Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Standard of review - discussion

Hello,

In our inaugural review, Lee raised the question of which standard should be used. That is, is it "de novo" review, basically a from-scratch interpretation, or is it "beyond realms of discretion" appeal review, as is the case in, say, DRV.

Should a single standard be used for all cases, or should there be a default with exceptions. An example of this could be if an admin requests review on their own actions, they can specify "de novo", otherwise its appeal-review standard.

This is more intended to be a discussion, and if there isn't a clear response we can do the formal RfC bit.

  • In my own perspective, I quite like Lee's Writ's original take - give it the same default standard as DRV (but not the very high standard of AE appeal), but individuals who want their own decisions reviewed at a lower standard are more than welcome to use that. I also could see there being a third category of "this was a reasonable decision, and the admin (etc) was acting legitimately, but overturn anyway". This is not formally in the DRV ruleset, but is still seen on a fairly frequent basis to handle edge cases. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • At DRV we say that a decision was "within discretion". If you open that up and look under the bonnet, you find it has a lot of moving parts, including but not limited to:-
    • Did the closer apply policy correctly?
    • Did they assess consensus correctly?
    • What sources (or in the case of AAR, diffs) affected the close?
    • Did their closing statement explain all of the preceding things in enough detail?
  • I feel that the general standard of review should be "within discretion", but we should also say that XRV has scope to overturn a close that was within discretion where there's a clear benefit to the encyclopaedia from doing so. Where the decision was within discretion but the close wasn't well explained, XRV should replace the closing statement with an expanded one. It matters that people can see why decisions were made.—S Marshall T/C 14:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nosebagbear: I'm not sure I follow – is this responding to the Lee Vilenski's comment, or Extraordinary Writ's? – Joe (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Imo the main problem with de novo review is that it's inefficient. We're essentially asking every participant to do their own equivalent of a close (or review or whatever), and that's a lot of duplicated work by a lot of people. Philosophically I think de novo review would be great if everyone had the time and energy to do it, but from a practical stand-point "within reasonable discretion" will lead to better outcomes. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I would suggest avoiding all legalese such as "standard of review", "de novo", "abuse of discretion", etc. Wikipedia doesn't have a body of law that defines those terms.
    DRV reviews a close, but it doesn't review the notability of the article subject. MRV reviews a close, but it doesn't review what the title of an article should be. Under those systems, there are two layers: the close, and then the underlying thing being decided (notability, title), and the review process only looks at the top layer--the close--and not the underlying layer.
    XRV doesn't work that way: there is only one layer, the advanced-permission action. XRV reviews an action; it's not a re-review, it's the first review of the action. Reviewing an action isn't like reviewing a close, because we're not reviewing somebody else's assessment of other people's comments, we're reviewing a unilateral decision.
    How much deference should be given to the person whose action is being reviewed depends on the circumstances. If the person were responding to a true emergency--like blocking an account that was making 100s of edits per minute, or uploading 100s of copyright files--I would afford a wide degree of deference, based on the urgency of the situation. Under different circumstances, I might afford them no deference at all (like if someone, say, blocked an account for a comment made 10 years ago). So I don't think there is much profit to be gained from trying to specify one "standard of review" for all XRV cases. Levivich 19:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Yep, I did mix up Lee and Writ - I promise I can do this close thing! Apologies to both Nosebagbear (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
    As Levivich says, decisions at wp are made not by following the letter of the rules, but choosing how to interpret them. The way XRV works will be determined by what we do with it. I think that what has been written down should be seen as a preliminary version--we rarely get something complicated right the first time around . But I think he's wrong about how DRV actually works: in theory DRV is limited to just mistaken closes, not judging the merits--but most actual discussions do deal with the notability or promotionalism or whatever the problem was with the article.
    Many of the matters that would come under the general scope don't actually have decisions that would be amenable to appeal: NPP doesn't actually do anything definitive to any individual article, but people can do the process incorrectly. AfC has a built-in appeal--if a draft is declined, you can just submit the draft again; if it was accepted, there's AfD. Even DRV has an appeal--after a suitable time, one can start a new article or another AfD. What we ought to be concerned with here is people who are consistently doing things wrong.
    Let me give an example: I have made many thousand decisions to decline an article. Perhaps 1 or 2% have been errors and I correct them if notified; some have been disputed by stubborn coi editors, some have been equivocal and I just advise resubmission for a review by another reviewer. But what ought to come here are those where I have consistently or frequently been ignoring the standards, or not responding to questions.
    I am quite concerned at the first two discussions -- they deal with the interpretation of confusing or complicated procedural details, where they may be more than one right way to do things. . The purpose of this board should be to solve real problems and to correct people who are using permissions wrongly or carelessly, not to quibble over equivocal wording of guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Visibility

I added {{Noticeboard links}} to XRV, but it was reverted with the reason being XRV is not a noticeboard. The intention of soing this was to enable XRV to be easier to find. Are there better ways to publicise that XRV exists and/or make it easy to find? Mjroots (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

There are better ways at least insofar including this in a template where it doesn't belong is not one of the ways; anything which is a way would be a better way. That doesn't necessarily mean a navigation template. Visibility is currently achieved mainly through the Wikipedia:Administrators page I think. However, DRV, MR and XRV could get a sidebar pointing to all the different review forums. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Like this maybe: Template:Review forum — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
In response to the above stated visibility concern, and based on the apparent acceptance of the Review forum template, I've created a generalized section in Wikipedia:Processes (essay), and linked to it from the noticeboards template (diff). I believe that this should resolve the concern. — Alalch Emis (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Notifying the performer whose actions are being discussed

Apparently, Vanjagenije was not notified of his actions being discussed until I posted a notification moments ago.[1] Considering that the discussion has been underway since 12/22, this seems like an area that needs tightened up right away. I'm going to work on some potential template solutions and welcome others to express their own thoughts on how we can do better. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

We should have a template mirroring {{DRVNote}}. In this case, however, there's sometimes also a person the action was performed upon (blocks, sanctions etc.), and they should probably also be notified. It may be the actor, the person acted upon or neither who are raising the issue at XRV. — Bilorv (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
You have raised some valid considerations. For now, I've created {{XRV-notice}} modeling {{AN-notice}} (in name only). It can be used, modified, or discarded at pleasure. For my part, I'm off to some RL with the wife. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
We should certainly make informing the involved parties a hard requirement. Thanks for starting the template, looks fine to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
The parties certainly need to be informed (and a standard {{ping}} is not enough). However, it might be better to establish a precedent where somebody other than the filer does talk page notifications. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain your rationale? The instructions for initiating a deletion review, for example, include notifying the closer. I think it's a reasonable approach to try to spread the adminstrative workload. isaacl (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah.... I don't see the benefit to having someone else do it. IT seems obvious that it is the filer's job to make sure the party who's actions are being reviewed is aware of it. This is well established at other venues from ANI to ArbCom. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Has anything good ever come of the myriad "you forgot to inform the involved parties" digressions at ANI? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
That is not an argument for requiring an unnamed third party to realize they need to do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
That's a separate issue. If a filer forgets or overlooks the task of notifying the closer, someone else can do it, with or without additional commentary. But it still seems reasonable to try to get the filer to take on some of the administrative overhead. isaacl (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@力 I think the right solution there is to keep such digressions off the review page - beyond a simple notice, any further discussion of the failure to inform should take place on the filer's talk page instead, and if it takes place at the review page I think it should be {{collapse}}d as irrelevant to the discussion. PJvanMill)talk( 18:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with that. The onus is on the filer, but nothing more than a quiet reminder on their talk page is needed in the case that they overlook it (WP:AGF). — Bilorv (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

What I recall seeing most often at ANI is something like "you've failed to notify the subject of the discussion, I've done that now" and I think that's fine there or here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Archiving (2)

How do we want to archive discussions after conclusion? Could use a standard archiving bot, like most noticeboards do. Alternatively there's the WP:DRV system of monthly pages and discussions staying showing up until closed, which I think is handled through various templates and Anomie's bot. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

IMO using lowercase sigmabot III seems like the simplest solution. Cluebot is likely to get issues from too many links one day (just one of many issues that I want fixed when I eventually make a new bot) and I don't particularly want to find Cluebot frozen after this page is mentioned in the admin newsletter and a few templates or something. I'm not especially excited about making this a super strictly structured venue and feel like that would discourage folks from raising issues because it would be seen as more of a "big deal". Not having monthly subpages is part of that. --Trialpears (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I think the main concern expressed in the previous archiving discussion (I'd originally missed it) is discussions being archived without closure. How about we just do manual archival for now, to annual archive subpages (splitting to monthly if volume increases)? Long-term perhaps a bot would be better, but at current volume I think manual archiving should be just fine. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd prefer having the {{XRV}} template insert the {{Do not archive until}} template, which the closer can remove so one of the standard archiving bots can archive the thread. isaacl (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I somehow missed this conversation and added a MiszaBot config yesterday. I don't have any strong feelings about that and would happily default to those who know more about such matters. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:AAR" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:AAR and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 4#Wikipedia:AAR until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Approval

The community approved the concept of the process and the very broad outline in the proposal. Unless I am missing something, I do not see where it has approved the specifics in the text here DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The idea behind this was to apply the "review forum" model, learned from DRV and MR (a formal discussion formatted as endorse/overturn !votes, with a specified scope and purpose, specified duration and specified outcomes) to these actions. This model was seen as more level headed and collegial and less dramatic. The result is obviously what was deduced by analogy. Actually a lot more could be deduced by analogy, and probably will be in the future, leading to even more specific instructions in the header. In one part the impulse for analogy has proven insufficient, that is with regard to how "overturning" is meaningless for expired actions (not a problem in DRV and MR as deletion and moving are indefinite), so new solutions are sought (see the above section). — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Maybe a more relevant variant reply: The instructions were created through bold editing and are subject to WP:EDITCON and express consensus on this talk page (like here: #XRV structure/implementation). Instructions don't have a formal level of acceptance such as that of a guideline or policy. But even those pages are subject to the normal editorial process. Prior approval is not required to edit in general. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
These are more than instructions: they're guidelines. They say what the project can be used for and what it can't. The say how decisions are implemented and enforced, Guidelines need formal approval. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
A guideline is specific thing, such as that we need to asumme good faith. To be a guideline clearly requires a community consensus. Administrative action review is not a guideline. It is a review forum. A review forum needs community consensus that it should operate. Which XRV clearly has. Beyond that interested editors are coming to consensus on the mechanisms for the way the review forum operates in keeping with normal practice for such forums. Those operational aspects are important, but they are not a guideline and there is not precedent that such work have RfC approval. If consensus can't be reached on an operational aspect an RFC may be called for. But so far consensus has been found and operational aspects continue to be worked out in alignment with our policies, guidelines, and practices. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Not marked as a guideline, not categorized as a guideline, not included in the list of guidelines. More importantly, WP:POLICIES says: Other administration pages in the project namespace include: ... Process pages ... These other pages are not policies or guidelines, although they may contain valuable advice or information. Being a process page, XRV is designated by policy as not a guideline.
In addition to that, the DRV and MR content that this is based off has not been considered a guideline. These pages have always been changed through bold editing. Even when they are changed by talking first, such as through RfC, that doesn't make them a guideline. For example in this RfC on a change to the DRV instructions no one mentioned that we could be dealing with a guideline. Even if they say what the page is used for they don't create new rules, and are not binding. If one fails to post a challenge that is consistent with the purpose of the venue, the result could be a speedy close (or it often won't, and the matter will be discussed regardless). You don't need a policy norm for that, it's something that would happen either way—for example, WP:AN has no such explications, and also functions as a review venue, where various challenges with no chance of success may be speedily closed. This is proof that the text is of instructional nature, and simply tells the user what to expect. Still, a novel use of the forum is always possible. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The participants in the RfC (a subset of "the community") reached a consensus on the broad principles of this new process. Another subset of the community reached a consensus on how to put those broad principles into practice using our normal processes of bold editing and discussions on this talk page. I don't see anything irregular in that. I have been involved in many discussions that led to a changes in existing processes and these have never required "formal approval". But to put this discussion on a more productive footing, @DGG: is there something specific about the current instructions that you object to? I think at this stage, we should feel free to change and experiment with them until we find what works. – Joe (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you on how to proceed, rather than discuss how we have gotten here. And, since this is apparently being treated as fluid and experimental , I will make them as BRD changes, both in the goals, the specifics, and the methods of enforcement, which we can then discuss here. I have a few in mind, but I will do them one at a time. p. (I may also bring some actual test cases here) Joe, you remember the old RFC/User--I was under the impression that this is what we really needed. But I need to re-read the views at the rfc about this first, to see what the participants had in mind. DGG ( talk ) 12:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I need to add to this, that enough people are making changes that I'm not about to add to the confusion. As I say in a later section, the proper course nowis to scrap this and have a discussion about what we want to do, and then ask foro community approval of that. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
My read of the discussion is that we were trying to avoid a rehash of RFC/U. Hence the focus on specific actions rather than the user more generally similar to DRV focusing on specific closes rather than the closer's overall ability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
In addition to the RfC text (which is excerpted at the top of this page), note the following passages from the closing statement: 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. ... 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. A revival of the request for comments on user conduct process was not what was agreed upon. isaacl (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I have come to the conclusion that to proceed on the basis of the close was illegitimate. The discussion was about improving RfA, not about introducing a new process.Nor was it about the possible revival of RfC/U. It therefore did not get the focussed attention that it should have. The people who are concerned about getting more admins are not the same as the people who are concerned with dealing with errors in the various WP processes. They are two different problems. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

misplaced filings

CLOSED
Consensus that misplaced filings don't need to be archived but can simply be deleted. —valereee (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

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.


So, we've already got two misplaced filings, one was not an admin action and one was not even on en.wp. I see no benefit to retaining these in an archive and would suggest that they be marked with {{NOTHERE|~~~~~}} when being closed, and be removed 24 hours after that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree.--John Cline (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I support this as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. For this venue to crystallize these need to be kept, so that it may be seen in due course what the relatively frequent types of misplaced filings are. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
It's still in the history, why does it need to be in the archives? —valereee (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, I'm not buying the argument that we won't know what the board is for and what it is not for unless we preserve misplaced requests. That just does not make sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Preserving helps determine best pactices with regard to speedy closure — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
That's your opinion, that nobody else has supported, yet you have elected to treat it as if it were now policy. [2]. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
It's normal to archive things, and not normal to voluntarily remove things. This isn't a noticeboard or a talk page. It's a formal process, and administrative/speedy closes are results just as any other. The strength of conventions in this venue derives from proven best practices, not from some small group's certitude about "what the board is for and what it is not for". I'll defer to consensus in this section. There isn't a consensus yet. It should be given more time. On the question why does it need to be in the archive when it's still in history: It's easier to view in the archive. — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
We're talking about obviously misplaced junk threads of no value, the two recent ones being a request not related to an advanced permission, and request not even related to English Wikipedia at all. There is zero value in retaining such things. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The appeal to review a user talk warning is far from junk text. It's really a fair attempt to use the venue, a testament to how someone understood the language of the instructions, and as such it is something that needs to be put in the archive. If it was a garbled string of letters or a heading with no text, then sure. — Alalch Emis (talk) 01:50, 4 January 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.

