:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  The need to review a single rollback action was not the driver for this page. I think a minimum standard for a rollback review is that it has already generated a dispute in the attempt at informal resolution.

  Special:PermanentLink/973319444#RfC: Increase minimum length for site ban discussions was a 5 week RfC establishing 72 hours minimum for CBANs. Is a CBAN discussion a formality, or a check that CBAN criteria are met, or a review? I don’t think CBANs fit the meaning of “review”. A worthy review would be more like a review of a case of a contested appeal to reverse an alleged improper CBAN.

  Another benchmark would be the standard time for an RfC.

  Is XRV supposed to be an invitation to the wider community to participate? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  And we're back to there being no agreement about what the purpose and scope of this page is. If the purpose is to act as a place to look over any admin/advance permission action then some things will have a clear consensus after less than 24 hours, others will have productive discussion ongoing after 2 weeks. If however this is to a board that only reviews things that have already had substantial discussion elsewhere (like MRV and DRV) then a minimum seven day period seems more reasonable as things are almost never going to be clear cut. Until we know what the consensus is about which of these XRV is I think continuing this discussion is pointless. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  The purpose, and the way it works, are intimately tied questions, not separate questions each preventing the other from progressing.

  What opposition there was at the RfC was mostly about it overlapping with WP:AN. It reached consensus despite that minority criticism. This implies that the support was for a page to avoid overlap with WP:AN. A key point is the word “review” in the title of this page, vs “noticeboard” in the other. Obviously, it is to be like DRV (the single obvious exemplar of admin action review), and unlike WP:AN.

  Editors who opposed in the RfC on the basis of overlap with WP:AN, and who now push to make it function like WP:AN, ought to reflect on what they are doing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Third party requests

While third party appeals are generally not allowed, Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Appeals by third party says "Any editor may request community review of blocks they believe are out-of-policy, ... Such reviews are not considered block appeals". This policy provision was adopted pursuant to: RfC: Can editors request community review of the blocks of others?
While the language is specific to "blocks", I think its remit provides a sufficient basis for us to acknowledge that third party requests are appropriate for any in scope review as long as all other filing requirements have been met.

Discussion of third party requests

• Support allowing third party initiated requests for all in scope reviews.--John Cline (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not so sure. What I find problematic is the fact that this request isn't explicit in what it would cover and not cover. Vague proposals are how we got the confusion with this board to begin with. I can possibly see it cover more than simple blocks, but would need more detail to actually support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  The only thing I am hoping to establish is that third parties may initiate a review for any admin or advanced permission action that is within this board's scope (where scope is debated and further defined elsewhere) which they believe is inconsistent with policy, guidelines, and/or expected decorum and best practice as long as all other filing requirements (where said requirements are debated and further defined elsewhere) have been met. I am deliberately not trying to define the scope or the requisite filing requirements here because they are being discussed in other sections. I'm not trying to be vague, but I am trying to focus discussion in this section on whether third parties can initiate reviews on this board or not. And I'm counting on others to bring in the additional insight that will help tweak this proposal to its best end. Thank you for yours. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  I get it, and it's a question worth asking, I'm just wondering if it is being asked too soon, before the scope is defined. So many questions out there being asked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• If a sysop makes a bad block and the user quits Wikipedia as a result, then there's been an error of the kind this forum was set up to review. Scrutiny of such an event ought to be possible somewhere, and if not here, then where? But I think we should confine ourselves to reviewing the decision. We shouldn't formally confirm or overturn a block without the involvement of the affected user.—S Marshall T/C 02:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the user has left the project, they have been stigmatised and probably has no intention of returning anyway, so such a 3rd party request is a solution looking for a problem and just another excuse to discredit an admin. If the user is still around, surely they can speak for themselves and don't require any uninvited proxies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  In my observations, assuming bad faith of everyone, in all things at all times is the wrong premise to build an opinion on. And it clearly has a negative effect on any conclusions reached. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, you've a right to your own say. Esteemed regards.--John Cline (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You missed the point I was making John. Never mind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Probably OK - for example if someone sends a massmessage, I don't think that only the recipients of the message should be able to question if it was appropriate. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support I've seen a large amount of bad indef blocks; usually they are of an editor who thinks that they are trying to do the right thing but have no understanding of how the weird alternate universe of Wikipedia editing works. And then an admin makes an indefinite block without really learning that or the situation, and the no other admin wants to take the "impolite" action of intervening. These really need involvement of a more experienced editor, including in making the request for review. North8000 (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Xaosflux and North8000. The forum should treat the request independently of who made it—if it's out of scope, disruptive or unproductive then the thread should be closed regardless of who initiated it. — Bilorv (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. In line with the purpose of this page, which is admin/perms accountability. JBchrch talk 23:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Archiving criteria

Regarding this edit: depending on the frequency of review requests, perhaps configuring a minimum number of threads to be left by the archiving bot won't be a problem in practice. But in principle, I don't think reviews should be left on the page for an indefinite amount of time, just because no later requests have come in. Personally I would prefer not having a configured minimum number of threads. isaacl (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have strong views about it. The rationale for the change was mainly that an empty page can have a "chilling effect" on potential filers, and that having discussions left on the page can be useful to help editors understand what this page is about and how it works. I agree that sections should not be left there for an indefinite amount of time, but perhaps this can be solved through manual archiving in case the problem arises and it is determined that it's preferable for a thread to be put away. In other words: my position is that the principle sould be to leave threads up, and the exception should be to archive them if necessary, leaving the page empty. JBchrch talk 00:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

While an empty page can have a chilling effect, and a page with recent cases can be inviting and provide an example, I don’t think leaving very old cases is the way to go. If an example is desirable to show the way, maybe consider a non-real example. Maybe a simple but detailed instructions are sufficient. This page should be for serious things, not for newcomers with personal complaints.

I think recent cases should stay on the page for a fair time, but not indefinitely until new cases push it through. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I propose (and set):

maxarchivesize = 750K. Not 250K. Larger is better for the rare need of wanting to search the archive.

minthreadsleft = 0. Not 2. If there are no new cases, don’t leave the last two forever. If examples are needed, write an example into the instructions.

algo = old(14d), not 7d. Cases should be open a minimum 7 days, and a serious difficult case would probably go several weeks. On closing, it will probably get hatted, but leave it longer to allow participants to easily review. Leave the close edit on watchlists, don’t replace the close edit with an archive edit on peoples watchlists. The real purpose of review processes is not to fix wrong decisions, but to provide ongoing continuing education, and participants *should* read the closed case again, at their leisure. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

User:JBchrch, your edit, back to 250K, stating “750k will simply not load”.

Can you explain please?

For an example, User talk:DGG today is 898,174 characters. Page size (pingdom.com) is 1.8 MB. I find that this loads with little problem on any device. On what device to do find 750k will not load?

While very long articles, or talk pages, at hundreds of kilobytes are undesirable, the several reasons are not that the pages won’t load. For archives, the reasons are not really applying. Archives do not get casually read, but are accessed for a specific and deliberate reason. As a wikiarcheologist, I tell you that talk page archives sliced into a multitude of small archives makes archive searching very painful. A simple archive search results in many page hits. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe Yeah, that edit summary was poorly made. My apologies. What I meant to say is that archives of that size were highly impracticable, especially on mobile devices. However, I am convinced by your argument about searches being painful on pages with many short archives. I also see that there are other noticeboards with archives orbiting that size, although interestingly enough there seems to be no set standard in this area. Anyway, will now self-revert. JBchrch talk 02:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn’t asking for a revert, but am myself looking for standards, and not finding them. 250K is not small. On looking, I find many archive settings have large maximum sizes, but the maximum is never even close to reached, eg WT:MRV, where they do yearly archives that are not so large. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• I cannot believe that still -- in 2022 -- so many people don't recognize that these byte counts are meaningless, because the html generated by 500K of source would be totally swamped by even two or three modest-sized images present on the page. EEng 05:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  User:EEng, I knew, but didn't feel the need to comment. I used a page-size tool to check User_talk:DGG, and noted the page size is ~ 2x the character count. He has few images, like most talky pages.

  I saw somewhere there is hard limit of something just above 2000K, so 750K seemed large but safe. There's a bit of space to allow for you to add some image life to this place. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, images don't count toward the 2000K. EEng 12:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Speedy closes

If this page is to serve what the RfC supporters wanted, it needs to be different from what already exists, namely WP:AN. Firstly, it needs to slow down, and this talk page has done that, which is good. Still, a lot more questions need answers too. These include scope, minimum standards for opening a case, and speedy closes.

This case for a review is another unfortunate misfire proving a poor example for what this page could possibly be good for. Admins performing speedy closes with snappy jargon, much like what happens at AN/ANI, is what this page needs to avoid. As with the previous case, in fact every case, where I criticise the style of close, it is not that close is “wrong”, but that this is not how review closes can work with respect.