Talk page requirement

@Floquenbeam: I agree that sysops should be notified but the idea is that there hasn't been consensus to require notifying via talk page. As far as I know that's just an old rule from before Echo existed and no consensus to change it. But there isn't consensus to require that here yet. Also, to answer your question, the idea with XRV is that "action" sounds like "axion". That wasn't my idea but people in #wikipedia-en said that. Naleksuh (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: But if you actually have no objection, why revert a sensible edit and insist on a talk page discussion first? We shouldn't be requiring talk page discussions for things that will only 100% of the time go one way; otherwise there is no WP:BOLD, there is not WP:IAR, and things bog down. Let's save the discussion for something that is actually uncertain. I mean, one could similarly argue where is the consensus that there should be a header on this page? Where is the consensus that each new report needs a new level 2 header? etc. We need to be able to assume common sense things.
As far as XRV ... yuck. I mean, thanks for explaining, I know it wasn't your idea, but yuck. IRC strikes again? And as for my question about XRVPURPOSE, I figured out what was going on, but that still looks weird to me, to have a shortcut to the header show up on the main page. We don't do that at AN/ANI. (innocently) Where's the consensus for adding that?--Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
For those confused about what we're talking about, it's this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I actually would prefer to see notification done by something other than user talk post. That has always seemed so public to me, and to invite in everyone the editor ever had a beef with and who has watchlisted their page. I kind of feel like a ping should be enough, as long as we can tell the ping did actually work. —valereee (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
If someone has someone else on mute, there is no way to tell a ping doesn't work. If you think we should change the way we notify people about a thread here, surely you think it should change at AN/ANI too? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
No, of course we need to make sure people actually are notified. Ugh. So the fact some people mute some other people means everyone has to have their every scrap of crap made public. That kind of sucks. We should fix this. Breakthrough pings or something. —valereee (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I have several people on mute. It serves a useful purpose. Everyone with enemies watches AN/ANI anyway, so I don't think less public notices would help too much. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
lol...that's probably correct. :D —valereee (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
It avoids arguments about whether X is pinging Y excessively or deliberately annoyingly, since Y can mute pings from X. I think the bigger picture issue is that some people don't want to get any pings at all and so wouldn't support, say, special notifications from an admin or some other privileged group (which would hopefully avoid the nuisance problem). isaacl (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea what goes on in IRC. On-wiki, the name was proposed by using "X" as a place holder for any applicable administrative action. See Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review § Administrative action review abbreviation. isaacl (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
How to notify has been discussed since the introduction of notifications (Echo) and consensus remains that a talk page notification is necessary, as users can opt out of receiving notifications. (Note there's no need to ping me in this conversation.) isaacl (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
We had a case recently where an editor was accusing other editors of harassment because they were leaving required notifications. You just can't really win. :D —valereee (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe any conversation about what to name it happened on IRC. I think that happened in the link isaac posted. I believe what Naleksuh is saying is that the reason they present was told to them on IRC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
XRV parallels XFD in that the X represents a variable (don't shoot the messenger). PRV was rejected on the ground that we would all be called "PRVerts". No idea what this proposed "axion" etymology is. — Bilorv (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
No, a different name was suggested to better describe the purpose. isaacl (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

MfD nomination

MFD was completed as speedy keep. — xaosflux Talk 22:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

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.

I have nominated this page at MFD because it is a mess and embarrassment. If we are to have it, there needs to be a clear structured RFC to agree structure and scope before it is implemented. Spartaz Humbug! 16:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Spartaz: "As opposed to the section about the declining of an A10 nomination where a non admin was threatened with a block fir challenging an argument" - Do you mean the section about the declining of a G10 nomination where Fram was threatened with a block by Floquenbeam for challenging an argument? I think Fram's behaviour in that thread was appalling, a severe violation of WP:CIVIL and has directly brought this noticeboard into disrepute - I can hardly say I'm surprised that people want to get rid of the board, calling it a "cesspit" and a "drama board" with that conduct, because frankly, they have a point. I reprimanded Fram yesterday about this and got abuse thrown back in response. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Any noticeboard breaks down in the face of excessive drama. That doesn’t signify a problem with the process, the same happens at AN, ANI, and also ArbCom if the clerks aren’t active. It also happens in content discussions and RfCs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
The point is that what we have here is exactly the same as we have elsewhere and that isn’t going to do anything useful. I can understand the incentive to make progress with an actual recommendation from the RFA reform RFC but this is utterly counterproductive. Speaking as someone whose professional work has included a lot of change management, You have clearly gone off half cocked here and unless you guys start listening to the feedback you are going to completely fuck this up. I deleted an article once because of a consensus from discussion at VPP and was overruled by DRV because that consensus has not been worked through and properly enacted. That is where we are now with this. If you actually want this succeed I implore you to stop, listen, discuss and then act. Spartaz Humbug! 17:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think you aimed that at me, but what exactly do you want me to do? Block Fram for civility and bringing a board into disrepute? That'll appease the drama gods alright. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Pause, clear the board and work with other users to design an RFC to establish something that has broad support outside the RFA reform walled garden. I’m astonished that the number of incredibly well respected and sensible editors raising concerns here isn’t giving you considerable pause for thought. Spartaz Humbug! 18:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually, it is - as I said above, "they have a point". But equally, such things need a bit of thought and sensible discussion, which we don't have right now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Then why are we not turning it off and waiting until a proper RFC before turning it on again? Spartaz Humbug! 18:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Don't worry Ritchie333, I'm not going to bring your playground board into disrepute anymore, I have little interest in a place where ridiculous distracting arguments ("it was dealt with at AfD", "it belongs at DRV", and so on, paraphrased because I can't be bothered to spend time quote hunting) are apparently encouraged as they are "civil", even when they are completely and utterly missing the point. And you should have been aware that you are not uninvolved with me, having too often decided to threaten me with one-sided action in disputes involving your wikifriends (or now your pet board). It didn't work the previous times (and the threats miraculously never lead to anything), and the only result is that I don't really take whatever you have the say serious any longer (also because of things like your comments about Diannaa at ANI some time ago, again when you were defending a wikifriend). Your objectivity is way too often lacking, and you don't seem to know when you should take of your admin hat. Fram (talk) 18:21, 6 January 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.

Outcomes

Turns out that many of us agree that we can review actions that have expired -- so, for example, a 31-hour block would be reviewable in this forum even though it would end naturally before our own discussion can be closed. At issue is the wording we use. At the moment, with some exceptions we seem to be saying "endorse" or "overturn", but it's not actually possible to overturn something like a block that's expired.

I propose that in such cases the language could be "endorse", "deplore" (meaning the community disagrees with the action that's expired), or "annul" (meaning the community disagrees with the action strongly enough to retrospectively change it; in the case of a block this would mean making a very short block with a note to say the previous block was annulled by the community).—S Marshall T/C 18:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I just think the usage of of the word "deplore" is strange. I suggest "censure" instead. /changed to "vacate"/ I agree with everything else. It's important to constrain overturning to actionable closes. But yes, a 31-hour block can't just not be reviewable. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
A censure is applied to a person, not an action. It's also generally a formal action taken on its own. I'd use "disendorse" as I'll elaborate below. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The RFC stipulated the outcomes thus: "to reach a consensus on whether the action should be endorsed or not endorsed"(italics in the original). Are you drafting a new RFC to supersede that? NebY (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
So you are saying that XRV discussions should be closed only as "endorsed" and "not endorsed", as in, that's the specific language of the process that consensus formed around in the RfC? — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes. NebY (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I would say "disendorse". We wouldn't be overturning the sanction, but actively saying that the sanction was wrongly decided. So for all intents and purposes the block doesn't matter for the future and was a "wrongful block". This also keeps with the language of the original RfC, which mentions "not endorsed" as an outcome. "Censure" or "deplore" on the other hand implies active condemnation of the person who made the block above and beyond just saying it was incorrectly decided. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I think the suggestion of "vacate" that was made on the main page is reasonable. "Deplore" has specific value-judgement connotations. The intent of this review page is not to issue sanctions, so I don't think "censure" is a good fit. "Disendorse" is not a word. isaacl (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Considering that our blocking policy states: "Very short blocks may be used to record, for example, an apology or acknowledgement of mistake in the block log in the event of a wrongful or accidental block, if the original block has expired." I think it's sufficient language to justify reviewing actions that have recently expired. I also think that "overturning" such an expired action would be tantamount to invoking this provision and the prescribed manner of correcting the log by indicating that the overturned action was wrongfully imposed.--John Cline (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Vacate seems to be the best option. I don't like "disendorse" (not a word) or "not endorsed" (not clear, as it could mean no consensus). — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiktionary:disendorse says it is a word. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
As such, the term implies that the action was initially endorsed. More often than not, such an inference will be inaccurate. I still believe that "overturn" is sufficiently robust to allow the closer to adequately weigh the intended remit. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
All actions are initially endorsed by virtue of the person performing them being given the discretionary power to do so. If a block is not brought up here, it has been presumably endorsed by the community. The status quo would be that the action has been allowed. A no consensus close is letting the action stand presumably as a result of this. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
My apologies; I should have said not a common word, and so I don't think it's a good choice. Additionally, the usage from the quotations in the cited definition is that the original endorser withdrew their support, which is not apt for this situation. isaacl (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • How about "Endorse", "Disapprove" (bad call), or "Annul" (terrible call, amend block log)?—S Marshall T/C 09:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    I like "disapprove"; "deplore" sounds a bit like ranting to me, "unendorse" or "disendorse" implies that you previously supported something. "Vacate" sounds like "overturn" to me. Not sure about "Annul". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    I like annul better than disapprove. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
As the wording in the original proposal specifically mentions "endorsed" and "not endorsed", I think we should stick with those. Therefore I would say that the different outcomes should be "endorsed", "no consensus", "not endorsed", or "reversed". "Reversed" (or "overturned", which I see as equivalent) would obviously be for situations where there is still something that can BE reversed, while "not endorsed" would be for situations where the action was incorrect but cannot now be reversed (e.g. expired blocks). "Disendorsed" is just not euphonic to my ears and isn't in common usage (of course, neither is "euphonic", so call me a hypocrite if you must). Additionally, it implies a reversal of a previous endorsement, which isn't correct here. "Deplore", "disapprove", and "censure" all imply a degree of shaming and/or punishment which is not at all in keeping with the original non-confrontational spirit of the proposal. "Vacated" and "annulled", at least in American jurisprudence, are used when a higher court cancels the ruling of a lower court and sends it back for another hearing in the lower court in line with the higher court's decision; this isn't suitable for WP:XRV since the closing admin/editor should be performing any reversals on the spot, not asking the original admin to reverse their own action.-- Aervanath (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • How about quash?—S Marshall T/C 00:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    I'd want to support it, but I feel that for some people it has a negative connotation. I think it's more likely than not that we will have the following binary: endorse/overturn, and if overturning is functionally impossible, the negative outcome is converted from "overturned" to "not endorsed". However it must be explained that "not endorsed" is not a lack of consensus to endorse, but a presence of consensus not to endorse. This simply needs to be painted on some wall not to cause confusion. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The RFC, quoted above, was explicit; "to reach a consensus on whether an action or set of actions is endorsed or not endorsed" is clearly stated twice, and it continued "Individual actions that are not endorsed can be reversed". The possibility remains, as throughout Wikipedia, that the process will not reach a consensus and we are accustomed to recording that as no consensus, but otherwise the outcomes have already been stipulated and agreed. NebY (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    Generally speaking, English Wikipedia proposals are not so inflexible to rule out variation in wording. I'm not strongly opinionated about the various words that don't have specific judgement connotations. The important thing, however, is for the closing to clearly explain the group decision, and not rely on close parsing of an individual word or two. isaacl (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    The proposal was to take some of the heat out of adminship by setting up a low-dramah way to consider whether a specific action was within policy. It was not to be about censuring or deploring actions, merely endorsing or not endorsing them. The review would not quash or annul any actions; instead, any individual administrator or editor with sufficient permissions could then act on a consensus (that the action was not endorsed as within policy) by reversing actions. That's what the community found attractive (though there were concerns that it would turn into RFC/U) and that's what we should be trying to set up. We don't need another place where we can seek to deplore, censure, vacate, annul, disapprove, overturn and quash. NebY (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    You are simply describing the current state of affairs with the exception of opposing the use of the word "overturn". That word was added to the header in this edit (diff) on Dec 10 with the summary of "overhaul to provide structured discussion format per RfC. some wording comes from WP:MRV and WP:DRV. See those pages for attribution history". This change was discussed on this talk ending in essential consensus (here). If you are arguing that this is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which attempts to override the RfC, I believe that you are wrong because this is just more precise and technically adequate wording reused from MR and DRV, which were the primary inspiration for the proposal. This section is actually more about formally distinguishing the result when the action can and when it can not be reversed. It's precisely in the spirit of the RfC to also allow for the actions which are no longer reversible to be reviewed. If we just say "not endorsed" we lose the distinction and it's more effective to have this distinction so as to clearly signal that the action either can or can not be reversed. — Alalch Emis (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    Let me check:
    • You endorse this Dec10 version: The closing statement should provide a summary of the consensus reached in the dicsussion and clearly state if the action is Endorsed, Not endorsed, or if there is No consensus.
    • You say that has been approved by this discussion which didn't discuss that wording and ended with a desire to avoid "overstepping the remit established in the RfC".
    • You agree that the terms since proposed in this section, such as deplore, censure, vacate, annul, disapprove, overturn and quash, should not be used.
    • You would like to replace "not endorsed" with "overturned" but because some actions can't be reversed or have been reversed already, you need a fourth term as an alternative to "overturned"
    • You wish to set aside the process approved in the RFC, by which Acting on that consensus is deferred to existing processes: Individual actions that are not endorsed can be reversed by any editor or administrator.
    Is that correct? NebY (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    Speaking only for myself, I understood the 2021 December 10 version of this page to have said: "The closing statement should provide a summary of the consensus reached in the [discussion] and clearly state if the action is Endorsed, Not endorsed, or if there is No consensus." In the same revision, participants are told to either
    • Endorse the original action; or
    • Overturn the original action and optionally an (action) to take instead.
    I considered these as complimentary instructions, one for the closer and the other for participants. And I extrapolated that to infer that the closer could evaluate my !vote to overturn the action, or even perhaps to reverse an action as being tantamount to not endorsing just as I would expect that same closer to evaluate a !vote to endorse or even perhaps to agree with the action as being a !vote that endorsed. The only reason you may have seen me comment above about overturn being sufficient was because it was the language in current instructional use at the time, and I did not want to see it changed to some of the other suggestions floating about. Even so, if the instructions allowed the closer to evaluate overture as not endorsed, I would expect that same latitude to allow the closer to evaluate annul, deplore, or terrible in like manner, irrespective of my own, linguistic fancy (and perhaps theirs as well). To illustrate, in my only !vote on this board, to date, I actually said that I disagreed with the action. Therefore, to make a long reply a bit shorter, I don't think it matters too much how a participant arranges their prose as long as the closer can sort it into one of the two options afforded them as either endorsed or not endorsed and then whether or not one or the other has achieved consensus, or not. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    I completely agree with your last sentence. I might get there slightly differently, but yes, that's just the point. NebY (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • If we want the trichotomy, how about Endorse, Overturn, and Overturn and annul? Seems simpler to me. — Charles Stewart (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Based on the RfC there are only two outcomes possible here: "Endorsed" and "not endorsed". The RfC does not establish whether no consensus means "Endorsed" or "Not endorsed" but it must mean one of them because the RfC doesn't allow for a third option. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    I think no consensus means no consensus for change where the status quo coming into the discussion would remain in effect upon it's conclusion. Therefore (using a block as example) if the block settings had not been changed by a second mover, no consensus would stand as a quasi endorsement of the initial block whereas, if the block settings had been changed by a second mover, over the objections of the blocking administrator, no consensus would stand as not endorsing the initial block. That, of course, is my opinion and it's mostly academic (responding to your assertion that it must be one of them). Personally, I disagree that it must be one or the other preferring instead that it must neither be one nor the other while the status quo remains. The nuance in no consensus closes is that they are generally given "without prejudice" against pursuing consensus in any subsequent discussion that may ensue, without regard to when it might commence. I feel a bit like the pot describing the kettle's color because I'm sure I haven't said a thing that you didn't already know Thryduulf? But I've enjoyed the replying to your comments no less. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Looks like we need another RFC about this board's establishment so let's put this on the list of things to think about there.—S Marshall T/C 09:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Two suggestions

Maybe some things relatively easy to agree on? As a compromise? Independent from whether the MFD succeeds, fails, or is procedurally closed? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Temporary removal of links to this page from directions at AN/ANI, WP:ADMIN, etc.