Considering the Scottwong case, I think it calls for defined requirements for cases and speedy close criteria list objective criteria for an unsuitable case. Requirements/criteria for speedy close could be: initiating editor not in good standing; no prior attempt at informal resolution; no evidence of editors in good standing contesting that the admin action is questionable and worthy of serious review here, evidence probably requiring a thread at WP:AN. Other possible examples that I don’t actually propose could be: two editors Co-signing a review case nomination; an admin agreeing that the admin action is questionable.

In the meantime, trivial junk case speedy closed WP:ANI style just go to demonstrate that this is not working as hoped by the proponents at the RfC. Speedy close criteria are needed, and if a speedy close is not justified by the criteria, better to leave it open for people to opine on what speedy close criterion would cover the unjustified case nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Since the process is on hold, no one's trying to manage requests to follow a specific procedure. There ought to be a disclaimer placed on the page to tell editors to file requests elsewhere. isaacl (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Elsewhere should be WP:AN, don’t you think? I think this spun out of a perception that WP:AN was inadequate, but 8 don’t think that means that WP:AN was incompetent to discuss admin actions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you actually checked the revision-deleted edits the IP was complaining about in this request? The only purpose of the request was to disrupt the noticeboard. It is not a good-faith nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

No, didn’t look. Agree that it was not a good faith nomination, but this page should have formal procedural transparency. I suggest a “speedy close” criterion of “nominator not in good standing”. Before being entitled to come here, the person should be required to get unblocked first. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I generally agree that the discussions should run their time (either a fixed period, or perhaps until during a shorter fixed period a clear consensus emerged), but the discussions where the nominator is not in good standing indeed should be closed early (as they are closed elsewhere on Wikipedia).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Bad faith nominations are certainly closed quickly at DRV. At DRV, nominations are also speedy closed if the nominator is making personal attacks (eg), unless an editor in good standing requests that the review continue.

This page needs rules and formality, and nominators should be heard with AGF, but noting WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If there is not a means of making and enforcing speedy closes in bad-faith cases, the noticeboard will quickly become a forum for long-term abusers of AGF and process like VxFC, resulting in a Droste effect series of recursive complaints. Acroterion (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure; the key point is that since this process is on hold, right now all requests to it are going to be quickly closed. isaacl (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If that's true, shouldn't that be mentioned somewhere (preferably in bold red letters) at the top of the page? —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I said above there should be a notice. I was waiting to see if there are any objections before proceeding. isaacl (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Status of process

Regarding this edit: Based on Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review/Archive 2 § Two suggestions, there was significant opposition to continuing with the operating procedures that are described on the review page. As a result of that section and Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review/Archive 2 § Comment from a new observer, I believe there is a consensus (not in terms of something everyone agrees with, but something that most of the participants can live with) to revisit the operating procedures to seek a broader agreement, with the process being on hold in the meantime. I recently changed the message at the top of the header to reflect that the process should not be used while its operating procedures are under discussion, but there was disagreement with the edit. What does everyone think: should we just let editors know the process is new and norms are being establiished, or should we tell editors not to use the process until its operating procedures are ready? isaacl (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think we should maintain an operational status with the hat note about being a new process with norms in development.--John Cline (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is that there's a lot of different views on what procedures to follow, and so no one can provide any guidance for those filing requests, commenting, or deciding on an outcome. Which means every filed request ends up with a lot of disagreement on scope and procedures. Until there is some agreement, even if only on interim procedures, I don't know how the process is going to work. isaacl (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  The process could work like DRV or MRV. Two functional examples of review processes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, it could work lots of ways, and agreement on one way was reached and written down. But since a consensus was reached to re-examine those procedures and to stop publicizing this review process, how do requests work in the interm, while the procedures are still being re-examined? isaacl (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  You mean the technical questions? Like, can someone make a template for Richie333’s five points? The AN/DRV/MRV/MfD page format (all on one page forever / daily log / monthly log / each case on its own subpage)? This is the sort of thing where the technically competent volunteer gets to decide. Please someone. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Editors have expressed an interest in revisiting matters such as what actions should be within scope, what the format of the discussion should be, how long discussions should be held, and how quickly they should be closed. You made a proposal, Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review § Proposed rules, on how reviews should be conducted and closed. I don't see a consensus yet for Ritchie333's proposed format or anyone else's proposals. If there's no agreement on even an interim set of rules, then there's no way to guide potential participants. isaacl (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  Nonsense. Some things, like the header format, and the page structure, and the colour of the bike shed, are not really that important to be perfect, certainly not so important as to prevent movement.

  In the first reviews, I reckon: Do not try to prescriptively guide participants, short of discouraging knee jerk closes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

  I understand your point of view, and I'm not one of those who asked for the process to be put on hold. I'm just reflecting the discussion that took place, with several people saying that, in spite of the written instructions on the page, the scope and process was unclear and so the process as implemented lacked a supporting consensus. Regarding quick closures, there's no agreement to discourage them (I think more people are leaning towards rapid closures when there are nearly no opposing views), so I don't feel that one guideline should be singled out to be promoted over others under discussion. isaacl (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It should be tentatively operational. The process needs a worthy case or two. A worthy case would be where two administrators already disagree about an admin action. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Of all the archived threads, I most strongly support Ritchie333’s Header suggestions in Archive_2. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• There was consensus to establish this board at a full RfC. It ought to be publicized and working, because that's the community's will. If we're not publicizing it and saying it's non-functional, then we're effectively disestablishing it, which subverts the consensus to say it should be working.—S Marshall T/C 10:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  There was a subsequent consensus to not publicize the process and to revisit the procedures. Personally, I agree that it's problematic to reverse the consensus from a much larger sample of the population, but it's an issue with English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions. We tout that consensus can change, and we require editors to show up again to reaffirm consensus. I think the procedures as written reflect what was agreed to originally (with further adjustments of course always possible), but others disagree, and I have no basis to assume that my view is more accurate than others. isaacl (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  I've been thinking about XRV in the back of my mind for the last couple of weeks and how we find a way forward, because I find the dynamic here isn't great for anyone, neither those who supported the original consensus nor those who showed up with concerns when the board started operating. I haven't thought of a practical way forward that isn't a multipart RfC or otherwise makes participation hard to do. So yes I am concerned but I've been staying quiet because I don't feel like I have much of value to add at the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Significant opposition" if judged by the volume of the voices, maybe. Not so if judged on the merits of the complaints or how informed the people making them were beforehand. Nor, importantly, relative to the level of consensus established in the RfC and subsequent discussions before the throw bomb was thrown in. This is a process aimed first and foremost at—in as polite and constructive a way as possible—holding the "Establishment" of editors with advanced permissions to account. I find it absurd that those very same editors have been allowed to pour cold water on it with silly hatnotes, demands for convoluted consensus-affirming processes we don't use anywhere else, and other such blatantly obstructionist tactics. What happened last month has made me angrier than I have ever been about this project and, if it's not obvious, that's why I've stepped away from XRV and editing in general since. But if others are able to pick up the reins and find a way to getting it up and running again, I would be very grateful. – Joe (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• I’m not aware of any Wikipedia policy that requires a noticeboard be perfect in design and execution before people can use it. The header information currently on the board seems like a reasonable first draft. I’m sure it can and will be refined over time. It’s a good enough start, let’s let people use it and make adjustments as needed. It’s not like someone is going to accidentally get desysopped. 28bytes (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  This had been how we'd been proceeding. Then Fram decided to ask for a review of one of my actions, which (for a variety of reasons) attracted a whole bunch of new people who suggested that's not what should happen. So now we're in limbo. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  That review was a very unpleasant read, made more unpleasant by the antagonistic “clerking” by an editor who thankfully is no longer doing that. I don’t think either you or Fram were incorrect to have the discussion here, but I guess it’s inevitable that edge cases (e.g. is declining to delete something an “administrative action”?) will attract a lot of process/venue objections that a more straightforward block, delete, or protection would. I’m not sure there’s a way to avoid that. It might just be “growing pains” as a consensus develops through trial and error where the line between “administrative action” and “non-administrative action done by an administrator” gets settled. 28bytes (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• The fact that this is still not really operational is not over-ruling the consensus at the RFA RFC. It is unreasonable to have one of the results of an RFC be "we should have a process of some kind", and then a subgroup of people come up with a process and impose it without having a community-wide discussion to say "yes, this is generally the process we want". I don't know how much progress has been made on some of the actual concerns raised last month, but let's assume for the moment they've been addressed. Then a widely-advertised RFC should be a cakewalk. If those concerns have been addressed, I'll certainly support it; if they haven't, I won't. But there has not been any such widely-advertised discussion, a month later. I don't understand the resistance to such a discussion if you think the process is ready. I would be willing to create such a discussion myself, but since Joe Roe - and I assume other people - believes I'm some kind of weasel, only interested in protecting my friends in the Establishment, I doubt that would be seen as helpful. But if anyone thinks this is ready for prime-time, then hold a well-publicized community-wide RFC to confirm it; don't just complain about it not being operational when an RFC is all that you'll need to get it operational. If an RFC confirms it, great. If it doesn't confirm it, then you have no reason to think you should be able to just implement it as is. We require RFCs on all sorts of issues that are lower importance than this; this is not a big ask. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  What are the main unanswered questions/bones of contentions at this point? I checked the WP:Establishment Weasel Working Group talk page but couldn't find a handy list. 28bytes (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  My own personal main concerns a month ago are outlined in my posts in this thread: Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review/Archive 2#What is the problem?. I can't speak for anyone else, maybe they have other concerns I didn't mention. It's a long thread, but also edifying, so I think it's better to point to it than to summarize them again here. But I'll do that for you if you want. Whether some or all of these concerns have been addressed in the past month, I don't know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  OK, so clear understandings of scope, purpose, and organization are all reasonable things to ask for, I think. Scope has a very wide range of reasonable possibilities, from minimalist (block/unblock reviews and page protection reviews only) to all-encompassing, so that might make sense to have an RFC for, to suss out what types of actions can be reviewed. Block/unblock reviews would be the universally agreed starting point, though, right? Once the scope is settled, purpose would be settled too as a side effect, wouldn't it? I.e. to replace AN, AN/I, and/or other venues as the place to initiate discussions about the things considered in-scope for this board. Organization is also something an RFC might be helpful for, although the "noticeboard default" format used by everything from WP:DRV to WP:BN to WP:COIN (someone starts a thread, it's discussed, an uninvolved editor closes it) would seem like a reasonable default until that's hashed out. (WP:DRV in particular seems like a useful model, with "[un]block" swapped in for "[un]delete". It looks like that noticeboard started off fairly modestly before evolving into what it is now.) I may have missed some of the other outstanding questions, though... thoughts? 28bytes (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Process complaint