I wonder if we could get an agreement that it is too early to have added pointers to this page at the instructions for AN, ANI, AIV, WP:ADMIN, etc. saying that admin actions should be reviewed here. Regardless of how the MFD ends up, there seems to be a rough consensus there, even among keep votes, that this isn't quite ready to go live (if you assume that all the delete votes would think this better than nothing). Could we agree to add those links only after there is a consensus somewhere that it is ready to go live?

  • Support as proposer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support temporary measure —valereee (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, sensible move. Schazjmd (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. JBchrch talk 20:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support This is a hot mess and we shouldn't be pointing users toward it as though it is a well-defined and at least semi-functional project page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. This is not the venue that the RfC called for, it just happens to share its name. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Not ready and not per RFC consensus NebY (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: I can't find where consensus was established for the additions of these pointers, and they were not part of the initial plan for the venue. — Bilorv (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, but hammering things out perfectly in advance is not how Wikipedia works. If it's no more of a dumpster fire than ANI, then it's not worse than the previous status quo. Also, this needs to be widely advertised in order to be valid--not sure that talk page of this specific project page counts. Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Partial support Scrubbing it from everywhere isn't helpful so I'm opposed to the "etc" part without more clarity. I do agree that removing the more visible pointers from AN, ANI, and AIV would be a good idea for now. I'm neutral on removing mention from WP:ADMIN since I doubt much traffic comes from there. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    The "etc" was sloppy, fair enough, the intention was "anywhere where the use of AARV is presented as currently recommended/required/official". I don't mean to imply all links in WP space need to go down the memory hole. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    No worries, I assumed as much. I just wanted to make sure we avoid accidentally creating more ambiguity. I think that's a reasonable principle, and should some removals be contentious it gives a good sense of how to weigh competing concerns. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support — Per Floquenbeam, and for the very purpose I supported the other proposal, this venue is currently plagued with teething problems. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Inviting, or indeed encouraging traffic, to a board that is this unready for use is not a good idea. wjematherplease leave a message... 23:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as this forum hasn't really got off the ground yet. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. The creation of this new venue has nothing to do with the 4-month RfA Review and the proposal for it should never have been accepted there. However, we're stuck with a consensus for it now and the details need to be workshopped in the same manner they always are for major policy changes or new features, and approved by the broader community. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support because this has turned into exactly what those of us who opposed it in the RfC knew it would turn into. Also, Kudpung's point is extremely pertinent, this had nothing to do with RfA. People should create a process and then actually propose it for an RfC on that process. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Partial support removing from AN/ANI/AIV. It's not a conduct forum and not helpful to link from those conduct forums. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose essentially per Jclemens. If we actually use it, we'll improve it/fix it/whatever. If we don't, we'll argue for weeks and have nothing to show for it. Whatever flaws this has, it's no worse than "have a free for all at AN", so we're not doing any harm. Martinp (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Done, since there's a very clear consensus here. It's removed a line from the AN/ANI instructions directing people to use this page, I'm in the process of removing a similar instruction from WP:VAND. WP:ADMIN is a little different, because it's full protected, so I've asked at that talk page. I thought I'd seen a similar instruction at AIV, but must have been mistaken; those 4 places appear to be the only "instructions" to use this page. Once there's consensus that it's ready for prime time, they can be re-added easily enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose- We should have the pointers to the boards-in-question. PS: I'm assuming (of course) that this board's existence has been agreed to. No more RFCs or MFDs? GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Alternative proposal: Instead of outright removal (which I oppose), adopt this change to the policy page: Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Administrator Noticeboard. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)\
  • Support from what I've seen it isn't ready to go live. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Temporary labeling at the top of this page that this is still in progress

Or under construction, or in beta testing, or scope in flux, or opt-in for both parties, or something? I wonder if we could get an agreement that it is too early to have this page look and act as if it was an active, official page who's use is required. Regardless of how the MFD ends up, there seems to be a rough consensus there, even among keep votes, that this isn't quite ready to go live (if you assume that all the delete votes would think this better than nothing). Could we agree to add this kind of notice until there is a consensus somewhere that it is ready to go live?

  • Support as proposer. Agnostic about the exact wording of the label/template/notice/whatever. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as a temporary measure —valereee (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, also sensible move. Schazjmd (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, although the "beta test" probably shouldn't begin until there's an actual structure in place. Otherwise it's just an ANI thread with fewer eyes, and at the end someone has to say "endorsed" or "not endorsed". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)s
  • Support, with proposed wording "This noticeboard is currently being created", inspired by {{Under construction}} and {{in creation}}. JBchrch talk 20:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: it has been created and is live. Where is the implication that its use "is required" (under what circumstances)? — Bilorv (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Editors are currently instructed to come here: "To challenge an administrative action by an administrator or other user with advanced permissions, click here", which leads to AARV, in the headers at AN/ANI/AIV and other pages. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the explanation, Floquenbeam. I think this is fully addressed by your first suggestion, which I now support, and I still oppose this second suggestion (with a strikethrough of my now-answered question). — Bilorv (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish that describing it as in beta is also too soon as it implies that the broad structure and scope are agreed upon and fine tuning is all that is required, when that very clearly is not the case. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support This is clearly not functioning properly and I think the scope is very poorly defined, this all needs to be clarified by a general consensus of the broader editing community and I would suggest a widely-advertised RFC, not here but at the village pump. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support clear labelling for anyone who might try to use it and to reassure anyone who fears it might be used in anything like its current state (and/or should we draftify it? very rarely, new pages for non-article namespaces such as the Portal:, Template: and Wikipedia: namespaces are first incubated in the draftspace) NebY (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support a notation that this is a newly created process and norms are still being established. Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support I think it's clear that the implementation ran into scaling problems. I do think the best way to build this board is consensus by editing. Our main goal is getting something that works to address community needs, and we can do that faster when we don't have repeated discussions to decide the weekly bikeshed color. This isn't uncommon for boards like this, with WP:DfD and WP:ORCP starting as small tests and gradually formalizing as more precedent gets formed from the test cases. That approach generally seemed to be working fine here, but the venue grew very quickly and with the RfC seemed more official and formal than I think it was ready for. This led to misplaced expectations and frustration that a banner like this could help temper. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support — A reasonable move in the right direction, the problem with this, is not necessarily a “problem” but a general issue concomitant with any cogent implementation which is; it is still afflicted with multiple teething problems. Celestina007 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. This needs to slow down. The implementation of this process page reminds me of the implementation of WP:A. A Change management failure. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. This board is in the very early stages of development (with its purpose, scope and operating procedures yet to be properly agreed and clearly defined) and should be labelled as such. wjematherplease leave a message... 23:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support including the informational note. I disagree with saying: "For the interim, participation is optional." because it implies a post-interim period where participation will or may not be optional and that is unequivocally the wrong message to infer.--John Cline (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. The creation of this new venue has nothing to do with the 4-month RfA Review and the proposal for it should never have been accepted there. However, we're stuck with a consensus for it now and the details need to be workshopped in the same manner they always are for major policy changes or new features, and approved by the broader community. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per Kudpung. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support the idea of saying it's in beta or the like. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. While I opposed making it "un-live" above, I see the value in noting this is a work in progress. Martinp (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Done by Jehochman a day ago, without being reverted, and with clear consensus here. Might still be some wordsmithing, which can be handled in the normal manner. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Make the links to the boards-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

What is the problem?

I've been moving my family across the continent this week, so I'm just now trying to catch up on what the hell is happening here. And I have to say, I really struggle to see how any of it can be described as a "compromise". We've rapidly moved from Floquenbeam finding out about this new process and being confused about it (entirely reasonable) to a failed MfD and now an attempt to orphan it from other project pages and put up arbitrary barriers to it functioning. What I'm missing is any indication of what the bloody problem is, and how it justifies this extreme escalation.

The MfD was opened with generic insults in lieu of a deletion rationale, so there are no clues there. Floq, you initially said the introduction/scope was unclear, and that is an entirely valid concern, but what points are confusing exactly, and how can we improve it? @Beeblebrox: You've repeatedly called the whole process a "mess", which is hardly more constructive than the shitty MfD nom: what exactly is wrong with it? @Thryduulf: You have said in several places that the implementation is different from what was agreed at the RfC, but how? I proposed it and, although implementation has largely been undertaken by others, it looks exactly like imagined, so perhaps I (and Ritchie and Barkeep and several others involved in talk page discussions here) were on a different page to others in support? @TonyBallioni and Kudpung: You seem to be just repeating points you already made when you opposed creating XRV, but I think you both know full well that sometimes you just have to accept that consensus is against you. It seems some are not happy with how the last few XRVs went, but why? Is that because the instructions are bad, or because they weren't followed? What about the ones that went well and had productive outcomes?