} Thanks Floq and 28bytes for this conversation. I think it's going somewhere useful. The part that is frustrating from my perspective, as someone interested only in seeing the consensus reached at RFA2021 carried out, is that from the first RfC, including the closing statements, it feels like the scope was decided. Certainly not in complete detail about what is an "advanced permission" but also it's not like there is nothing. So seeking RfC consensus that feels different - and by different I mean an ignoring of the initial consensus - than details about clerking, early closes, and some of the other concerns people have expressed about XRV's running so far. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Several of those asking for changes have made proposals, but I haven't seen a convergence yet upon which a consensus discussion can be formed. As is typical with Wikipedia discussions, all of the interested parties haven't engaged at the same time, which makes any apparent agreement vulnerable to later protests (as happened in early January). I think there was a little burnout; perhaps now we can start afresh by first trying to reach an agreement on scope? Would someone like to write a menu of options for which people can say yes/no? isaacl (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  What might be helpful is to use the text currently in the header (Special:PermanentLink/1069312233) as a starting point and ask what changes the community wants to make to it. For example, entry #1 of "Administrative action review may be used:" is "to review an individual administrator action, including (but not limited to) a block, a page protection, or an override of the title blacklist. Is that fine as is, or do we need to add more examples of administrative actions that can be reviewed here? Entry #2 is to review an individual action of someone using one of the following advanced permissions, followed by a list of advanced permissions. Do we want to leave that as is, add to it, remove some of them, limit the review to administrator actions, or remove the list entirely? Similarly, what do we want to add or remove from the "Administrative action review should not be used:" section, if anything? I'm not sure what the best way to ask that is, in an RFC or otherwise. 28bytes (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  My suggestion is to just have a list for editors to run through: have bullet items for each action, such as blocks, page protection, edit/move through protection, and so forth, and have commenters add a yes or no as a sub-item, with a brief explanation if they wish. Discussion can be held in a following subsection. isaacl (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  If we’re making a list it might be better to list administrative actions that shouldn't be eligible for review here, e.g. deletions (go to DRV instead), moves (go to MRV), etc., otherwise we’re going to potentially have to list dozens of administrative actions in the header and accidentally create a situation where an administrative action we didn’t think of gets inadvertently excluded from review. 28bytes (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  My suggestion for a list is for purposes of discussion. Previous commenters have expressed a view that the scope is unclear, so I think for discussion, it may be good to explicitly list all of the actions. Some of them may be more concerned about actions inadvertently included for review, rather than the reverse. I think the bullet items can mostly correspond directly to a specific permission, and so future documentation can probably take advantage of this. This discussion would help establish a starting point; more actions could be added later if consensus agrees. isaacl (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  I think prescribing a limited list of scope is a bad idea. Exclude deletions in favour of DRV, yes. It’s more important that there was a prior attempt at resolution and an established disagreement, over an admin function. It’s not a first port of call for a complaint or question. It should see trivial cases, and quick closes should not be common. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  If we must reference a list, let's just point to WP:MOPRIGHTS. There's no benefit to reinventing the wheel here. 28bytes (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  Adding: WP:MOPRIGHTS includes (by reference) everything in Special:ListGroupRights#sysop, which is a long list. It's just not feasible to plop a list of over 60 line items in front of the community and ask them to analyze each one for a yay or nay. 28bytes (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  We can roll it up into larger groups of functionality. Actions that require administrative privileges (or, more generally, membership in a specific user group with associated privileges) have a clearcut distinction and could be lumped together into a small number of groups. The fuzzier scope is reviewing decisions where the editor in question chose not to perform a privileged action. More enumeration of the possibilities may be required to help define scope. isaacl (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I would be fine breaking it out like this:

1. Moves and closes of move discussions
2. Deletions and closes of deletion discussions
3. Other closures
4. Blocks, unblocks, and page protections
5. All other administrator-specific actions listed here and here
6. Use of advanced, but not administrator-level, permissions listed in point 2 here
7. Other administrative decisions [left intentionally non-specific]

...with the expectation that #1 and #2 would continue to be handled elsewhere. #7 would cover the situation you describe wherein someone actively declines to do something (e.g. declining to delete a copyvio by removing a G12 CSD tag, or removing a valid report from AIV that then allows a spammer or vandal to continue doing what they're doing.) Would you agree that those 7 cover the broad categories we'd need to address? 28bytes (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

What did you have in mind for other closures? Based on the original RfC, the applicable scope is [a]ny action... requiring an advanced permission and not already covered by an existing process, which I feel is covered by all the other categories. isaacl (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m happy to drop that one if you feel it’s already covered by the others. 28bytes (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• If editors want to hold another RfC to narrow the scope of this board from a specific use of any advanced permission to some subset of advanced permission, they certainly should be free to do so, but that is not a reason to suspend operation of this board in the meantime. The scope was set by the last RfC. We shouldn't need a second RfC to do what the last RfC found global consensus for, which is to implement an XRV board according to the criteria I list in my comment in the next section. That implementation should be allowed to proceed, even if there are parallel efforts to tweak it along the way. Levivich 18:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Levivich how does the scope you're suggesting different from what @28bytes and @Isaacl were discussing above? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure exactly what scope 28 and isaac are discussing above. I'm sure the scope set by the RFC was all advanced permissions. Levivich 04:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Complaints about process

The status is "broken" because so many want things to be exactly their way and won't compromise on setting it up as the most basic of boards, then refining it in baby steps. It's turned into a circle jerk because too many are shooting for perfection on the first go. If you've lived in the world of business, you learn to get it rolling with the least amount of features that work, then patiently improve it over time. It's why I stopped participating, it's become a waste of time. The original RFC failed to set up guidelines for creating the board and it shows. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Determining consensus takes patience and continued engagement by interested parties. I fully understand why many have felt like their time is better spent on other matters. I think there is a middle ground to be found for anyone who wants to keep working towards it, and I hope that all interested editors can help establish a common path forward. isaacl (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is the kind of nonsense that has kept this going for weeks. At some point, you say "good enough to start", then start, then work on ONE flaw at a time. You get the job done. Talk for the sake of talk is exactly why I used the language I used. It is a farce. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

That's what happened at the end of December: people said good enough to start, and started. Then as Barkeep49 said, a number of people showed up and asked for the process to stop. Because everyone tries to work collaboratively, we listened and used the only tool we have to resolve disagreements: we talked about them. My personal inclination is to let the process go and adjust it on the fly, but it's not up to me to unilaterally override the results of the discussion that asked for it to stop. Even you asked for another RfC. If there is a new consensus to just go ahead and start taking requests again, that would be great. isaacl (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown it was declared "good enough to start" but when it did start it was found that it wasn't actually good enough, so it was stopped so it could be worked on - which is exactly what should happen when the first test of something fails. Just because agreement on what version 2 should look like is taking a long time doesn't mean we should restart with version 1 before the agreement is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying that, and you know that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

If that is not what you are saying then I did not know that. Now that I know that is not what you were saying I don't know what it is you are saying. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• Global consensus to establish this board was subsequently overridden by a local consensus to disestablish it. Nobody is gonna waste their time with this if a handful of power users will just undo it in a one-day vote. Levivich 15:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  That's not what happened. Consensus in an RfC about what a number (some or many, depending on POV) feel to be an unrelated or at best tangentially-related issue (RFA) was to develop some sort of board by this name that would handle various vaguely specified things in a vaguely specified way (Consensus #1). A group of editors decided on a process, and some but not all the specifics of that process, and declared it operational by local consensus (Consensus #2). Then there was a high profile report that brought the board to the attention of editors who were not part of that local consensus, the combination of report and new editors highlighted that the structure was incomplete and that the local consensus was not always in accordance with the consensus of a wider set of editors. There was then a local consensus (Consensus #3, wider than #2 but narrower than #1) that operation of the board should be paused until there was a consensus on various issues including (but no limited to) matters such as scope, duration and early closures. Such a consensus would be Consensus #4 (or possibly a series of consensuses on individual matters), which should be at least as wide as #3, but it currently does not exist. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  No, it wasn't for "some sort of board by this name". Let's remind everyone of the exact RFC question:

  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.

  And the closing statement:

  There is consensus to implement this proposal. The consensus is expressed in the number of votes, but more importantly, we find the arguments of the supporters stronger. The main supporting argument is that we need a process which would be a middle ground between AN/ANI and arbitration cases; it is structured and aimed at discussing a single action, not the total contributions of a user. Many of those opposed state that such a process is not needed and is covered by existing processes. Clearly, the supporters think it is needed, and if it turns out to be useless it will naturally die. Furthermore, some of the opposers mention that the proposed process is similar to WP:RFC/U, which is considered to be not a net positive process due to its acerbic nature. However, there is a clear difference between the proposed process, which is about evaluating a single action, and RFC/U. Finally, we note that the process as proposed is not just about the evaluation of administrative actions, but about all advanced permissions, and thus also applies to non-administrators.

  So, there is global consensus, based on number of votes and strength of arguments, to implement (not further discuss the possible implementation of):

  1. A new process
  2. Called "Administrative action review (XRV)
  3. To determine whether an editor's specific use of an advanced permission is consistent with policy
  4. "Advanced permission" includes but is not limited to admin tools
  5. Structured discussion format
  6. Open to all editors
  7. Closed by an uninvolved administrator
  8. The consensus should "endorse" or "not endorse" an action or set of actions
  9. The board doesn't act on the consensus; acting on the consensus is handled by existing processes

  There is no question about scope. The scope is any use of an advanced permission. Duration isn't an issue that needs to be addressed before the board can open: it's only an issue at all because of the quick-closing of one of the threads (IIRC by someone who opposed this proposal). It wasn't "declared operational" by a local consensus, it was decided by global consensus to implement this, which means: make it happen. Not talk about it, do it. And it was done, until it was undone. Levivich 18:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that's my point - "a new process" not "this process". Some of the specifics were worked out, some were not. A local consensus said it was ready to implement, a wider consensus said, after it was implemented, "actually, no it isn't ready". If there was no question of scope why have we spent nearly 2 months failing to agree on what the scope is? Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• If this ever restarts, could someone please let me know so I can put it back on my watch list? Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• There is (was?) productive work being done above by Floq, 28bytes, and isaacl to actually move things forward. What we have here are complaints about how we got here. I made my own complaint about that, so I'm not saying that we shouldn't have this discussion, but I don't want this discussion to derail that actual forward progress. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • My complaint isn't just about how we got here, but also about where we are and how we're moving forward. But I'll make another post in the other section for clarity. Levivich 18:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

    I don't think the recent conversation 28k and isaac were having about scope in anyway contradicts or undermines the 9 items of consensus you identified from the original RfC. But if you have thoughts on that conversation by all means participate. For myself, it seemed like the best thing I could do was let people making progress towards consensus do that work, which originally meant writing nothing and now has meant creating this section, hatting myself, and making these comments to continue to preserve the space for that work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• An oft critique of proposals like the ones that sent us on this course to redefine the board's scope is that "it's a solution in search of a problem". The liberal scope of this board had nothing to do with the actual problems that brought about all of the current criticisms but in fact a pre-defined "out-of-scope" criterion did. I personally don't have a problem with limiting the board's scope but neither do I have a problem with listing an advanced permission as in scope that may rarely if ever generate discussion. Before all of this insistence on one RfC after another, bold editing was working fine and if someone would have removed AWB from the board's scope suggesting that VPT would be a better venue for such review, it very well might have stuck. And other permissions like new page reviews and the AFCH script too. In my opinion, we need to get back to some of that bold editing, refine the board's scope like we inevitably would have, and get back to doing some live reviews. And mostly, don't write this board off, help us make it better; help us get it right. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Practical Scope

So the question is, what is really going to end up here? If you look at that long list of other tools, as long as the action taken isn't by someone who is also an admin, the usual systems will generally handle the situation. "The usual systems" ranges from a mere revert to an appeal venue or noticeboard. And in the cases where an admin action in blatantly and undeniably egregious, another admin might handle it or arbcom will. But these serious clear-cut ones are rare.

And so what's really going to come here is alleged or actual admin mis-actions or mistakes. This can be via use of their tools, use of their imprimatur (e.g. intimidation), or something they influenced another admin to do for them. For these, other admins don't review or take action for various reasons. At the top of the "reason" list is that such is considered to be an impolite thing to do to a fellow admin. Further down would be it being people that they know, the fact that the noticeboards are more oriented towards bad behavior than errors (and thus seldom handle errors), and assigning too much weight to them having an established reputation.

So, to put it simply, I think that the main usefulness and scope of this will be review of admin actions taken by use of their tools, imprimatur, use of non-admin tools under their imprimatur, or influencing of other admins. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Applying the scope of AARV review

I am curious, and for clarification ask: why, exactly, was Wikipedia:Administrative action review/Archive 1 § Draft:Ashanti traditional buildings closed as being out of scope for the AARV process? I understand that AARV is not for reviewing actions that already have an existing review process but nowhere do I see the restoration of a deleted page as being reviewable at DRV. I also understand that the discussion's background information mentioned a csd-g12 speedy deletion (which is in scope for DRV) but, considering that the AARV-notice was published on Jimfbleak's talk page,[1] naming him as performer, the csd was not the action under review but instead the non-policy compliant/out of process page restoration that was. Please help me understand how the page restoration is out if AARV's scope. Thank you --John Cline (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Good question. Casting the worst possible light, it looks like certain editors are intent to running the page AN/ANI style, which is "shoot-from-the-hip" style, get to answered and closed, and move on, and with a motivation to prove that this page is a failure. The speedy closes need to stop. The speedy archiving too. We had an explicit discussion on the auto-archiving, respect please. Review means contemplative, even ponderous. It means slower. I have proposed reserving closes to bureaucrats, which would solve this very problem. Cowboys don't pass RfB, instead they are active at ANI. Now, cowboys are important members of society, but they are not ordinarily the most suited to sitting on review panels.

I propose that all past closers and archivers of Wikipedia:Administrative action review cases be banned from any further closes, archiving, hatting, or refactoring. Give further consideration to leaving closes to bureaucrats, I bet they will accept if it is consensus to ask them, and there can be a backup rule that any editor may close a discussion if no bureaucrat has closed within one week of a request posted at WP:BN. The damage in letting a pedestrian XRV case sit closed for a seven day minimum is far less than the ongoing damage of cowboys running the show.

-- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

More workable,universal and obvious would be: Anything (except for slam-dunk vandalism or nonsense) that comes here should get a discussion, even if the discussion is about whether or not this is the appropriate venue. One person should not be unilaterally ending or preventing a discussion based on their personal interpretation/opinion on whether or not it is appropriate here. And the close should be based on the discussion, not the closer's personal opinion or interpretation of the rules. North8000 (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd add anything that is unarguably in the wrong place - such as matters where no action has taken place and have not been rejected (e.g. if someone asks "can you make this protected edit request" or "can you unprotect this page" and an admin says no, a review of that decision is at least arguably in scope. If no request has been made it definitely is not) and comments that clearly asking for something other than a review of an action that is (or possibly is) in scope for this page (e.g. something that belongs at WP:PERM or on an article talk page). TLDR: If it's clearly nonsense, vandalism or misplaced it can be speedily closed, if it's none or unclear then it shouldn't be. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Firstly, I am a former closer of AAR, as the very first person to close a case. That was because it had over a dozen editors in favour of undoing the action and no-one had mooted a week's minimum time. So I am somewhat insulted to be included in this definition and banned group. I assume, of course, that you vetted every single close before writing your statement, as to do otherwise would itself be a "cowboy action", n'est pas? More generally speaking, I am in favour of requiring proper discussion for non blatant cases and if the community wants a week for them like DRV, that's fine and could certainly be justified. I am staunchly against limiting it to Crats. We do that for extremely specified aspects fundamental to the very existence of Crats. There is no reason that we need to limit closes to even admins, let alone 'crats. I would change my position on the entire concept to oppose were that to be implemented. Between scale and unsuitability it's like using a oil rig to break a walnut. Rules on minimum time would serve the same purpose without the major negatives of limiting to crats. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You closed at 47 hours on the basis of "seemingly clear rough consensus". You were the leader in taking the culture of the review page in the wrong direction of knee jerk speedy closes without regard to any standard of a review process. If this criticism “insult”s you, then you are not a suitable person to be closing potentially hypercritical reviews of your colleagues actions. What are the negatives of limiting closes to crats to which you allude? You think crats are like oil rigs? You think reviews of challenged administrative actions are like walnuts? You are not a worthy leader here. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose crat-only closures, for the same reasons. While a minimum time is good in theory, it should be applied with common sense. For example if someone brings an individual action for review here and the initial response from the person who performed the action is to agree with the poster and undo the action then it doesn't need to be open for a week, especially if the requester didn't discuss it with the performer before bringing it here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If common sense were sufficient, why is it not working? You oppose crat closes for the same unstated reasons? What is the negative of a crat close? Are they too slow to get a sense of the room in their guts in making "seemingly clear rough consensus" closes? Do formal closes of review discussions hold up any other process, or impact any reader? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