We are trying to make a positive change to our community dynamics -- not something that's easy or regularly attempted. Obviously it won't be perfect at first, but we've used the tools we always do on Wikipedia: a strong consensus on the fundamentals at the initial RfC, following by bold editing, reverts and tweaking, and regular disucssions on this talk page. Why is this suddenly insufficient? What on earth is an "official page" and why is this not one? Please help me understand what is going on here and let's come up with some actual compromises and constructive suggestions instead of pouring water on something just because it's new. – Joe (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I was also blindsided by the MfD. Yesterday I was offwiki for a good portion of the day as I had to drive 2 hours each way for an interview, and I arrived home to find myself pinged to a massive mess (I invoked WP:trainwreck, pun partially intended, in my comment at the MfD). This is a new board and is bound to have teething issues, but the horribly done MfD did not help at all and may have made things worse instead. We need constructive feedback if we are to improve this board, not just "it sucks and I hate it so it should be blanked". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Everyone is entitled to their opinions Joe whether you like it or not - that's the function of discussion and I, Floq, and Thryduulf have voiced ours. If people would properly read the comments by me and Tony both here, on the MfD, and on the 'RfA review' instead of trying to second guess (wrongly) what is/was in our minds, maybe much of the questions will find their answer. Just to help the search, I have frequently stated that this new notice board is totally out of context for the 'RfA review', and no, I don't like it because it will just be yet another playground for disgruntled users venting their spleen, the drama-loving peanut gallery, and the governance obsessives and wannabe admins.
I have clearly conceded however, that we are stuck with the consensus for it, but like many other editors I am concerned that it must be properly workshopped and debated before it is rolled out. The sky isn't going to fall if it takes another week or two on top of the arduous long drawn out 4-month 'RfA' review. (Perhaps you remember the 'Sticky PROD'). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
But beyond your complaint about the RfA RfC being the wrong place to propose this (there's no unringing that bell), what is your opinion on what's wrong with XRV? I don't want it to become another ANI either: I share your assessment of how ANI is broken and that's literally why I proposed trying something different. So how do we avoid it going that way? It's all very well to call for workshopping and debate but at a certain point you have to put your money where your mouth is and actually suggestion some constructive changes. Otherwise it's just an obstruction tactic, which is very much the impression I get from the two 'suggestions' above. – Joe (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
What's wrong is that you can't avoid how WP:AN and WP:ANI is broken with XRV, because it's all the same people, the same type of admin actions and the same outcomes. Changing the letters after Wikipedia: doesn't change any of that. The RFC was for a process, which somehow became a page in Wikipedia space with no actual process to handle of this. 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. There is no structured discussion format, and it still has to go through AN or ANI if something needs doing. Great, instead of a process, we have another layer of bureaucracy that has no structure, and no one agrees on how exactly it should work. The problem isn't XRV itself, it's that the gun was greatly jumped in creating the page as anything other than discussions leading to RFCs to establish a process. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Joe, to answer your question to me:
  • It doesn't have a clear, or anywhere near clear, scope; there are major disagreements about basic things like who this board applies to, and what actions are reviewable.
  • It doesn't have a clear, or anywhere near clear, purpose; there are major disagreements about how and why this board is better/different than AN/ANI. So far, it's indistinguishable from AN/ANI right now.
  • It doesn't have a clear, or anywhere near clear, organization; there are major disagreements about whether this should be modeled on AE, DRV, AN, RM, or something else.
  • There is no indication that the community thinks that this is what people in the RFA RFC actually envisioned.
I agree we don't need all the i's dotted and all t's crossed, but we also can't just impose a new still-half-assed process on people. I really disagree if you think there are just a few details left to tidy up. I say "impose", because right now, there are already instructions at AN/ANI to bring review of admin actions here. Most of my concerns would go away if we just removed those instructions until this was ready for prime time (i.e. the four bullet points above got ironed out), and until there was a consensus that this board is actually fulfilling what the RFA RFC voters wanted.
You ask "what's the problem", and I've tried to answer. But I ask "what's the rush"? Why is it unreasonable to want these disagreements ironed out better before people and their actions are reviewed here? These seem such reasonable concerns that I have a hard time understanding why some people - I think including you? - seem to believe anyone who still has concerns must be stalling in the hopes of actually eliminating the board. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, @Floquenbeam:, after re-reading the original proposal from the RfC, I feel there are clear answers to your points of confusion. (Full disclosure, I !voted against the proposal, but I didn't have complaints about its clarity). I think a lot of the perceived lack of clarity is coming from editors straying from the original wording of the proposal. It may be that the instructions on this page have fudged the issue, but here are my answers to your questions, based on the original proposal:
  • Scope: "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."
  • Purpose: "to reach a consensus on whether an action or set of actions is endorsed or not endorsed". Emphasis on action; this is not a forum for a review of behavioral patterns or trying to impose sanctions. This forum is to review the action, not the administrator or editor who made the action. If an administrator is consistently having their actions overturned, that would be something to review at WP:AN. I raised the point in the RfC that reviewing actions is something WP:AN can already do, but the point of the proposal is to specifically break off this kind of review from WP:AN. So, review of an action should come to WP:XRV, review of an admin or editor should go to WP:AN or WP:AN/I.
  • Organization: "A structured discussion format". Yes, this is less detailed, but I don't see that this is really a major point of contention. By default we've fallen into mimicking WP:DRV and I'd say that's the most analogous process.
  • Whether or not the community thinks this is what the people in the RfC actually envisioned: I think what we have now goes pretty well with the wording of Joe Roe's original proposal.
While I did oppose the proposal, now that it's passed I think it should be given every chance to fulfill it's stated goals and I oppose shutting it down before we've had a few months of data on how it's actually working.-- Aervanath (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Joe: The RFC (as I read it) established consensus for the development of a venue by this name that would review, in a structured manner, actions by administrators (a) acting in their capacity as an administrator, (b) that non-administrators could not do, and (c) which do not already have a review venue. Details were to be worked out after the RfC. Instead, this board went live with a very unclear but significantly wider scope, no clear structure, no clear consensus on purpose or on possible outcomes, and an unclear relationship to existing venues like AN and ANI, with various other policies and information pages updated (in at least some cases without consensus) to allow/encourage/instruct people to take matters here in a way that was understood (at least by some) to include things that are (or may be) out of scope. This led to at least one thread that was a complete hot mess because the combination of unclear scope of the board, unclear presentation of the issues, complete absence of structure, and lack of agreed processes meant that a huge amount of heat was generated. So as someone who was completely unaware a review venue of any sort was even proposed (I didn't follow the RFA reform process because RFA is not an area I've spent any time paying attention to in many years, so didn't expect to be able to usefully contribute) the board coming into existence was something of a surprise, but I didn't pay much attention to it until the G10 issue was flagged on the Oversight mailing list as being something that could benefit from the input of oversighters. Looking into things since then it's become increasingly clear that, at the very least, it's unfinished, lacking in consensus for many basic things, and so being pulled in multiple ways by multiple different people's ideas of what it either is or should be depending on how they are interpreting the RfC, existing policies and practices, general community norms and what they perceive as being needed/wanted/desirable. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: Thank you for clarifying, but I'm afraid you're mistaken about the scope. The proposal was always to review an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools (from my original proposal, emphasis added). I don't think there has been any change to that in the implementation phase. I am beginning to understand that a large part of what is happening here is that XRV has been linked from somewhere high profile and that this has surprised a number of people with its existence. And that, without the background of the RfC, the current text of the page does not clearly explain what it is or why it exists, so surprise has turned to indignation. That's a real problem that we should tackle as a matter of priority. But if you read the discussions on this page above "Comment from a new observer", I do not think it's true that the basics of the process are lacking consensus or that it is being pulled in multiple directions. On the contrary, the reason this has moved more quickly than I expected is because there's been a surprising amount of agreement on most details, and we have moved quickly to a consensus on the rest. In other words, details were "worked out after the RfC". I am trying very hard to understand and react to the new criticisms that have now appeared, but I do not think it's reasonable to expect us to throw out the work we have done so far because one thread went awry. – Joe (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    I'm struggling to understand how you are apparently seeing things so differently to me. Perhaps it's because "an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools" is, in practice, not sufficiently clear that everyone interprets it the same way? It's extremely clear to me, reading this talk page, the MfD, and some of the reviews, that there is a huge amount of disagreement about what the structure, process and outcomes are let alone what they should be, and nothing even remotely close to a consensus. Maybe you are looking at it through the lens of having spent a long time developing things that you know what is meant by certain things while others who are coming at this fresh don't have that knowledge and interpret things differently? Certainly a small number of people have agreed on a few things, and then implemented them, only to find that when the masses come into contact with the implementation that there isn't the widespread understanding and agreement that they thought they had. That's bound to cause resentment on both sides, but only way to solve that is to take a step back and reevaluate things rather than pressing ahead as if the disagreements aren't relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I had a pretty good idea of what I intended the board to look like which I outlined here. The hard part is getting people to read it, the really hard part is getting people to agree it's the right approach, and the truly difficult part is getting the community at large to respect it. Noticeboards like DRV and ANEW are not generally considered "drama boards" because the community does not expect them to be, and on the rare occasions they descend into personal remarks, they are given short shrift - and, most importantly, that short shrift has community respect behind it.
As for ironing Floquenbeam's issues out, I'm not sure how we can realistically do that. I do know that allowing everyone to dump their opinions on this talk page is doomed for failure, and I fear that if I created an RfC, there would be no consensus to do anything. In general, I find RfCs fail because people like the general principle but oppose the specific idea. I think we can all agree that RfA isn't a great way of getting new admins; the devil is in the detail. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
If it were me, I'd run a series of RFC's. Probably abbreviated from 30 days so this doesn't drag out, but I really don't think they can be run simultaneously.
  • RFC#1: Purpose (i.e. mission statement): I honestly don't think we have one (or, more accurately, there are several competing purposes envisioned that are at odds with each other). Two in particular: do we want RFA voters to be more likely to take a chance on someone because they know this board is here to review admin actions? Do we want potential RFA candidates to be more likely to run because they know this board will be here to review their actions instead of being taken to ANI? Is this, to be honest, unrelate to RFA, and we just want a "better" ANI? It seems unwise to do anything else before figuring this out, and I honestly don't agree there is already a wide consensus on this.
  • RFC#2: Scope. This is only useful after we know the purpose.
  • RFC#3: Organization. This is only practical after we know the scope. Is this to be modeled on DRV? AN? AE? Other? Try to pick and choose the best parts of each?
  • RFC#4: Approval: Does the community approve of whatever comes out of RFC's #1-3?
I know it would take longer than some desire, but it is impractical to start using something that has not had any of these things figured out. You need a consensus on purpose before you can talk coherently about scope. The organization depends on what you decide the scope is. The community should have a chance to say "this is what we wanted" or "this is not what we wanted" before this goes live. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
(more) Regarding whether the "purpose" was already decided at the RFA RFC: If three voters at an RFC say:
  1. I want a new board dedicated to reviewing and reversing admin actions, so admin mistakes are less damaging and problem admins can be identified. Then I'd be willing to vote "support" more often.
  2. I want a new board to more gently review admin actions. Then I'd be willing to run for RFA.
  3. I want a new board to review admin actions because ANI is too toxic.
It seems like some here would say "they all agree that we need a new board, let's get to work", and I would say "hold on, they don't agree on anything". Taking this result, saying "we already have a purpose, it's to create a new board" and trying to move on with designing the new board is not going to work out. -Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this. There are multiple people seemingly assuming that "we obviously meant X" when we voted for this, but there are multiple, incompatible, meanings of X. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam I don't know how we run abbreviated RfCs - doing that will lead people to complain about process again. And it seems to me that you're giving zero weight to the consensus established at the RfC that already happened. I was offwiki most of the day yesterday and it's clear to me more work is needed before this forum is ready to do what did gain consensus so I'm not saying nothing is needed but I don't think this is a realistic vision as no consensus at any one of these is likely to override consensus of a process that is likely to have been more well attended than any of these RfCs, let alone four of them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
In the spirit of "let's move forward", we can certainly re-examine the intent for this review process. I disagree, though, with the premise that there was a lack of consensus amongst those supporting the process during the RfC. I re-reviewed the support statements. Some of them spoke specifically about reviewing actions requiring privileges bundled with the sysop group, but I don't find evidence that on the whole, supporters failed to understand the scope laid out by Joe in the proposal. Additionally, as Joe stated, up until now, there has been alignment in the discussions on this page regarding scope.
Regarding further discussions, personally, I don't think your suggestions for RfCs 1 to 3 need to be full-blown RfCs (though of course everyone will be welcome to participate in those discussions) if there is going to be a final approval RfC. isaacl (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The more I read on this talk page, the more I think of the old saying "Be careful what you ask for; you just might get it". I've long been an advocate of trying to determine exactly what the problems are before coming up with solutions, and trying to make some sort of effort to analyze what some of the unintended consequences of it would be. I think it could have easily been predicted that we would end up with just another cesspool like WP:AN and WP:AN/I. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it could have easily been predicted that bad actors would emerge with their A-game in hand, hoping to derail this endeavor and make it into the cesspool they preordained it must be. I, for one, certainly anticipated the possibility (being relatively certain that others did too). And I've committed the sum of my self, my time, and my energy to do what I can to ensure that their efforts do not succeed. Anyone who has predicted that this forum will end up becoming a cesspool will either be sorrowfully sad or gleefully glad when time and truth proves that it absolutely will not. For the record, I have removed (deciding not to publish) a considerable amount of opinion that would have otherwise followed. It was the better thing, so I did. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Just ping me, if there's gonna be another RFC or another MFD. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Concurring with Hammersoft, the real interpretation of the title of this sub-thread 'What is the problem?' by Joe, my thoughts on this new board when it was proposed during Barkeep49's RfA review, 'what the bloody problem is' is that it is a solution looking for a problem. I'll eat my hat if it doesn't turn out to be just another cesspool like WP:AN and WP:AN/I.
What Floq is explaining above ('I'd run a series of RFC's') is precisely what I've broadly hinted at said several times in the course of this tangle of threads and is the way that most successful proposals for important things reach maturity and consensus for roll out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

With all the sidelining talk of RfC this and RfC that and RfC here and RfC there, let's remain cognizant of a few important things: 1.) This forum has consensus (in fact: strong consensus). 2.) The RfC onus to effect/force changes contrary to that strong consensus is not on the one's building this forum (upon the consensus achieved) it's on the very ones who refuse to accept/acknowledge the consensus that went against their desired end. 3.) Although consensus can change, it's a very difficult task, and the overwhelming majority of times tried, the result is and probably will be: no consensus for change. So go right ahead (here or there) and RfC this and/or that (until your heart is content) and we (with high hopes for the good things consensus empowered us to build) will abide by any consensus you might achieve. Nevertheless (to borrow a quote from GoodDay: "Just ping me, if there's gonna be another RFC or another MFD.".--John Cline (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Replacing my former comment with something actually brief: I agree with everything Floquenbeam said.
    I'll also add that typically when a major RfC passes, the ideal is to incorporate the legitimate points the opposes said into the implementation since there's never really consensus for the entirety of the proposal as written, and the views of the minority that are acknowledged as legitimate by the supermajority also form part of that consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
John you keep saying "This forum has consensus", but that's not true. There was consensus to develop a forum of this name, but that is not the same thing. It's also abundantly clear from this talk page that the forum as it currently exists does not have consensus, but that's not the result of "bad actors" trying to derail it but from people trying to develop something that both has consensus and will actually work. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment from a new observer