There's also just plain ol' no need for any special tools to close these discussions. If an action is not clearly endorsed all that happens is it gets kicked back to the existing processes at WP:AN. If there's any discussion where you think you need someone "higher up" to make a closure, then it's not a clear enough consensus to endorse the action. Also, there's nothing to stop anyone from just bringing the action up for review at AN/ANI anyway. It would be easier and less dramatic to just have a bot count endorses vs not endorses, set a minimum !vote threshold for closure, and the ratio of endorse to not endorse necessary for it to be considered endorsed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

It’s not need for special tools, but to acknowledge the potentially very high stakes of a close here, and the desirability for confidence that the close is of the highest standard. Crats have the vetting for this. “Is not clearly endorsed” is not the basis of a good close. Anyone can bring anything up at AN/ANI true, but the important point is that the community does not have faith in AN/ANI for reviewing complains about administrative actions. Bot count closes?! The drama of team voting tactics, late pile on to beat the bot’s clock before others notice? I guess you don’t know the crats, they are not known for their drama creation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

There are actually no stakes to a close here. There is no outcome other than "endorsed" or "not endorsed." If the close isn't endorsed it still has to go to AN for any sort of action, and the consensus established here wouldn't be binding. If the community doesn't have faith in AN/ANI for reviewing complaints about admin actions, it doesn't really matter, because the complaint still has to go there to have any action taken. This is just an optional, non-binding step before going to AN, so there's really no reason to bog it down with things like bureaucrat closes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You’re arguing the unimportance of the process as a reason to treat it without importance. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm arguing that the stakes of a process should inform the level of care taken in closing. If there are no real stakes, i.e. no one is losing their bit, getting blocked, or even admonished, there's no reason that the we should be closing the discussions with the same care as working out the consensus on a borderline RfA, which has real, actual stakes for the project. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

An adverse close here could result in a self-respecting admin resigning, or heavey evidence of community opinion in an ArbCom case. More normally, adverse closes will be instrumental learning experiences for all involved. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Combining Thryduulf's feedback, my idea would become:

Anything situation brought to AAR (except for items that are unarguably vandalism, nonsense or misplaced which may be speedily closed) should get a discussion, even if the discussion is about whether or not this is the appropriate venue.

The close is to be based on the discussion, and never on the closer's personal opinion or interpretation of the rules.

I think that this is just a statement of what should inherently be the case, but it needs saying. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sensible. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think few would argue that a SNOW-consensus to the tune of a dozen-nil is a poor review basis. A longer discussion would not have helped (rough consensus being a specific policy reference, not a personal judgement). I do concur that there have been far too speedy closes since (and that's notwithstanding that there now have been lots saying it should be open a week). AAR was specifically designed to have lower stakes review that ANI, arguing that we should have higher restrictions on who can close cases than ANI would relegate much of the point of its existence. We wanted a way to overturn decisions without demonstrating significant failing on behalf of the admin/perm holder. The negative with crat-closes is that (obviously) only 'crats can close them. Wikipedia doesn't function on that basis - userrights offer only tools, not judgement, and the far more important corollary: not having userrights does not represent an absence of judgement. With regards to your amended advice, it would generally make sense to build up a list of consensus closes on the misplaced aspect. Recreation of deleted articles is a DRV aspect, but in regards to edge cases, we should build up "case law" that allows for quick closes in the future, even if they get discussion on first occurrence. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  AAR was specifically designed to have lower stakes review that ANI? I must have missed this, can you point to something?

  I don't think AAV should be considered to have higher or lower stakes than ANI, but instead the two should have very different functions. ANI is for emergencies, like there's a large animal running around in the kitchen. It needs a solution, not a consensus that animals don't belong in kitchens and how to best keep them out. AAV, by its name, is for reviewing outlier process problems, for root cause analysis. If an admin did something wrong, and they don't agree, and it's an issue, then this is best approached with different people, coming wearing different thinking hats. Was it an error in judgement, or training, or expectations, or communication? What were the contributing factors, and how can the same mistake, or even perceived problem, be avoided next time?

  If the only negative of crat closes is that the crats might not close, then I have suggested: "any editor may close a discussion if no bureaucrat has closed within one week of a request posted at WP:BN".

  I don't think the review processes, DRV and MRV from experience, are best looked at as court-like processes that set precedent. That's ArbCom. Review processes are better regarded as community continuous learning exercises. Review processes are not primarily for casting judgements, but for making constructive recommendations. There should be one process for making decisions, and another process for reviewing decisions made to make sure that the first process is working. I think DRV has had an admirable record for admins being called up for review of their mistakes, and not seeing these admins being repeatedly reviewed, and I especially note the cases where the formal outcome was "no consensus".

  I wonder whether a Wikipedia-culture redefinition of "review" as occurred with the non-ideal common term "New Page Review". New Page Patrol does not do reviews, it does "checks". SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  I've thought of it in simpler terms: it's a place where two editors can say "we disagree on whether this is an allowed use of an advanced perm" (linking to a specific edit or action), and other editors can say "yeah that's cool" or "no, can't do that", and it would settle the disagreement about that particular use of an advanced permission. Levivich 03:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• A couple points that have developed in this section deserve more attention than is derived on the face of their mention alone. I am, therefore, restating them in hopes that more discussion will lead to a "rough consensus" for their remit.
  • I opened this discussion saying: "... nowhere do I see the restoration of a deleted page as being reviewable at DRV." Nosebagbear stated (by indirect rebuttal): "Recreation of deleted articles is a DRV aspect, ...". On their face, these two statements seem to be mutually incompatible and to preempt any misinformation/misunderstanding this apparent incompatibility might engender, I am doubling down and more forcefully saying: "The unilateral recreation of a deleted page is not a matter of DRV purview." And furthermore, "the recreation of [a] deleted [page]" that is "a DRV aspect" relates to Wikipedia:Deletion review § Purpose point number 3., which says that DRV may be used: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" in no way, shape, or form contradicts my original statement or the more forceful statement made here. To eliminate any further confusion, I am asking Barkeep49, as the discussion closer, to directly answer the two-pronged challenge that 1.) the discussion was not about the "speedy deletion" but instead, the "unilateral recreation" of the speedy deleted page (please refer to the opening statement in this section) and 2.) the "unilateral recreation" of the deleted page is not a matter subject to review at DRV and therefore not a matter that exceeds the scope of AARV's charter purpose. I am certainly keen to see Baekeep49's response.
  • It clearly seems that there is consensus against asking bureaucrats to close AARV discussions; I agree and also oppose tasking them for that purpose. Nevertheless, I have proposed the possibility of tasking bureaucrats to review any "challenged closures" of AARV discussions at Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review § Another possible role for crats and that proposal has yet to engender a reply. I am asking the many who have well articulated reasons not to task bureaucrats for routine discussion closures to, please, articulate (even half as well) their opinion on tasking bureaucrats for the far less routine review of challenged AARV discussion closures. Please append your main reply in the aforementioned section. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

    As a DRV regular, I do not recall a DRV nomination disputing the undeletion of a page. If undeleted to mainspace, I would expect the dispute to go straight to AfD. On disputed undeletions to userspace and draftspace, I recall some old undeletions being nominated for deletion at MfD, but they were not disputes of the undeletion per se, but were a fresh nomination on the grounds that the refund requester had made no improvements for a long time.

    I agree to "The unilateral recreation of a deleted page is not a matter of DRV purview." DRV is hyper-focused on the deletion process and whether that page should be deleted. Disputed unilateral undeletion, if not informally resolved, sounds like something that would have previously gone to AN, not DRV, as it sounds like an admin conduct issue.

    Nosebagbear would be referring to disputed denials for recreation that go to DRV; WP:REFUND only undeletes if uncontroversial, and points to DRV for maybe-controversial cases. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  To respond to John's questions (I had not seen this discussion before the ping), DRV regularly considers whether a page that has been deleted can be re-created. This can happen with requests to UNSALT and requests to overturn particular AfDs long after the fact. DRV does explicitly exclude one kind of "undeletion" discussion: "for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead." This was neither uncontroversial nor a very old article. I maintain that discussion was in scope for DRV and thus explicitly out of scope for XRV and I closed accordingly. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  When was the RfC that decided if something was in scope for DRV it was out of scope for XRV? When I voted in the original RfC for "any advanced permission," I didn't vote for "any advanced permission except deletion". I must have missed it but I don't get how this RfC result has been modified, apparently in a number of ways (put implementation on hold, narrow scope, etc.), without a subsequent RfC. Levivich 13:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes it does look like you missed the second bullet point from the RfC: 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. DRV is in fact the exact example given of something covered by an existing process. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Ah yes I forgot about the bullet points in the "Details" box. (That's where the devil is!) Thanks. Levivich 16:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)′

  Thank you for your reply Barkeep49. I agree with you that "DRV regularly considers whether a page that has been deleted can be re-created." That fact does not address the assertion that the XRV discussion was to review the undeletion that had already occured, nor the concurrent assertion that DRV does not review a unilateral undeletion (without discussion) once that unilateral undeletion has occured. Your original closing summary asserted that the discussion was about the original csd-g12 deletion and that would be out of XRV's scope as speedy deletions are reviewable at DRV. The XRV-notice, however, was published on Jimfbleak's talk page, naming him as performer of the action under review[2] and he did not perform the speedy deletion nor did he seek discussion to re-create the deleted page. He performed the unilateral undeletion and that was the in scope action under review at XRV. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Forcing speedy archiving of AARV discussions

• SmokeyJoe has pointed out that aside the questionable "speedy discussion closures" that have become too commonplace, the unsupportable act of forcing a "speedy archiving" of the closed discussion is a separate matter of needed correction. To that end, I propose the following:
  • No editor may circumvent the "archive interval" nor the subsequent bot tasking it engenders to automatically archive closed discussions from the main AARV project page except in matters of unambiguously uncontested good cause (for example: WP:DENY).
    • Support as proposed.--John Cline (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Support --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Punt, for the love of God. This is the kind of detail than can be postponed until AARV is up and running, and we see how it works. There's no sense arguing over the color of the bikeshed, when there are open questions about whether it should be a bikeshed or a mansion or a prison or maybe don't build anything afterall. We still don't know if this is supposed to be (a) a process somewhere between ANI and ArbCom (to quote the RFA RFC close), or (b) a lightweight process to review one single admin action (to also quote the RFA RFC close). It can't be both. We still don't know if it's going to be modeled on AE or ANI or RFAR or DRV. We still don't know if it's literally going to be open to reviewing every single disputed rollback (which, IMHO, would be crazy, but has been seriously proposed, and is the simplest way to read the RFA RFC close). Until the things that actually matter are determined, figuring out archiving, and edit warring "AARV" in and out of the instructions, is pointless. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

      No. Decorum matters. Speedy closes and speedy archiving are derailing every attempted start before anything gets rolling. Every speedy close is an affront to every editor who was still thinking before committing.

      We know what this place is supposed to be. A place to review contested admin actions. None of AE, ANI, or RFAR are review forums. Go look up the meaning of “review”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

      But right now, it's exactly modeled on ANI? Where, currently, all review of contested admin actions happens? And someone lecturing on "decorum" should avoid smug patronizing comments like "go look up the meaning of 'review'". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

      Sorry for the patronising. Point being that I think it is obvious, from the winning arguments at the RfC, that this is NOT supposed to be like ANI, or AE or RFAR, or indeed any drama board.

      Disagree it is “exactly” modelled on ANI, it is more modelled on AN. Small point, but of some importance. ANI does not pretend to review, AN does pretend to review, and evidence is that the community does not respect AN for its history and culture of reviewing. When someone doesn’t like the way something is going, they do a thread close. I think AN has too much in its scope, and formal reviews should be split out of it entirely. Specifically, I think formal reviews should be always on their own subpages, with their own talk page, and no archiving in the edit history (AfD and mfd style).

      So, if we can agree it is modelled closely to AN, can we agree that this needs to change. If this page is to be different to AN, the. make it different to AN. At the top of the list, stop speedy closes, stop speedy archives, slow down, and respect process. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Floquenbeam. JBchrch talk 00:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Another possible role for crats

After reading the main discussion in the "Proposed rules" section, one fact that seems universally agreed is that bureaucrats are highly respected and thoroughly competent; I agree. Considering the comments made in the XRV closure challenge discussion I think it would be great if bureaucrats were agreeable to performing the reviews of challenged XRV closures (provided, of course, that a local consensus here agreed that it was desirous). I wouldn't expect this to generate a significant workload for crats (unlike asking them to close all discussions would). And it would lend significant credibility to the process overall. Is this something that others would support? Thank you for your consideration.--John Cline (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support tasking bureaucrats to review any "challenged closures" of AARV discussions. Alternatives, such as bouncing back to AN, or using AARV again recursively, are worse ideas. Having no formal process for AARV closure disputes is a bad idea, given the initial poor culture regarding AARV case discussion closes. I think 'crat workload is not an issue, and 'crat role in the AARV process would lend significant credibility to the process overall. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  Why would it lend credibility? Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Process is important.

  —- SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  I would like to add a fact for consideration. XRV has had exactly one discussion's closure challenged. Because we do not have and stipulate our own protocol for challenged closure reviews, it was conducted at WP:AN, IAW policy. After seven days of open discussion with a dozen or more participants expending time and effort in good faith, the discussion was archived without the benefit of a formal closure, a result, nor a closing summary. Needless to say, the negative statistical probability that one could challenge an XRV closure and be fairly heard at WP:AN depletes consumer confidence and lends no credibility, whatsoever, to the process, overall. Clearly, the kind of review bureaucrats could and undoubtedly would perform regarding challenged discussion closures would likely reverse the imbalance while lending enough credibility to move consumer confidence into a net-positive realm. We need that badly right now.--John Cline (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• I truly don't understand why having crats on this would be so helpful to the process...we really are just admins who were crazy enough to run through RFA again to rename people back in the day and check a few extra user rights boxes. I don't think that makes us any more equipped than anyone else from the admin corps to close AARV discussions; if we are capable of assessing the consensus for those types of discussions, it comes out of our competency as an admin rather than as a crat. bibliomaniac15 02:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Competency, temperament, respect from the wider announcement nonadmin community. The fact that you’ll have to be asked and won’t jump in prematurely. Existing expectation of expert familiarity with the few user rights in question. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• 'Crats don't demonstrate activity in any but a very narrow field. I just find the push for their inclusion bizarre. They were selected for a very specific skillset and have been notoriously reticent to expand their role-set. If you want to keep the process in-house, rather than going to AN, then going for "good-faith disputed closes will be reviewed by 3 experienced editors" is a better way of doing it. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTBURO. Adding another process has not proven to be a necessity. JBchrch talk 00:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding ([a] set of related actions)

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.

---

The introductory extenuation that XRV's purpose "... is to reach a consensus on whether a specific action (or set of related actions) was appropriate ..." is not a concept so ubiquitously well know that no further explanation is needed. In fact, when considering the use of an {{explanatory footnote}}, I realized that I don't understand the concept enough, myself, to explain it. With help, perhaps a clear answer will emerge for each of the following questions:--John Cline (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

What, exactly, is a "set of related actions"?

How should we define "a set of related actions" with appropriate concision along with an example that connects 3 actions as a "related set"?--John Cline (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

When should "related actions" be alleged (for review purposes)?

Must an allegation of "related actions" be enumerated when the XRV is filed or can the "set" be created and/or extended during the review process itself? I think it's important that we define the procedural bounds for creating the "set of related actions" by some form of rough consensus.--John Cline (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Option A - A "related set of actions" must be alleged and a minimum of two actions must be enumerated (forming the set) when the XRV is filed. The "set of related actions" is limited to its manner upon filing and may not be extended by findings determined during the review.
Option B - A "related set of actions" must be alleged and a minimum of two actions must be enumerated (forming the set) when the XRV is filed. Upon satisfaction of this requirement, the "set of related actions" may be extended by findings determined during the review.
Option C - A "set of related actions" may be created and/or extended at any time during the review.

• Option C I am most comfortable offering the maximum flexibility possible regarding administrative actions that are related and the manner of forming them into a set.--John Cline (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose any clarification per WP:CREEP. We can perfectly address this on a case-by-case basis without any ex-ante rulemaking. Will there be edge cases? Sure, but we'll figure it out. Also, the language of our rules should be much more approachable that what is proposed here. JBchrch talk 01:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  JBchrch makes a reasonable point - XRV exists for the purpose of trying to be a lighter-touch review body. Because we can also review a single action, there's no need for the minimum standard to be set. Writing it further into rules seems unneeded. The actual question is more about when we won't consider an action to be related, and this doesn't answer that - that, too, is a question I'd prefer to settle by the "case law" methodology rather than the "civil law" route of writing it in. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that it's a reasonable point.--John Cline (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - My interpretation of that sentence is to simply clarify that we don't have to create separate XRV discussions for each individual admin action if they can all reasonably be considered as part of the same "event". For example, let's say an editor makes two edits that an admin believes are grossly defamatory. In response, the admin blocks the editor, and revdels the two edits. That's three separate administrative actions. However, if someone wants to dispute these actions, we don't need to start three different XRV discussions. I strongly agree with JBchrch that adding further clarification here will be detrimental. We're all intelligent enough to interpret things on a case-by-case basis rather than trying to codify every detail of the process. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for your reply. I understand and accept that consensus is against stipulating any form of criteria for this provision, and that common sense and hands-on practice will develop and demonstrate the associated norms through doing (if we ever get back to doing things). I've come to agree that this is best. I am glad that you provided an example of "related actions". The secondary purpose of my starting this discussion was to clarify and better understanding what exactly they are and that has been accomplished; seeing the given example. Thanks again.--John Cline (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the effort but IMO not needed and thus unnecessary wp:creep North8000 (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  You're welcome, and thank you, as well, for your reply. I agree with you and will abide. I'm going to withdraw the proposal and mark the discussion closed to prevent further allocations if time on this already answered question. Thanks again.--John Cline (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2022 (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.