I'm trying to get up to speed on what this board is actually for, and what distinguishes it from AN/ANI. I'm probably still not there. I don't think it's adequately explained in the header (I'd try to help fix it, but as I said I don't really understand myself). But looking at the last two reports, they seem pretty indistinguishable from AN/ANI threads. In my link-following, I saw a comment, somewhere (don't recall where) by someone (don't recall who, though I think it was User:Joe Roe?) that this was supposed to be less cesspit-like than AN/ANI. These last two reports are just ANI v2.0. Is there a clear mission statement somewhere about what you're actually trying to achieve? How you're trying to be different than AN/ANI? Or is this supposed to be like a split from AN/ANI, but you're trying to move the review of admin actions here, and leaving AN/ANI for the other stuff? If it's this last one, I really don't see the point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I helped put the case for this board together with an example, and then with the opening example of a self-review of one of my own actions I didn't think was optimal. As far as I intended, the idea is simply to work out whether a particular admin action is acceptable per policies and practices or not. It's about actions not conduct and any incivil or inflammatory remarks should be hatted, struck, reverted or otherwise dealt with in the same manner as WP:DRV or the Teahouse - which AFAIK gets a swift reprimand in this manner. As I've said elsewhere, the last thread in particular was completely against the environment I had planned for the board, and I've got no scruples about suggesting that people who can't play nice here take it to AN/ANI instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I note that at WP:DRN, Robert McClenon (as one of the clerks there) seems to be on the ball with hatting incivil and non-content related remarks, so maybe he can advise further. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Ritchie333 - See below. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I was going to post along similiar lines that the most recent discussion isn't discernably different from those at the incidents' noticeboard or the admnistrators' noticeboard. When the proposal for an administrative action review process was initially made, I had thought that a "structured discussion format" would involve some separation of comments or other form of moderation in order to de-escalate conflict, as I have discussed in earlier sections on this talk page. I've made some suggestions (separate sections for commenters and limits on commenting frequency). Does anyone else feel that more structure would be helpful? If so, what do you support or propose? isaacl (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I think that could be useful. For example, the template at WP:ANEW forces you to think about the dispute, outline exactly what the issues are, and gets you to confirm that you've tried to resolve the dispute in a more informal manner first. Anyone going in with a gung-ho attitude of "pls block this user" on that noticeboard isn't going to get anywhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, this did come from RfA Improvements RfC - so the real test will be if having this board makes RFA better or not I suppose...... — xaosflux Talk 00:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I think it needs to stand on its own: does this process resolve issues more effectively than other ones? (For the record, I don't foresee any significant number of RfA commenters saying, well, we can now review individual actions in a place other than the incidents' noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard, so I think I'm more willing to support this candidate.) isaacl (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems that a desysop proposal on German Wikipedia was credited with bringing about a relatively low RfA barrier and better admin–community relations. ... Administrators generally appear to be regarded as accountable for their actions. (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-10-22/Special report). In a similar vein, if this venue is successful in ensuring accountability in ways that AN/ANI are not, it could have a similar effect. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I think this review process is a much smaller step than introducing a voting-based procedure to remove administrative privileges, and thus don't believe we can extrapolate too much from German Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I don't think the utility of this process should be judged solely by its effect on the number of administrators. isaacl (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
A preliminary attempt at improvement: [3]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't favour the change, because I don't think it's going to help. Editors trying to get others in trouble aren't going to pay it any heed, and I think it's more likely to put ideas in someone's head rather than make them reflect upon other courses of action. isaacl (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The scope here is ridiculously huge. First off, it is called "Administrative action review" but most of what it seems to support are NON-admin actions. The name doesn't fit the purpose given. So far, it honestly seems like a cluster fuck of confusion about what it is supposed to be. If it was limited to only admin actions, then sure. It wouldn't be that busy, but the scope would make sense, and it would serve a purpose for the community. There's no reason to have a special board to discuss rollback usage from some new guy, as ANI can already handle that. I'm unimpressed.. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    I do think a tightening in scope may be a good idea. Specifically we may want to narrow down the list of "advanced permissions" supported by this venue. For most permissions it would clearly be inappropriate to start a section here based on a single misguided action (eg one rollback), in part due to the insignifiance of the action and the fact that it's easily reversed. It'd only be appropriate to start a centralised discussion when discussing patterns of behaviour which takes it out of scope of XRV (as it discusses individual actions only), and would naturally lead to AN-style discourse anyway. Similarly, I can't imagine "AutoWikiBrowser" or even "Pending changes reviewer" ever having single-action disputes; usually the issues involve patterns of disruptive behaviour. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    This would be a horrible place for AWB issues. You need AN/ANI, which have lots of AWB users, who can offer some perspective on the use. To me, it would be best if it was "admin only". We handle the other stuff fine at AN/ANI, but the community could benefit from a board ONLY for admin actions, which can get sidelined at the other venues. That might be a good accountability tool. As designed, it just makes me want to unwatch and wash my hands of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    Similarly, I cannot see how AfCH or NPR need to be discussed here. There are already appeal provisions for AFC: The appeal of a mistaken decline of a draft is to resubmit it for another reviewer; the appeal for a mistaken acceptance is AfD. NPP by itself does nothing directly actionable--it can only lead to another process , such as one of the deletion processes. Marking a page as reviewed does not prevent this. Not marking a page as reviewed merely leaves it for another reviewer. A pattern of incorrect reviews in either process is another matter, and using this board for that purpose would have made some sense. But not for individual actions, as apparently being planned. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    Whatever the scope, this current system was hobbled together without consensus, mainly covers non-admin actions, when it was "approved" in an RFC about RFA. I think TNT is the only solution, and a new RFC is needed to get consensus on the scope, the format and the authority. If you do go to MFD, ping me, as I will support. The general idea of a board for reviewing abuse of the bits is a good idea, this current page is miles away from that. I'm happy to support a new page that focuses mainly on admin use of the bits, which is the real need. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    Many editors think the arbitration enforcement request page is more effective at resolving issues due to having some structure. The original proposal seemed to me to be an attempt to bring some structure to reviewing decisions. It's an opportunity to try to change ineffective aspects of the current open-ended, freewheeling discussions. I don't know if it will end up being better or worse than the incidents noticeboard or the administrators' noticeboard, but I think the community should have some freedom to try new things, evaluate how well they went, and then plan next steps. isaacl (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    Is there a general feeling that DRV and MRV are cesspits? That they are great dismal swamps? Because I haven't seen that feeling. And so, in my mind, it's about asking what makes those forums work without that sentiment and not ANI? I think there are elements we can do nothing about - one reason those work is that they attract less of the POPCORN crowd and because deletion and move decisions feel less personal. However, I think there are structural lessons we can learn to keep this board from turning into an airing of grievances. And perhaps there are lessons to be learned from places like ANEW as well but I think turning towards AE as the model for this board already means that this board will have lost its way from focused discussion about decisions rather than editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    I agree: DRV is one of the most rational processes we have. MfD would be just asgood if it had more participation. We should use them as models. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    I don't participate very much in deletion review, but it seems to me that calmest discussions there occur when participants provide their viewpoint and move on, rather than argue back and forth with each person. In my opinion, that is the structure that needs to be fostered. There can be different ways to achieve this: I suggested a couple and it would be great to hear others. isaacl (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I opposed the creation of this board, and still think it was a bad idea, but it seems we're stuck with it. I have to agree it is a hot mess, and that being far too broad and ill-defined is for sure part of the problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed. IMO we should pause the use of this board temporarily while an RFC is held to discuss the precise scope and format. SQLQuery Me! 21:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Per Xaosflux, this was a spin-off from the essential purpose of the mega RfA Review and I do not believe for a moment that it will encourage more candidates of the right calibre to apply for the job. This new feature is far to broad in its scope and it will be just another venue for every disgruntled user to vent his/her spleen, and if anything it will be worse than ANI. There is already a jungle of noticeboards on Wikipedia to the extent that even some of the most experienced users are getting lost in it, or just can't be bothered. Like Beeblebrox, I opposed it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the creation was a good idea to fill a need, or at least might possibly be a good idea if there were some structure. I interpreted the close as saying we should proceed to discuss how to make such a board, not that we should immediately make a board , and then discuss things that are wrong with how we did it--starting with the basic question of what the scope ought to be. I suggest starting over, and then holding an RfC on the resulting procedure. There seems to be enough dissatisfaction that I am considering the possibility of MfD. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what grounds you'd push for its deletion through MfD, @DGG:. Wanting to remake it would need more of an RfC windup, rather than MfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I'd push for deletion on the basis there is no consensus to use it. Details below. ``
  • The page is fine. Scope is clear and consistent with the RfC result. Immediately making the board as opposed to theorycrafting one first was better. There is a seeming lack of structure because formatting conventions aren't observed. In time, people will actually read the header and the (soft) requirement regarding formatting and accept it. Also, people are still bringing administrative actions for review to AN as opposed to here, impoverishing this venue of relevant cases; see latest example: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#My block of ThePresidentoftheworld. I'd vote keep in a MfD. — Alalch Emis (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I wholly agree with DGG - not that think the noticeboard is a good idea - I don't by a long chalk, but anything like this should clearly have been an adoption in principle and the actual details worked out and put to a further RfC. That's the way it's always been done in the past and there was no reason to jump the gun here. The sky won't fall from just taking a while longer to dot the Is and cross the Ts on something that has a consensus to be done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    I totally disagree with that, the entire foundation of Wikipedia was built on WP:IAR and WP:BOLD and encouraged people to try things, not sit around arguing about inconsequential details. If the naysayers treat it as ANI 2.0, it will become ANI 2.0 as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    The original structure of WP was built upon the concept of consensus. In the very early days, there were very few people, and they experimented with various things, and some of them have been extensively modified, and some of them totally forgotten (while remaining on the site to confuse people). That's not the way a mature organization can work, and we actually have a guideline about it: Instead of quoting magic letters, let's actually look at the guideline WP:BOLD: The section WP:Be bold#Non-article namespaces says
    Although editors are encouraged to be bold in updating articles, more caution is sometimes required when editing pages in non-article namespaces...Problems may arise for a variety of reasons in different contexts in non-article namespaces. These problems should be taken into account in deciding whether to be bold, and how bold to be. The admonition "be careful" is especially important in relation to policies and guidelines, where key parts may be phrased in a particular way to reflect a very hard-won, knife-edge consensus—which may not be obvious to those unfamiliar with the background. In these cases, it is also often better to discuss potential changes first. ..
    This is then expanded upon on [[WP:Policies and guidelines]#Proposals]] which calls itself a Procedural Policy and is as much policy as WP:BOLD. It defines:
    Process pages, which facilitate application of the policies and guidelines (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion), What policy or guideline is this based on?, the way Articles for Deletion is based Upon WP:Deletion Policy, which specified its basic rules. at [[:WP:Deletion Policy#Deletion review]
    Similarly, WP:IAR is based on the assumption that there will be consensus. It's a rule about when to violate the letter of guidelines and even policy. If you're proceeding under IAR, and find you don't have consensus, you can't use it. I've argued under IAR many times in deletion discussions, and sometime, but not often, the the consensus is to use it. Otherwise we'd be an anarchy., and one of the provisions of WP:NOT: is WP:NOTANARCHY.
    Consider an example: I, helped by whoever feels the same way and wants to help, could immediately start a page WP:Adminstrative action review 2 and write rules for doing things in a different manner altogether. Anyone could then bring a test case of two to try to establish it. It would be as equally justified by the close at the Admin reform RfC as this page. It would have just as much right to overturn actions.
    Among the main guidelines there is one that very directly applies here: WP:PROPOSAL. The way being taken here is the exact opposite. There was consensus we needed a procedure, but there was an attempt to determine what that ought to be, or to give proper notice. A notice we were discussing ways to improve the Admin selection process does not imply a discussion on developing a new way of dealing with errors in advance permissions.
    Maybe the way to proceeed is to have a discussion about what we need to review, before trying to write procedures and then figuring out what we want to do with them. The basis for a MfD is the lack of consensus and the need to start over. DGG ( talk ) 14:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    @DGG: It's based on the policy on administrators: WP:ADMIN --> WP:ANYUSER, WP:ADMINABUSE, WP:TOOLMISUSE (policy sections). — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    But the wording that includes this process was added 3 days ago by one of the people developing this process specifically to support it. That was an equally unjustified bold group of edits, and relying on them is circular reasoning of the most obvious nature. Itseems to indicate that this is an attempt to override the need for consensus.
    I reverted the changes on the basis that the discussion of this policy shows a lack of consensus to adopt it, giving a link to this discussion of the talk pages. I also call your attention to the policy Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines#Substantive change. Enough for one day--I'll look for further discussion tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    I think we're getting too deep into the weeds here, and probably the wrong set of weeds in any case. The point is that the venue was created after a high-level RfC showed support for it, and minor implementation details were worked out on talk and through bold editing, which are recognised as valid methods even for policies (WP:PGBOLD), which this is not. Frankly it's the best form of collaborative editing. This page has 136 watchers but nobody seems to agree with you that this is an illegitimate venue, even if some may question its utility. I can't figure out exactly what substantive concerns you have, but I imagine it would be more productive to focus on those, if any. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    That an RfC established consensus for a venue of this name is true. However, that consensus was for a venue with a very different scope to the venue that currently exists. So DGG is correct that what we have here has not been established by consensus, and this talk page shows that there is not a consensus for what we currently have. Thryduulf (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I was unaware that my last edit reverted Floquenbeam's preceding edit and tied into this recent and broader discussion. I was just passing by and was surprised to see this in the header of such a board. I personally think that the difference with ANI is quite clear: ANI is for behavioral problems, and this page is for administrative actions and other actions taken by holders of advanced permissions. Maybe the best way to underline it is to move the current 4th "should not be used" instruction at the top? I have not followed this board closely enough to judge it cesspit-like-ness, but I don't think it's very surprising that a board dedicated to the actions of people in power attracts a fair amount of drama and commentary, as Wikipedia is—be ready for the hot take here—populated by human beings. JBchrch talk 11:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    As soon as participants started following the advised formatting in this active discussion, the discussion gained focus. It's an example of what the forum looks like when it's functioning. It doesn't involve drama. — Alalch Emis (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    As opposed to the section about the declining of an A10 nomination where a non admin was threatened with a block fir challenging an argument, clearly this isn’t what was anticipated. Spartaz Humbug! 17:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    That section went excellently. An appeal at the wrong venue was speedily closed. Concerning activity halted in a timely manner. Just another proof that the venue works as intended. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    If that is your idea of how this board is going to promote admin accountability then I’m afraid you must be living in a different reality to me. Spartaz Humbug! 17:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • What I took from the RfC that created this was that the average editor wanted a place to report admin misconduct. Not mistakes, not abuse of advanced permissions by admins or non-admins. Actual intentional or repeated misconduct by administrators. A bad block or unblock, a bad protect or unprotect, a bad edit through protection, an overaggressive threat to block that after being called on, the admin doubled down. Actual misconduct.
A place to complain about an iffy edit just because it was done by an admin is not what I thought the community was asking for. —valereee (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
We've seen some admin misconduct alright, just not by Barkeep49. To be clear: the thread #Decline of a G10 speedy deletion was not in scope, should not have been opened and should not have proceeded as it did, and the admin misconduct seen in the thread was then used to justify a frivolous deletion nomination. I was told by a CU above that the fact that OS actions are not in scope "should go without saying", yet it seems the matter was not clear to (or deemed relevant by) those who arrived looking to cause a scene. — Bilorv (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@Bilorv, just to clarify, was that a reply to me? —valereee (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Mostly a general comment, not disagreeing with anything you said, and broadly replying to the point that this is supposed to be a place to report admin misconduct and not a discussion venue for an iffy edit just because it was done by an admin. — Bilorv (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Got it, just checking whether you were disagreeing with me in a way that meant I needed to respond lol... —valereee (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Given that only people who can see oversighted material can accurately review OS actions that means the only venues possible for appeals and reviews are the OS team, ArbCom and the Ombuds commission. The OS team already reviews every OS block regardless of how clear cut it is. Suppressions that an OS team member is not sure about are routinely reviewed also - usually the person enacting the suppression brings it for review but not always and anyone (not just an oversighter) can ask for a review (either from the oversight team or by arbcom). Suppression is explicitly a tool of first resort, and after discussions edits can be (and are) unsuppressed - either completely or downgraded to revision deletion. So there isn't a need for a venue to review Oversight actions, and if there were this venue would not be competent to fulfil the role anyway.
The issue brought yesterday was ostensibly about G10 speedy deletion being declined, but as any editor (other than the page creator) acting in good faith is by policy explicitly allowed to decline a speedy deletion that is not something that should be within the scope of this board either - the correct response is to nominate the page at the relevant XfD venue. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments on Collapsing

I was mentioned in the context of collapsing inappropriate material at DRN, and was asked to comment. I think that the key to effective collapsing of inappropriate material is a reasonably clear statement as to what is appropriate and what is inappropriate. There are two basic stages at DRN, the filing stage and the mediation stage. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

At the Filing Stage

At DRN, the instructions for filing of disputes say:

This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.

What gets collapsed is material that isn't focused on improving an article, either because it is about an editor rather than their edits, or because it is uncivil, or because it isn't on any coherent topic.

At the Mediation Stage

After an editor has accepted a case and is acting as the mediator, they are leading the discussion. The mediator normally starts off by stating what the rules are. If I am the mediator, I normally state that the following rules will apply. More specifically, the moderator may ask for specific input, such as an answer to a question, or that each editor provide a draft paragraph. At this point, material can be collapsed if it is off-topic to the specific topic, or if it is too lengthy (the mediator asked for two paragraphs and got a two-page wall of text).

Conclusion

Effective collapsing of inappropriate material is based on clear statements in advance of what is expected. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Should admins decide how admins are reviewed?