Proposal at village pump

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RFC:_Shut_down_Wikipedia:Administrative_action_review where it has been proposed that this board be closed. 2409:4071:4E12:1DCA:0:0:4388:2201 (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Lets revive XRV

The village pump proposal mentioned above has been closed per IAR. No problem, I dislike wiki-bureaucracy and think we should be using IAR more often, like how this board is defacto dead and could use with an IAR application of Template:Historical.

Anyway if it is worth keeping this open, lets at least try to get it active again. It was mentioned in the village pump that one of the main reasons why this has become inactive is that this does not have prominent incoming links from other pages. For a brief period XRV was linked from ANI header and it got a flurry of activity. I think we should add the links back to attract more attention here. Thoughts? 2409:4071:E9B:BF48:0:0:43C8:C305 (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree; those links were removed for the reasons outlined at Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review/Archive 2#Two suggestions (and after a consensus to do so was established). I don't think we should re-add the links until this is ready for prime time. And I don't think this will be ready for prime time until my comments at Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review#Forcing speedy archiving of AARV discussions above have been addressed: "We still don't know if this is supposed to be (a) a process somewhere between ANI and ArbCom (to quote the RFA RFC close), or (b) a lightweight process to review one single admin action (to also quote the RFA RFC close). It can't be both. We still don't know if it's going to be modeled on AE or ANI or RFAR or DRV. We still don't know if it's literally going to be open to reviewing every single disputed rollback (which, IMHO, would be crazy, but has been seriously proposed, and is the simplest way to read the RFA RFC close)". Those are fundamental issues; they are not nits that we can pick after AARV is up and running. One of the reasons given in February for not having a series of RFCs about some of these issues was that it would take too long. But it has now been 4 months with no action to try to figure these mission-critical issues out. If you want to try, it seems to me a much more logical starting point would be to hold one or two RFCs to clarify the fundamental issues I raise above. If you go that route, I'd recommend the RFCs be crafted with care, so they aren't derailed right out of the gate. Caveat: others who opposed AARV as it was initially set up may have different priorities than me, so there's no guarantee AARV can be revived; the result of the RFCs might be to continue to have it twist slowly in the wind.--Floquenbeam (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

One of the problems is that not everybody agrees that those fundamental issues actually exist (see comments in the village pump discussion). Unless and until there is agreement on what problems exist then I don't think an RFC to fix them has any hope, which in turn means that I don't think XRV has any hope. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam @Thryduulf so maybe that's the RfC question. Spitballing here but something along the lines of "Should XRV be developed by BOLD editing, using the RfC as a starting point with further work made through the traditional consensus making process or through discussion of major issues followed by an RfC to ensure there is consensus before the board starts operating". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, Barkeep, my first thought is "it seems pretty clear how that would turn out, but I could be wrong, and in any case, I can't stop anyone from starting an RFC". But then I look below at North8000's accusations of bad faith (which echo Joe Roe's accusations of bad faith at the Village Pump discussion, and several others' accusations above and in the archives), and S. Marshall pretending I didn't already list the issues I'm concerned about, and wonder why I'm supposed to continue to engage in good faith when a majority of those who think it should be live, as is, constantly make bad faith accusations about my motivations and play passive-aggressive games. It's almost a self-fulfilling prophesy; eventually, people who oppose making this page live as is, are going to stop engaging and just oppose everything. That would not be their fault. it will be the fault of the people making the bad faith accusations and playing passive-aggressive games. I don't expect you to fix that problem - you can't control other people - but I want you to understand why I might choose to stop talking about it with you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't have anybody particular in mind, and my apologies if I was not clear enough on that. Also, if it does crop up somewhere, it's just human nature, not something severe like bad faith. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The relatively complex proposal that this came from is inevitably not going to be perfect. In reality, about 95% of what the literal wording covers doesn't need this venue. We should take the 5% that does need it and develop along those lines. IMO it is admin mishandling of things (via tools or roles) that is not egregious enough to get other admins (who have a natural reluctance to do so) or arbcom to fix the situation. And we need to recognize the gorilla in the living room that there are people who do not want such a review to exist and can use lots of wiki-clever ways to work towards that end. North8000 (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Well, perhaps we can get a list of these so-called fundamental issues.—S Marshall T/C 18:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Unless, of course, we're saying that Floquenbeam's list of concerns is comprehensive? I wouldn't want to answer those and then get handed a whole new list of fundamental issues, so let's put all the fundamental issues on the table now.—S Marshall T/C 18:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

  That's not a comprehensive list of concerns (see the archives for other lists, posted multiple times, by multiple people.), and nobody can say for certain that the outcome of one RfC will not lead to other questions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, OK, over my whole wiki-life here are the approx 10 cases I can think of that I probably would have or should have bought here which no other venue would have properly handled:

1. A type A personality involved admin badgering a meeker admin into a wrong decision. Saying multiple times "this is what I'd do if I wasn't involved"
2. A nice-person admin was both incompetent on analysis took a wrong (non-tool) admin action because a wiki-friend of theirs involved in a dispute led them to do it.
3. About 5 cases of an admin using their imprimatur to intimidate the other editor in an editor-to-editor debate/dispute that they were engaged in.
4. A highly respected admin went rogue and reverted a proper admin close on a major RFC saying "it should have been a panel" and started admin saber-rattling against people who reverted their revert. Nobody stopped it until Jimbo did.
5. About 2 times a well-meaning editor who screwed up and got blocked and was long-past ready to come back but gets turned down because reviewing admins a combination didn't learn the situation well enough and were were too cautious.

#1 - #4 didn't involve tools. They just needed a finding to say "don't do that" or a nudge course correction. #5 Involved a tool-involved mistake but not "mis-use". It just needed a closer review of the situation which another admin won't do (unless it's egregious) because it's considered impolite.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Only #5 is within scope for XRV, because that's what the community decided. The venue is about the use of tools that need advanced permissions (including the decision not to use them). It's not the Court of Admin Admonishment.—S Marshall T/C 20:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oy vey. If those 5 bullet points are emblematic of the types of issues that are intended to be brought to this place for discussion, then I think this place is doomed to become a more extreme drama board than ANI. Are we now condemning admins because of their personality type? Differentiating between type A and type B admins, and nice admins vs. meanies? I don't think this is a good start to this discussion. In my opinion, the first step in making AARV a useful venue is to differentiate it from all the other venues that already exist to discuss similar issues, like ANI, AN, Arbcom, or even User Talk / Article Talk pages. The two specific questions to be answered are:

1. What are the shortcomings of venues like ANI and Arbcom, specifically in terms of their ability to host a discussion about whether an admin action was improper and come to a decision about how to best respond to it?
2. How will AARV be different from those venues, such that it will address the shortcomings of the other venues and provide a substantially more effective venue for discussing these incidents and responding to them appropriately?

The "Purpose" text at the top of AARV attempts to address some aspects of these questions, but not nearly completely enough in my opinion. Someone needs to put together a concise statement for why this place needs to exist alongside venues like ANI and Arbcom. What specific problems need to be solved, and how does AARV propose to solve them? —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how you could have misread my post that badly. I described some real problems, mentioned some extra hopefully-useful sidebar info, and you wrote as if I said that the problem was the sidebar items. North8000 (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• That doesn't seem difficult to me. In the discussion that created this venue, the community was thinking about the low numbers of new sysops being promoted. The community felt that one of the obstacles to promoting sysops was a widespread concern that once promoted, sysops are hard to get rid of if they make bad decisions. So we tried to solve that by making a venue for community scrutiny of sysop decisions.

  I can think of nothing more useless than yet another drama board. This is not AN/I or Arbcom. It's for review of individual decisions about the use of the tools, not review of the totality of an editor's behaviour or character. The community has established this board but given it no specific powers, so all it can do is reach consensus to overturn an individual decision.

  We don't really have a problem with evil or corrupt sysops. Arbcom is sufficient guard against that.