It's a serious question, and one where I think a "no" option has a lot of merit. Since no one is going to get desysop'ed or formally sanctioned here, these proceedings can be used to build a pattern of poor admin behavior, but that's all. What I see earlier on this talk page is a lot of admins objecting to the way things are developing. That's to be expected, because admins are of necessity the ones who have traditionally developed and run such processes. Nothing nefarious need be happening when a bunch of admins get together and complain that a new admin review process sucks... but the optics surely would be better, and perhaps SHOULD be better, if only non-admins develop and run this nascent process. Thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I can see some merit there, surely. I'm a fan of checks, balances and separation of power. Part of the issue with this idea is that AARV is framed as a means of reviewing use of "administrative privileges" and not necessarily admins. I would like to see how many of the RfC respondents personally felt that this would be a route to reviewing actions by admins specifically versus actions by anybody with admin privileges. I myself hope to see it as a means of feedback, which could in theory help to develop consensus as to what constitutes appropriate use of privileges.
Admins are a valuable resource in this regard, given that they have experience using these privileges and themselves grant them to the rest of us, but at the same time I see value in a community review process which enables those who are not admins to provide feedback. The problem, as I see it, is the likelihood of AARV devolving into another drama board, as Kudpung brought up in the recent MfD. If the barrier for entry for adminship is going to continue being as high as it is, I'm reluctant to support something which could essentially become dedicated to complaining specifically about admins, which I fear would be worsened by excluding them. I also feel that it would not be in the spirit of Wikipedia to not allow anybody to enter into a discussion. If we are going to go down that road, we will need to rethink much more than just AARV, and it would behoove us to do so. ASUKITE 04:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I would certainly object to not being able to help develop and run this process as an equal partner to non-admins. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I am intrigued by the question and though I can not see an actual path that could ever become a road to such a forum, I can see plenty of merit, if such a thing could ever be. For one thing, I think it would require a corresponding admin-only board like, for example: ANI. I think it would be even more interesting in situations where the same action was in simultaneous review at both boards (to see where editors with and without sysop tools agree, and where they diverge. It would be even more interesting if a true consensus (especially for the important things) required both forums to reach the same conclusion before it could achieve the said status of a community consensus. And, in terms of allowing non-admins a venue of opportunity to demonstrate their own leadership and clue, you couldn't do much better than something like that could accord and it could even become a shot in the arm for RfA's current demise. I won't pretend that there aren't some genuine cons to go along with every conceivable pro that could possibly be, but I'll leave those for others to enumerate. For my part, I've enjoyed imagining the pros. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • An edit conflict ate my edit and I copied and pasted wrong, so I'll save you the 2.5 paragraphs I had written and get to the point: if you did this, the far fringes of the project would dominate the discussion since both by being overrepresented amongst non-admins who care enough about appellate procedure on a volunteer website to design it and by driving off the mainstream people who care by bludgeoning them.
    I personally do not want a self-selecting appellate court comprised of the loudest voices who shouted everyone else off and gave themselves an authority over other users the community would never have approved in an RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    It's a fair critique, but one which I think DRV addresses well. It's not dominated by admins, and does review the occasional non-admin close, but you don't tend to have loud voices bludgeoning the mainstream. There's also a very wide range of opinions--sometimes DRV BOOMERANGs the submitters, sometimes it trouts the deleting admin, but most of the time it amounts to a bunch of good-faith editors, admins and not, who care about fairness and policy trying to do the right thing. Is it possible to develop this into a similarly less-drama-than-ANI forum? I would hope so, but agree that might prove optimistic as the actions and those interested in them clearly differ. Jclemens (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is the right approach. This process isn't here to review admins, it's here to review admin actions, and discussions should be about what is best for the situation. If someone brings, say, a page protection here then the discussion should be about whether the page should be protected and if so at what level, not about anything to do with an admin themselves. If this process is approached as a stick to beat admins with then it will become yet another dramaboard. Hut 8.5 08:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Maybe I'm missing something here, but what admin actions aren't taken by admins? Sure, the focus is mainly on the actions rather than the editors (with administrative privileges) taking them, just like at XfD the focus is on the content proposed for deletion, and only turns to focus on those involved in the discussion when there is a conduct expectation disconnect. So, admins vs. admin actions... is maybe a distinction without much of a difference? Jclemens (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, it's a big distinction. A process for reviewing admins would look very different to a process for reviewing an individual admin action. The latter wouldn't include any discussion about the admin in general, or any actions they've taken outside that particular case. The fact your comment frequently uses the phrase "admin review" and keeps referencing an admin/non-admin divide suggests to me that there's some desire to use the process as some kind of weapon against admins, which I think is the wrong approach. Hut 8.5 16:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
        • The genesis of this idea is specifically for a performance management tool to give admins effective feedback on specific actions so that issues or mistakes are corrected promptly rather than being not acted upon until an Arbcom case and desysop. Rather than being against admins, it's explicitly designed to preserve the admin corps by keeping small problems from escalating. Now, if you, as an admin, see that as a "weapon against admins" that's a separate problem, and part of the reason I suggest that admins should, at the very least, not have any disproportionate or deciding role in the feedback process: the fact it's been ANI, Arbcom, or nothing has gotten us to this point. Admins proposing ways to implement admin review is an inherent conflict of interest; for the process to be effective and transparent, it has to regard admin discomfort at their admin actions being reviewed as of necessity subordinate to the concerns of the community. Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I think this thread suggests that sysops are somehow a group of editors all looking out for each other. As Hut 8.5 says, this is (supposedly) a place to review actions. I don't see how it makes any difference what tools you have to be able to review them, and those who also use the tools will have a better understanding of what/how they should be used for. Like everything on wikipedia, it should be based on consensus across all user groups. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Wikipedians should decide how Wikipedians are reviewed. It shouldn't matter whether those Wikipedians have the sysop flag.—S Marshall T/C 09:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • All kinds of editors should be involved. I can especially see no benefit in excluding those who have the best knowledge of the actions that are ultimately going to be reviewed here. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per WP:NOTBURO and WP:AGF. Besides, optics to whom? JBchrch talk 13:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Well, optics to me, at the very least, and a few other respondents seem sympathetic to this. If you look at the MfD on this page, it was started by a long serving admin and deletion supported by many others. My first thought was "wow, that looks for all the world like a bunch of admins who don't want scrutiny" but of course there are many other reasonable expectations, and hence my framing of the suggestion in a much more AGF manner. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
      But if the optics we are concerned about are yours and other participants to this very discussion, then surely that must relate to a substantial reason why you are skeptical about admins participating to this process, which—if I'm reading you correctly—is a concern that some admins may be trying to obstruct the process in order to avoid scrutiny? I'm not really seeing that. On this talk page, I see many admins who are trying in good faith to make this whole thing workable, and I think preventing them from doing so would not lead to an improvement. JBchrch talk 00:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I can appreciate the idea behind the question, but I'd be afraid it would start to feel like a place admins get called on the carpet rather than a place where the community discusses an action. I think it would make it less likely most admins would come in here voluntarily, which I think we want to actively encourage. This should be a place a non-admin can use to challenge an action they disagree with, but it should also be a place an admin can feel comfortable asking, "Hey, should I have handled this differently?" This shouldn't be a place you avoid unless dragged in by someone else. —valereee (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I briefly considered bringing this to this board, but the discussions on it had already gotten too messy. - Donald Albury 15:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
      @Donald Albury, exactly. valereee (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There will always be the need for admins to have some sort of role in this venue, because there will at some point be content that needs revision deleting or the page will need to be protected for a short time due to excessive vandalism, etc. If the dispute involves deleted content then there will need to be a review of it by uninvolved admins as other users will only otherwise have a he said-she said to go on, which helps nobody. Which means that if admins are not generally going to be involved otherwise that there will need to be agreed lines drawn, and because of the nature of Wikipedia that line will have to be either blurry or allow for exceptions to a bright line rule, either one of which will lead to more drama anytime an admin steps over a non-admin's interpretation of where the line is/should be in a particular case or whether an exception did or did not apply. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Excluding admins would further differentiate admins from the rest, discourage editors from seeing admins as fellow editors, deprive discussions of the perspective of the mop-wielder faced with a mess and of the policy expertise that admins demonstrate at RfA and hopefully develop in service, discourage editors from accepting the bit as it would exclude them from XRV, and encourage XRV becoming the domain of regulars who find the theory or practice of adminship distasteful. We don't want to divide the community into mob and aristocrats. NebY (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Admins are the only ones who take admin actions, and in many cases of such use, the ones who take unilateral admin actions. Much like in America, police use-of-force review boards are, by best practice, stacked with community members who are neither law enforcement officers nor lawyers. Law enforcement has a say in justifying and explaining its own actions, but the judgments are substantially made by the community who is not forced to make the split-second decisions that can be armchair-quarterbacked later. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Administrators are members of this community deserving respect. Non-administrators are members of this community deserving respect. The community, which is made up of both groups, should be evaluating actions. The "optics" of the whole community deciding rather than a part are the right ones in my view. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Interesting question. This established board, is basically a sorta impeachment trial set up for administrators. It does have the potential to weaken the authority of administrators, if not create hesitation in administrators. Are we sure we want that to happen? GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
You mean, worse than ANI already is? I certainly hope not. Multiple editors have suggested that if it ends up more like DRV, this could be a very good check-and-balance as well as a feedback venue. The ideal time to provide feedback is right after what happened. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of formal "you did that one wrong" fora short of Arbcom and desysop. Done right, this should be a place where the vast majority of feedback serves to guide admins effectively away from being accused of a persistent pattern of poor judgment. Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, the aim is sort of to weaken the authority (or: dictatorial rule) of admins (while streamlining a discussion process for non-admin permissions). It is currently very difficult for the community to demonstrate that an admin is behaving in a manner unbecoming of the role, short of the admin causing catastrophic disruption that leads to an Arbcom case. The issue identified by the community that XRV aimed to address was: "Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk-averse and high-stakes atmosphere." — Bilorv (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how any uninvolved user can't be responsible for closing a discussion. It should be no different than AfDs or ANI, where, as long as the user has the tools needed to take action after the close (which can often be "do nothing" here) they should be allowed to close. Also, although the main reason for the creation of this board is to make administrators accountable, this doesn't mean uninvolved administrators are incapable of fairly closing discussions, as they are still trusted by the community. Isabelle 🔔 22:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  • At the MFD discussion, AAR supporters spoke of the RfC approving this new tool as if the decision was written in stone. Well, in that decision, it says that uninvolved administrators are supposed to close discussions. So, how can people now accept some of the RfC parts and reject other aspects when the result of the RfC was that the model presented was approved? I think there is a lot of leeway to adjust how discussions occur but how can people now reject one of the core aspects of the approved RfC? I would think that would take another RfC which is what AAR supporters told those who are unhappy with the review board was required of them to change it. Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with you Jclemens but it'd have to be pried from their cold, dead hands. No way some of our admins, wonderful as they are, would ever take a step back and let non-admins take the lead on anything having to do with admin accountability (or rfa reform, or inactivity requirements, or community desysop, or anything else related to adminship). Admins are the self-selecting group of editors most interested in adminship, so expecting these discussions to not be dominated by admins is like expecting an SNG discussion to not be dominated by the SNG's related WikiProject. Levivich 22:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Header suggestions

Taking other noticeboards as a starting point, I would suggest all reports contain the following information:

  • Page (or possibly group of pages) where the action took place
  • Administrator being reported
  • Log of administrator action or related diff that identifies the exact issue
  • Link to policy pages explaining why there is a dispute
  • Diff of talk page discussion - all reports must show that a discussion has already been attempted and failed, and a lack of diffs here can be a reason to close the report.

Simply doing this forces people to seek out diffs and discussions that have already happened in order to make their case, making frivolous reports far more difficult to file. This is followed by a XFD/DRV style discussion - Endorse / Overturn etc etc.

The key thing is that the board is taken as a means for administrators to be accountable to the community for their actions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I recommend instead as the key thing: The review process is an exercise of continuing education, focused on the use of advanced permissions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, for me, making administrators accountable to the general community was a key point that I got from the recent adminship RfC. In other words, there is a perception that people are more likely to oppose at RfA or otherwise scrutinise the candidate, because there's no decent route for making sure everything they do can be properly questioned and challenged when necessary. (I think one thing every person posting on this page can agree on is that AN/ANI isn't that). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I think @Ritchie333's suggestions are a good start. I'd also add to them a requirement for a concise summary (1-2 sentences per bullet at most) of
  • What the dispute is about
  • Why the reporter believes the previous discussion failed
  • What the reporter thinks the outcome should be.
The last point would be a way to weed out reports that are at the wrong venue, and also set expectations. If all they are looking for is an acknowledgement that the admin was wrong then there should be no comments about how it's excessive to be wanting an admin's head, but if they are looking for a desysop or a change to content then it's likely they are in the wrong place. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I support the ideas laid out here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I would tend to resist the requirement for a "diff of talk page discussion", because:- (1) For a newer user, they might feel the sysop is a hostile authority figure and be unwilling to contact them, so the effect of that measure is to limit access to review, which I feel is poor process design; (2) In some circumstances some of the reviews here might be urgent, and it might be undesirable to wait for the closing sysop to log back on; and (3) Although administrators behaving abusively is rare and usually unintentional when it does happen, nevertheless, it's poor process design to make the person who made a decision into the gatekeeper for a review because that looks unjust, even if it usually isn't. Instead of that requirement, I would prefer a rule that says that if the person who made the decision hasn't been contacted, then the XRV-raising editor should explain why not.
    Yes, this could lead to some needless reviews being raised by inexperienced users, but to be honest, I don't expect this board to be overwhelmed with work. We can calmly and gently explain the sysop's decision to the inexperienced user, and we'll do that far better than AN does, because AN just puts a hat on it with a snarky closing comment (often after extremely cursory discussion).—S Marshall T/C 16:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Pretty much agree with S Marshall here: the idea of a hard requirement to contact the admin/power-possessing user is perennial at DRV and there, at least, we don't really need it and we figure we're better off not being remote and inaccessible and perhaps demanding victims interact with their abuser. If some class of XRVs is overwhelming this board and we think things will actually benefit from this hurdle, then let's farm out that special case from XRV as we already do DRV closes that are inappropriate for NAC. I'm definitely against this requirement across the board. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
      I'm not sure if I understand you right, but on a number of occasions I've suddenly got a DRV notification about an AfD I closed, and my immediate thought has always been "jeez, you could have talked to me about that first!" If a user thinks (and genuinely thinks) that an admin is unapproachable and abusive, that admin shouldn't be one. The general guidance is still to talk to the relevant admin first, which is User talk:RHaworth is still getting traffic querying deletions almost two years after being desysopped and despite notices explaining this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
      Well, that's a catch-22: an admin who is unapproachable and abusive shouldn't be one, but the first step in addressing poor conduct is to discuss the matter with them. I think as a general rule, editors should make an attempt to discuss issues in an appropriate venue, with the involved parties invited. Often a user talk page isn't the best place for this, since content and project-related matters should be discussed in other places. I think in some cases starting discussion in this venue may be a reasaonable approach: holding discussion in a neutral location can help refocus on the key facts and less on personalities. isaacl (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    • If there is urgency (let's say: action needs to be taken in under 24 hours) then is ANI not the designated place, and XRV unfit to accommodate? I think the thing with DRV is that sometimes it does no harm to see a frivolous case through, because someone will escalate more by being shut down than by having a few people in a low-profile venue dispassionately comment "Endorse: correctly closed". With XRV, we are aiming for this level of low temperature discourse, but it is tough to see how this is possible when a frivolously filed misconduct claim is an outright personal attack, and should not be let stand as other people's inputs will not help. — Bilorv (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Well, Ritchie333, here's the thing about notifications. If you wanted to delete an article I started, you would be under no duty at all to talk to me first. You could just open an AfD or even hit the speedy deletion button. If you wanted to protect one of those articles, or unprotect it, you can just do it. If wanted to block me, you can just do it. If you wanted to revoke one of my advanced permissions, you can just do it. If you want to haul me to AN/I, you can just do it (and notify me on my talk page afterwards). It is only admins who get the courtesy of a prior discussion of a challenge to their work, and I don't understand why sysops feel entitled to it.
        Whether an inexperienced user perceives sysops as hostile authority figures doesn't necessarily depend on you and isn't necessarily within your control. It depends on their life experience, history with online communities and other expectations.—S Marshall T/C 20:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
        I would make it a hard rule that every editor *must* be notified on their talk page of a prod or AfD nomination of a page they created. I would make it a hard rule that for page protection/unprotection, a note must be made on the talk page. Notifications are at least little courtesies that make the place nicer for newcomers, and they really help with understanding what happened when you turn up later.
        At DRV, prior informal resolution is recommended but not required. DRV is about content, and IPs and newcomers are heavily responsible for content. It is important to not bureaucratic blocks. Admin action review is very different to content issues. Newcomers initiating actionable complaints are much more needing to take this a bit slower. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
        S Marshall, When I start an AfD, I look to see what the contributions are of the creator. If they've been long gone and haven't edited in 10+ years, I don't notify (though I notice there's now a bot that automatically notifies users anyway eg: [4]). If they're still reasonably active, I'll notify them. If they're a regular, I might even say something like "Rather than patronising you, there's an AfD in the usual place".
        And while I could unilaterally yank a permission, it's incredibly poor form. Indeed, the very first report on this board was me questioning whether it was a good idea for me to have done this. The community said it wasn't, the permission was restored, the user quit. Aside from the retirement, the board worked in the way I thought it should. My actions were bought to account and correctly challenged by the community. If there are admins who don't want to do this because they're used to doing things their way, let's rout them out and get rid of them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
          • We're not disagreeing. You're describing a gulf between the minimum requirement and good practice: You can do it, but it's poor form, and I totally agree with that. Here, I'm saying that a user raising a XRV should be able to do it without consulting the person whose decision they're challenging; but it would still be poor form. *I* wouldn't do it. A newer user might, and I'm saying we shouldn't speedily close their appeal if they do.—S Marshall T/C 13:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree with S Marshall. In addition, making a hard procedural requirement to informally appeal to the action taker would not make it easier for XRV appellants to understand that the topic of discussion here is the action itself. The user talk appeal is only a procedural requirement enabling them to appeal the action. They shouldn't comment much on the prior discussion with the action taker in the XRV appeal. What was said or not said on the action-taker's talk page can't be the reason for appeal in itself. "X blocked me and when I appealed to them they made Z mistake in their reply, so I should be unblocked". This is unwanted, and only more likely to happen with a hard requirement. It happens at DRV regularly, which even lacks the hard requirement. In this respect, the current header is fine, and needs no change. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I still don't understand what the problem is I'm afraid. Is it that we are full of admins who are unapproachable and mean-spirited when users go to them with legitimate concerns? If that truly is the case, my recommendation is for those admins to go to WP:BN and request a desysop for disagreeing with WP:ADMINACCT. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think that inexperienced users can easily locate logs and provide links to them. Also, I am extremely skeptical about the need to mention the specific policy in question. If the editor filing the report makes the mistake in identifying the policy, that can lead to an entire discussion completely missing the point and a collective failure to identify the applicable policy due to tunnel vision. I don't think the onus of identifying the policy should be on the editor filing the report, but on the AARV community and watchers, who will—I hope—be familiar with such things. The rest I have no issue with. JBchrch talk 15:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    Whether it is by linking to the specific policy or some other means, there must be a requirement to specify exactly what it is the reporter thinks the admin did wrong and why they think it was wrong. I think recommending and encouraging reporters to link to the relevant policy is a good thing for this, even if not required. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with that. JBchrch talk 16:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong support for User:Ritchie333’s five dot points of minimum initial information. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