  We do have a problem with inconsistent sysop decisions. Often, editors who want a particular outcome will post directly on a sysop's talk page, and if they know how Wikipedia works, they'll select the sysop with some care so as to get the outcome they want. By having a place to review actions or decisions, we can hopefully establish some norms with a view to getting more consistency of outcome.

  The models for this place are DRV and MRV. We particularly want fixed-duration discussions, partly so there isn't the AN/I-style incentive to rush to comment before someone closes, and partly so there's no accusation of someone choosing a tactical moment to close when the numbers have swung one particular way. And as with DRV we particularly want a focus on the decision rather than the person making the decision, with a complete ban on using the venue to cast aspersions, because we want to encourage and enable some reflective practice.—S Marshall T/C 22:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure more RfCs are the way forward here, but I agree with Floq that the core problem is that this board doesn't really have a definition of what it is aimed at. Ideally what would happen would be the community naturally would decide what type of cases to bring here, what should be closed as out of scope, what was a waste of time, etc. and it would be handled as it arises so an organic consensus on how an additional review board should operate would develop. The problem is that if such a system developed organically, it would probably look remarkably similar to AN, which is in contrast to the wishes of the proponents of creation.
  My reading of why this failed, fwiw, is that the RfC passed, the proponents of creation mistook the consensus for an additional review board to be consensus for a new bureaucratic system more structured than AN and more expansive than the community wanted, those of us who opposed it in the RfC pointed out that the issues we said would happen were happening, and then the people who were mildly supportive of it got turned off because the DRV or MRV for most admin actions that are appealed is overkill, and generally speaking the community is opposed to "rulings" on actions that have been quickly undone, which is something that was promoted here.
  Short of it: if you want something that the community would support here, it is going to look like AN. The idea of a more bureaucratic XRV doesn't have broad community support. Neither does the idea of a duplicative AN. That's why no one uses it. Blame those of us were opposed if you want, but the proponents easily had as much to do with this failing as the opponents. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  • the core problem is that this board doesn't really have a definition of what it is aimed at but at the top of this page is the RfC proposal text and it has a very clear statement of purpose. And parameters. It's really very specific. Can we stop treating the proposal as if it were vague? Levivich 00:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    • If you want a more precise problem — there's no definition of how this board is supposed to be different than any other existing process. AN exists with the same purpose stated here, and if someone ran an RfC to remove the purpose at the top of this board from AN it would fail. I've read the responses on this page as to how it is supposed to be different, but those are the vision of the most vocal supporters of this process, and I don't think those have community consensus. If they did, you wouldn't have had people just not use this. Link removal or not, it wasn't exactly a low-key page when it was created. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

      3 key differences between XRV and AN:

      • AN does not require, or even really permit, a structured format
      • There is no requirement that AN thread is closed let alone closed by an uninvolved administrators
      • AN has virtually unlimited scope. I note this last one because there are large legitimate disagreements about what the scope of this board should be, but no disagreement that it's smaller than AN.

      The real place that there is no difference are the editors most interested in participating. The crowd you get at DRV has overlap with AN, but is materially different and the crowd at MRV has even more differences. But for a variety of reasons that didn't happen here, and I would agree that some of the fault for that lays on the crowd that supported the concept but wasn't interested in participating. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

      • I'm as interested in participating here as I am at DRV, where I am intermittently fairly active. I *hate* AN/I and am rarely interested in participating there; even when admins tell me I should take a matter there, I usually don't. I suspect that the current class "editors most interested in participating in one of XRV and AN/I but not the other" is maybe empty if you set "most interested" high enough, but if XRV succeeds in establishing itself as a forum with an (actual or perceived) substantially higher chance of fair outcomes, that will change. — Charles Stewart (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• I'd like to see any feedback on how this page has done what is was born to do: improve the RFA process, can anyone point to a success measure there? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  If what you're really saying is "this shouldn't have been allowed to pass at an RfC about the RfA process" well you're not the first to say that but this is the wrong forum for that discussion. If you're actually saying you want to understand how it's improved the RfA process, I don't think there's anyone who is suggesting this board has actually been in operation. So of course it's not going to have improved the RfA process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• I can see two open questions about XRV: when to close (should there be a fixed time and if so how long), and what (if any) format or structure for discussions (the RfC said "structured" but didn't specify a format). Are there any others? Levivich 01:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think some people have questions about scope - see Floq's quote of himself above, to which I would add whether an administrator deciding not to do an administrative action can be reviewed (several people opposed Fram taking me here on that ground). I think there is also a question of whether multiple related actions can be reviewed in a single report or only a single action. Also from Floq, some sense of when you go to XRV vs some other forum (i.e. is it before AN/ANI or after AN/ANI but before ArbCom). I think that last one has an obvious answer but enough editors have expressed concerns I think it is worth noting. Finally, for when to close I think the nuance you need to consider is not only should there be a fixed time, and if so how long, but how to handle something that is out of scope. This latter piece is particularly contentious given the disagreements about what is in scope in the first place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry there's really one more underlying question which I noted above, which is a more fundamental question about how should XRV be developed. Should it be developed while the board is operating or should all of the procedural details be worked out through consensus, with the likelihood of a subsequent RfC to formally determine that consensus, before the board is widely promoted? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  My take is that some of these questions are answered already by the #RFC text; some have clear answers that I think everyone would agree with based on existing policies/practices; and some are "open" questions.
  
  What is in scope? The RFC set out three criteria for what is in scope:
  1. Any action or set of related actions
  2. Requiring an advanced permission
  3. Not already covered by an existing process (e.g. DRV)
  The language in the RFC that sets out this criteria is:

  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.

  And it's reinforced in five other places:

  • determine whether an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy

  • whether an action or set of actions is endorsed or not endorsed

  • whether the action should be endorsed or not endorsed

  • The purpose of XRV is solely to reach a consensus on whether the use of the permission was appropriate, not to remove permissions.

  Of course this doesn't mean there aren't still questions about what is and what is not in scope, particularly in the form of, "Is [specific example] in scope?" But I think a question like "What is in scope?" is too broad to be helpful, and instead we should look at the specific examples (such as those you've already raised).
  
  Multiple related actions? The RFC text set of related actions and set of actions means that yes, multiple related actions can be addressed in a single thread.
  
  When to use XRV vs. some other forum? I think that's answered by the criteria quoted above: it depends. If it's out of scope, don't go to XRV; e.g., if it's covered by another forum, go to the other forum. Enforcement of XRV consensus is also addressed by the RFC text. Anyone who can do it may do it, and if another forum is needed, use the other forum:

  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.

  Basically, there is no overlap between XRV and other forums, per the RFC text. I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where someone would be genuinely confused about whether to go to XRV or another forum; an example would help clue me in.
  
  Is a decision to not do an admin action in scope? I think we all agree on the answer to this: it depends on what we mean by "deciding not to do" an action.
  "Doing nothing" is not an "action", it's the opposite. It's a "decision", but it's not an "action", and the RFC text says "action" not "decision". We couldn't review anyone for doing nothing per WP:VOLUNTEER anyway, and if we did, we'd have too many people to review. We can't be held accountable for the edits we don't make. (It's kind of nice, right?)
  However, declining a request that requires advanced perms to decline (e.g., an admin declining a PERM, RFPP, or unblock request, or a template editor declining a protected template edit request) isn't "doing nothing", that's taking an action, and would be reviewable (if it wasn't already covered by an existing process).
  Removing a CSD tag is not an action that requires an advanced permission, and thus not in scope, and it doesn't matter that some people argued about it in the past. I do not think this is a live controversy or open question.
  
  How should out-of-scope threads be handled? This is another one that I think we all agree on: threads that are unambiguously out-of-scope should be promptly closed with a brief explanation as to why they're out of scope (which of the criteria they fail, e.g. which other venue covers the reported action or set of actions).
  If a thread is arguably out of scope but not unambiguously, it should be discussed. This can be done in the thread itself, or on the talk page (I think better on the talk page, to keep the thread "structured" per the RFC text, but structure is an open question).
  If an admin "quick-closes" a thread as out-of-scope and others disagree with that, and the admin doesn't self-revert and isn't reverted by another admin, that quick-close itself would be in scope for review at XRV.
  All roads end at the same place: an admin can close a thread as out of scope but ultimately whether a specific report is in scope at XRV will be decided by consensus at XRV.
  
  Because I'm of the opinion that the above questions are already answered, I think that leaves three open questions:
  1. Should threads be opened for a fixed time and if so how long?
  2. How should threads be structured or formatted?
  3. Do we need to answer some/all of these questions before the board begins operating (before the board is widely promoted, e.g. with inbound links)?
  Agree/disagree? Levivich 04:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• I regard this page as operational. The lack of regular cases can be taken as evidence of a lack of issues with administrative actions. This is a good thing, and not a reason to shut it down. Does someone think there is a problem with barriers to bring bona fide complaints about administrative actions?

The history of cases is messy. In my opinion, by far the biggest problem has been speedy closes. Closers have appeared to consider this page to be an offshoot of ANI, and suitable for speedy closing. Reviews should be ponderous. Reviews should not be dominated by big personalities making quick decisions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)