XRV Will Never Be Like DRV

Some editors are saying that we should try to make XRV as much like DRV as possible. That is a noble misguided objective. We, the Wikipedia community, won't ever be able to make XRV like DRV. In Wikipedia, there is a basic distinction between a content forum and a conduct forum. It is inherently less difficult to make a content forum civil. WP:ANI often becomes a cesspit or drama board because it is a conduct forum.

DRV is an appellate content forum. Its purpose is to review decisions on the deletion of pages, usually from Articles for Deletion, sometimes from some other deletion forum. There are two aspects to DRV that maintain its focus on content. First, the input from the community is structured, consisting mostly of Endorse, Overturn, and similar inputs. Second, because it is a content forum, complaints about conduct can be ignored as mostly irrelevant to the topic, even if they do not have to be collapsed. As a result, most Deletion Review issues are civil and orderly. When there is a problem with a DRV, it is usually bludgeoning by one editor who argues with other editors. In this respect, it is similar to AFD and MFD, which are usually civil and orderly, but occasionally disrupted by bludgeoning. A content discussion will normally be civil because it will normally be focused on content, e.g., whether to keep or delete an article.

I was asked about DRN above. DRN is a content dispute resolution forum. It focuses on how to improve a particular article, and DRN discussions are kept on focus by keeping the issue how to improve an article.

XRV is not a content forum. It is a conduct forum. It will never be focused on content, but on contributors. It will always discuss edits rather than editors. If the objective is to keep XRV relatively civil and focused, then the example that it should emulate is not DRV, which is a content forum, but Arbitration Enforcement, which is a conduct forum.

XRV will not be like DRV. To avoid being like WP:ANI, the example should be Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

XRV was meant to be about actions. So DRV reviews deletions, MRV moves, and the rest ended up at AN (review of blocks, review of protection, etc). This was meant to replace AN for review of actions that don’t have a dedicated forum. Review of the conduct of an admin should be done at AN or ArbCom. Concerns about an admin persistently having poor judgement should go to AN or ArbCom. XRV shouldn’t be like AE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Actions by administrators are not content. They are conduct by administrators. For that reason, it will be more difficult to keep review of actions focused than review of deletions, because deletions are content. It is true that XRV is meant to replace AN for review of actions that don't have a dedicated forum. AN is not as civil and orderly as DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Would you say reviewing a page deletion by an admin (ie DRV) is content or conduct? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion, a page deletion by an admin at DRV is content. That is what I was saying. AFD is content. DRV is content. 'Will a page be in the encyclopedia?' is content. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
It depends a bit in which era you are asking. DRV functions differently now to in the earlier days. In truth its neither now - its closer to a binding informed third opinion than anything else. Spartaz Humbug! 18:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
If we can pitch this board as a sensible sense check then it does have potential. Spartaz Humbug! 18:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I assume that XRV will fracture, sooner or later. I do think DRV provides the best model for XRV, however, and I think we should follow its light into terra incognito until the light fails, and at that point we will have better understanding of where the DRV model works and where it doesn't. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with the premise that DRV and MRV are conduct forums and thus disagree with the idea that XRV will be one. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not super familiar with DRV, but I would like to submit that the distinction might be between discussions about patterns and discussions about discrete events. WP:AN/3 and WP:RFPP are essentially about conduct, but they are generally pretty low heat, because the discussions focus on a single, discrete event, rather than a pattern. Contrast that with ANI or Arbcom, which are about long-standing issues that may have affected many editors and therefore attract drama and participation. Long story short: I'm optimistic that this board, which is about discrete admin actions, will not turn into ANI 2. JBchrch talk 19:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think XRV can realistically be as tranquil as DRV. We will try, but some of the things we're reviewing are more emotive than deletion and so we'll naturally have more editors here who're upset. This means we'll tend to shed more heat and less light than DRV. I still believe this venue will be better than AN.—S Marshall T/C 22:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    Agree. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Even I agree with this. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree up to a point. Deletion policy is actually quite emotive for people who've poured their heart into an article only to have it appear on AfD. But the 7 days at AfD before getting a chance to start a whole new, alien process at DRV cools heads. Another thing that cools heads at DRV is that the AfD discussion is by peers, and admins mostly know better than to inject their opinion into closes. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
So far most of the WikiDrama at XRV has been from people arguing about the amount of WikiDrama it will likely cause. I find this incredibly entertaining as there have been so little actual issues that admins have had to resort to self-submitting their own actions. Even when Fram started a thread it only exploded into actual WikiDrama once the article was deleted for other reasons and the issue became moot. Practically none of the actual WikiDrama here so far has come from actual reviewing of admin actions. We should take this into account if we're reviewing the supposed incivility at this board. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about scope

What I had in mind, when I voted to set up this board, was a DRV for administrative decisions that don't involve deletion.

It seems to be widely agreed that DRV is an orderly and effective review board. AN and ANI are not models of wise and reasoned decision making, so it seems to me that this board has the potential to improve Wikipedia's decision making structure.

This means it doesn't have to be good. It just has to be better than AN/ANI. A low bar, imv.

I propose that this board deals with administrative decisions, i.e. those reserved to administrators: page protections, including the decision not to protect a page, granting of advanced permissions, including the decision not to grant them, and block reviews which would be moved away from the current practice of reviewing them at AN.

It is possible that this board should also review Wikipedian internal process decisions, such as RFC closes.

I propose that we adopt everything else about the board's structure, rules of procedure, and standards of conduct from DRV.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It does make sense to set the scope as actions which are reserved to administrators and which don't already have their own review process. This might be a little longer than the list above (e.g. presumably edits to fully protected pages would count). Hut 8.5 12:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I think this got lost in the most recent storm, assuming my comments get read anyway, but I think the sub-thread between myself, Dennis Brown and DGG identified a reasonable strategy for narrowing the scope of this board, particularly in dropping some of the "advanced permissions" supported here. I don't think we should be discussing further expansion of scope ("RFC closes") at this time, and it was somewhat rejected for the time being when raised earlier too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Apart from restricting it to sysop actions, what you're describing is exactly what was proposed at the DRV and exactly what we've tried to implement here. Perhaps its the (current) introductory text that is misleading? I'll fully admit that, in trying to be as concise as possible, I often cut too much context and reasoning.
As for whether XRV should consider just uses of +sysop perms, I went back on forth on this myself in writing the original proposal. The reasons I decided to include all advanced perms were: 1) we have long needed a venue to review things like NPP and autopatrolled, so if they aren't included in XRV, I'd just propose a parallel process that looks exactly the same for them; 2) +sysop has now been 'unbundled' to the extent that the line between "administrative" actions is really blurry to non-insiders, and we want to make this process accessible; and 3) the fear of a desysop tends to ramp up the tension in reviews of sysop actions (at AN, ArbCom, etc.), so the hope is that combining this with more routine and low-stakes reviews of perm actions, we de-escalate. – Joe (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Joe I've already said that I conceed that a consensus for this new board was reached (albeit totally out if context for Barkeep49's original purpose for his review), but are you aware that all this new board will do is bring a new Sword of Damocles to adminship and will in fact even further discourage candidates of the right calibre from throwing their hat in the ring? I would very much like to hear the opinions of WereSpielChequers and DGG who have yet to weigh in here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Kudpung, I don't see how it brings a new Sword of Damocles. These are decisions that are already reviewable by the community. The intent is that now, instead of reviewing them on AN/ANI, where they were historically reviewed in an unstructured way with optional image captions or hilarious doggerel formatted as Burma-shaves, they will now be reviewed in an environment that's focused on decisions rather than editors. The hope is to reduce the toxicity of discussions that are currently pretty toxic.—S Marshall T/C 16:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with S Marshall, and add: because this process is not, and will not be, an instrument of sanction, it will neither be analogous to the Sword of Damocles, nor the boomerang of peril. And best of all, it won't wield the mighty pen that ANI uses to append one thread after another, proposing every imaginable sanction that one cares to tangentially connect, until one finally adheres. A review of the ANI archives will illustrate the excesses of that board, excesses this board will not entertain. I've personally had my fill of the sky is falling comparisons to ANI, the unfounded accusations of power grabbing, and the stereotypical name-calling of admin wannabe and other such likes (to name but a few). I hope we can find a way to preclude and disallow any similar such strawman fallacies from disrupting the review process of this board.--John Cline (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I think it is essential to remember that consensus for this forum was reached, as Kudpung notes, as a way to improve RfA. Does this scope improve RfA? As with the initial proposal I am neutral on this topic; if people think yes great let's refine the scope in that way, if no let's not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I had no particularly strong views on this before it came into being, I think I'm now moving towards the view that we should be looking for patterns of problems - isolated incidents should first be discussed with the tool user concerned. As for which tools/powers are used, I'd broaden it to non admin repeated misuse of tools rather than make it unbundled tools only. All that said, there is clearly a group of editors who are convinced there are a load of bad admins for whom there is no effective sanction. Some, perhaps even a majority of that will turn out to be admins who are doing things that the community is happy for them to do. If this venue acts as a lightning rod to draw out and rebut some claims of bad adminship then it may serve a useful purpose, albeit in an unedifying way. ϢereSpielChequers 16:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
WereSpielChequers, there's a parallel example with the "patterns of problems" from DRV. RHaworth's arbcom case was heavily attended by DRV regulars, with good reason, because his deletions were problematic. The review venue can identify problem cases and refer them to the appropriate board. (RHaworth is the only example from DRV going back to 2009 when I started editing there, by the way. Looking DRV from 30,000 feet, it shows that our sysop corps is generally well-meaning, pro-social and rule-compliant, but makes some judgment calls that are out of step with community thinking.)—S Marshall T/C 16:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
And to tie what S Marshall writes here up nicely, that focus on individual decisions is itself healthier for both the admin, the appellent, and the community as a whole in my view. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree! Donald Albury 16:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
As already mentioned by me. This new board, is like a new Constitution going into force. I'll leave it up to the rest of you, to decide on any amendments for it. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

However much it is claimed here and in any instructions for its use, I don't believe it will ever become generally accepted by users that this board is designed as a focus on individual decisions and not as a general review of rights holders' behaviour. The clearest and most blatantly worded instructions are ignored extremely often at every venue in the back office of Wikipedia, whether it be RfA, AfD, ANI, ORCP, PERM, whatever. Having now finally taken a moment to review the stampede of cases posted almost within moments of this new board being published, it does not come as a surprise that the community as well as those involved in the discussions on this talk page, is confused as to its scope and purpose.

It also, like ANI, attracts uninvolved users with a record of high participation on drama boards. As a new complaints board with a very broad mission, not only is it already an extension of the toxic nature of ANI, but it will invite trivial complains about the holders of advanced permissions which in the past were probably not serious enough to make, probably not even attracted attention, or at least would have voiced their concerns direct with the admin first, or in the appropriate venue which already exists. Issues at New Page Patrol, just for for example, are more than adequately addressed by the patrollers (as Rosguill and Celestina007, Onel5969, Usedtobecool , and Barkeep49 can attest) and the admins among them at their talk page.

This board will also further test the patience and enthusiasm of the corps of admins who are expected to deal with it. I already see people assembling on a hill above the village square armed with pitchforks and fresh buckets of tar and feathers, others taking up their seats in the bleachers armed with bags of peanuts, and more others lining up to buy popcorn, all waiting impatiently for the tape to be cut. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we didn't think through the specifics of what "individual action of someone using one of the advanced permissions" would include, and why, if ever, they would need to be reviewed by a dedicated board, as well as we could have, leading up to a consensus on this board's scope. There are PERMs where only discussing a pattern of behaviour would be helpful, on a board like this, and that's if an admin does not pull the perm first. Only PERM action a NPP reviewer takes is marking a given article as reviewed (approving it). The way to challenge that action is to nominate said page for deletion. The outcome of the AFD/RFD is the exact feedback this board was envisioned to give. And we can't go any further into "patterns" territory here, as that would make it redundant to WT:NPPR (less unpleasant) and WP:ANI. The same applies to other perms. Either admins, who generally give very little room for errors in usage of non-admin perms, will pull the perm at the first signs of trouble or it turns into a pattern which is out of scope for this board.
This board should stick to reviewing individual actions taken by administrators in their capacity as administrators. If we should discuss non-admins, we should discuss their overall usage of a given perm, and whether they need to do better or be stripped of the perm in question. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I continue to read the close that consensus for a board of this general functionality was reached, but that's not the same as consensus for any the the specifics for this proposal. I also continue to think that the consensus was not legitimate, in the sense that the creation of a board to revieww non admin actions is very indirectly pertinent to the overall discussion; its as if we hel a discussion on consensus to add a criterion to Speedy, and one of the things discussed was a change in a a notability guideline. They're not totally unrelated, but it's not where one would expect to find such a discussion, and the central notice discussion did not indicate that something like this was among the proposals. it's the equivalent of the US practice of hiding possibly controversial substantiative legislation in a general appropriations reconciliation bill.
    • this said, my purpose in raising my questions was to get adequate discussion of what at the time looked like it was going to be a quiet and quick fait accompli, a major change prepared without sufficient comment. I've done that, and , as Kudpung just said, once the details are worked out we will see if it actually works-- I think his predictions, based on his long experience in developing and watching related processes, will all or most of them unfortunately come to pass. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
      • It will be like AN/ANI, inevitably. Drama will happen, inevitably. But AN/ANI are ghastly places that make people feel horrible, and we make terrible decisions there. This place has the potential to draw some of the poison from Drama Central and maybe make community scrutiny feel slightly less horrendous for those being scrutinized. As I said, it need not be good. It just has to be a little better than AN/ANI and that's a very low bar indeed. Do you guys like the cesspit?—S Marshall T/C 11:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
        • ...and, DGG, this talk page section is clearly and specifically saying that non-admin actions should be out of scope for this board.—S Marshall T/C 11:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
        I disagree that becoming like the AN/ANI cesspit is inevitable. At WT:AN is a discussion including a long list of ideas why AN/ANI is a cesspit. My belief is that a critical root cause is the high flow of activity. I think a sufficient solution is to slow down this page. ANI works on a 2 day archive system, with stuff initiated dramatised and closed in hours not even days. The closes are frequently emotionally driven WP:Supervotes, and sometimes with no credible claim of any “consensus”. The speed, and the bullying in closure actions, matches Big man (anthropology).
        Limiting closures to “consensus”, and initially to bureaucrats to do it, will certainly prevent big man closures. Requiring prior informal attempts at resolution will drastically reduce frivolous nominations, and badly thought out nominations, both of which can be seen to justify summary closes. This is enough to prevent your inevitable.
        Administrative review is not rocket science. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I specifically am against removing non-admin advanced permission usage from the scope, it was clearly backed by the RfC, and the idea of limiting to 'crats is just straight out bonkers. The concept of this Board was not to raise the hurdles in reviewing, but reducing them by means of reducing the impact of a judgement. If you have a look through all of the talk page sections there isn't in any way a clear consensus to just override the consensus gathered in the RfC to include them. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't think there's any kind of consensus to limit closes to crats. It's something one user suggested, and blue sky thinking is good, but I can't see much support from the community.—S Marshall T/C 13:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I think we need to spell out the scope in detail, the exact bits. All admin bit actions, and admin-like bits such as file and page Move, Mass Msg Sender, Template and Account Creator. We don't need a place to review Rollback. Might even include New Page Reviewer, although that really can be handled at AN/ANI. This is the RFC I said we needed, to decide the exact bits. And we need to find a STRUCTURED format to agree upon. This AN/ANI wild west thing isn't working. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The established outcome of the RFA RFC was the creation place to review the actions of holders of advanced permission, and not limited to admin actions only. What I would propose, though, is to limit the scope of this board to actions that cannot be performed without the permission. NPP is a good example: when reviewing new pages, you're led to do all sorts of things that do not require the NPP perm in itself, such as tagging and draftifying pages. Since any confirmed editor can do these things, I don’t think they should fall within this page's scope. In reality, the only thing you get with the NPP perm is the ability to mark pages as reviewed⁠—so that’s the action that could presumably be reviewed on this page. Another example would be an admin leaving a message on my talk page calling me an idiot. Although it's unbecoming of an admin to do this, it's not an administrative action, and so it wouldn't fall within this page's scope. JBchrch talk 14:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    The way to challenge a single page review is to nominate the article/redirect for deletion. This page doesn't discuss patterns and we already have WT:NPPR, WP:AN and WP:ANI where patterns can be discussed, not to mention a few admin talk pages. I can think of no scenario where this board, under current scope, would discuss NPP perm. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Usedtobecool: Yes, I agree, the gist of my comment was to state that this board's intersection with new page review will be very limited. JBchrch talk 15:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The above and Ymblanter's current case bring out a small contradiction in the RFC phrasing. "Whether an editor's specific use ... is consistent with policy" is quite narrow, but we seem to want to talk about and not endorse actions that were counterproductive, unwise, suboptimal, not the best choice and worse. NebY (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    So in other words, the conduct of the actor. Wasn't the point of this new board that it wasn't about conduct? — xaosflux Talk 20:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    No contradiction. [A]ctions that were counterproductive, unwise, suboptimal, not the best choice and worse fall under Wikipedia:Administrators#Care and judgment—the taker of the action was not careful enough and/or did not judge the use reasonably well. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    You mean XRV is about judging an administrator's conduct per Wikipedia:Administrators#Care and judgment - whether they were careful enough and/or did not judge the use reasonably well, in your words - and the conduct of other advanced permissions users under some similar policy you can cite? NebY (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    What I mean is that XRV is about whether a concrete use of an administrator tool or other advanced permission was consistent with policy in general, which for administrator tools (and not for advanced permissions for non-admins to my knowledge, except perhaps seen through the lens of WP:CIR) also includes the general and broad standard of Wikipedia:Administrators#Care and judgment, meaning that an administrative action for which the following two requirements aren't fulfilled, said requirements being indicated in the following policy fragments (within context): (1) care as in "... administrators must exercise care in using these new functions ...", (2) judgement – Administrator tools are also to be used with careful judgment; (emphasis not mine) can be "not endorsed"/overturned. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    So XRV is about assessing an administrator's care and judgment, or perhaps an editor's competence? NebY (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    It's about whether a decision was right.—S Marshall T/C 22:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    Is an action that was compliant with policy but possibly not the best option within scope? NebY (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    It isn't. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    If this is not the place to consider whether there were better options for an action, then that needs making clear. You yourself were not clear about it when you wrote that [A]ctions that were counterproductive, unwise, suboptimal, not the best choice and worse fall under Wikipedia:Administrators#Care and judgment—the taker of the action was not careful enough and/or did not judge the use reasonably well. (my emphasis). NebY (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    @NebY: I agree, some of the words in the quote I had pasted can lead to the unintended conclusion. I support adding to the header that the standard per policy isn't optimality/perfection, and that is very likely that such appeals could be considered trivial. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    Good, I'm glad you see there's an issue there that needs clarification to avoid trouble later. It will need some discussion. In the current review of Ymblanter's indeff, we already see an appetite for discussing whether an action was the best or should be improved on, and an assumption that such discussion is within scope. The extent to which alleged breaches of Wikipedia:Administrators#Care and judgment are within scope could be clarified at the same time; as we've just seen, without careful handling it could be used as a catch-all for bringing all actions and conduct within scope.
    Of course, however clear the header is, there are bound to be cases brought that some consider out of scope. Quite how and when a case might be agreed/ruled in or out of scope and whether a formal structure's needed for that remains open too. NebY (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    An action which was done rather carelessly and/or in rather poor judgement can be "not endorsed"/overturned as not being taken consistent with policy (quote of RfC), that policy in such an instance being Wikipedia:Administrators#Care and judgment. Generally, a much more specific policy norm will be applicable. But if a specific policy norm does not apply and only the more broad standard of Care and judgement does, it will still be possible to "not endorse"/overturn per policy. To conclude: not about conduct like it is at ANI. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux: Are you satisfied that XRV isn't really all that much about user conduct after reading the preceding comments (after your last one)? Often times we would say that someone displayed poor judgement while not saying that their conduct was bad (people are like that, sometimes they show great judgement and sometimes not so much; it is merely common wisdom that faulting someone for the occasional lapse in judgement is wrong, and that helping them correct the error, advising them, encouraging them to keep doing good work etc. is right), and that they display a lack of care, while also not saying that their conduct was bad (it is merely common wisdom that efficiency is important and many actions are done in a routined manner which involves a fluctuating degree of care; it's a systemic thing, and a necessity, that we wouldn't fault the individual for). So we wouldn't fault the individual for the conduct, but we can still deal with the wrong action. That's what the venue is about. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Alalch Emis: my comments were primarily from the well publicized and attended RFC (Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2021_review/Proposals#Passed:_6C_Administrative_action_review) approving a board that will determine whether an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy. and that it was specifically not to be like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Of course scope of everything is subject to change via consensus. — xaosflux Talk 23:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    No one is proposing that the scope should change so that the board becomes about conduct. I was just making an argument how the board is not about conduct after you expressed concern that it is about conduct. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    My comment was in regards to the statement that actions were not all that could be in scope, that the behavior of the editor (being "unwise, suboptimal, not the best choice" regardless of it the action was supported by a policy) could be scoped in. — xaosflux Talk 00:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    No one had made that statement as far as I can see. — Alalch Emis (talk)
  • I don't think this is a good idea, because it assumes a line between "admin privileges" and "unbundled privileges" that doesn't practically exist. There is substantial, ongoing confusion on every forum (not XRV-limited) about what is an "admin privilege". One recurrent example of this is title blacklist overrides, which about as many non-admins can do now as there are active admins, but which are still widely considered admin-exclusive (indeed they're mentioned under 'admin actions' on this board). The tboverride unbundling was quite recent; while major unbundlings are consistently opposed, granting further rights that were once admin-exclusive to a pre-existing unbundled right is relatively common, and it's unreasonable to expect every editor to be aware of all of them. Simultaneously, to a real degree the biggest admin privilege is "being an admin" -- that is, having a specific sort of combined soft and hard power that is difficult for an editor without it to respond to under normal circumstances -- and this means that if an admin is abusing a privilege theoretically unbundled, it's a more complex issue to handle than it would be if a non-admin was (e.g. you can take rollback from a rollback-warrior, but you can't nearly so easily take it from an admin doing the same). Simultaneously again, although that preceding is sometimes read as "non-admin rights are cheap" -- you can take rollback from the rollback-warrior easy, no problems -- the very first thread on this board can tell you otherwise, and it's good practice to have alternatives to driving enthusiastic newer editors to quit in disgust. Vaticidalprophet 10:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding WP:Founder as a userright whose usage can be reviewed here

Title, basically. The local userright of "founder" should have their actions reviewed here at WP:XRV. Jimbo Wales should not be above the law. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

There's absolutely no point to doing this since Jimbo does not appear to have used his founder bit since 2009. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Jimbo is a member of the administrator user group as well as founder and his admin actions can be reviewed like anyone else's. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Is there anything that the founder userright can do that cannot be done by crats or admin, that we could even do anything about? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
It enables him to "decrat" bureaucrats as well as desysop admins... not sure if something as drastic as that would be within the scope of this forum.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The founder and the founder permissions are in scope. The RFC refers to "an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools" and "admins and other advanced permissions users", and the close ended "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." NebY (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
"Admin tools" refers to WP:MOPRIGHTS and "an editor's specific use of an advanced permission / other advanced permissions users / all advanced permissions" refers to all of the "Flags granted to users giving access to specialized functions" a.k.a the clearly enumerated "advanced permissions". The founder's specific permissions are not covered in any of those normative texts, and the RfC was not about the founder role. It is not in scope. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
What Pppery said. Add it, or don't. It won't mean anything either way. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
In the highly unlikely event that Jimbo performs an administrative action, I don't foresee any problem with getting interested editors to discuss it on a page. It will probably get its own special subpage. Thus I agree there is no purpose to adding a clause to the instructions that applies to one person. isaacl (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • At this juncture, this entry of mine is probably superfluous, but echoing everyone else, I’m afraid I fail to see the salient point(or any plausible point) of doing so. Furthermore @Chess when has Jimbo Wales ever claimed or acted as though he were above the law? I’m afraid I do not even see any cogent reason for this entire thread. Celestina007 (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    In the interest of not getting diverted, I suggest not pursuing this side discussion on this talk page. There have been ample discussions in the past on disagreements with administrative actions taken by the editor in question. I don't think we need to go into full details here. isaacl (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Isaacl, Agreed. Celestina007 (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • ArbCom decisions can be appealed to Jimbo (although it has been a long while since he's accepted one for an in-depth review, and even longer since such an appeal has been successful), any actions he takes in those situations cannot be appealed. Actions taken by Jimbo in a similar role but where arbcom has not been involved can be appealed to ArbCom, those cases cannot be appealed further. His last logged advanced action was 2018 when he deleted a redirect by overwriting it as part of a page move (i.e. effectively acting as a page mover), before that it was November 2016 when he blocked some compromised accounts and a malfunctioning bot - his last truly administrative actions. Going forwards, any admin actions would be reviewable in the normal place for such actions, any crat actions would be reviewable in the normal place for such actions, anything higher than that would go to arbcom. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Each case on its own subpage

I think having each case on its own subpage is better than having running threads on the main page (like WP:AN), and is better than having multiple cases in dated pages (like DRV and MRV). I think one page per case (like AfD and MfD) is better, for watchlisting, for having the archive on the same page as the history, for have the page for the case having a simple and obviously meaningful title/url.

Active subpages would be transcluded, making the main page useful as the go to page, and new nominations will appear on your watchlist if you watch the main page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose, since that would be much more complex to handle for new users than simply creating a new section. We shouldn’t make things more complicated than they should be. For processes such as XfD and SPI, which are structured as you suggest, we end up needing Twinkle to start a discussion, and we should try to limit this phenomenon. Besides, you can already "subscribe" to specific sections by activating the beta discussion tools. JBchrch talk 14:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    New users should be be so quickly drawn to this page. Non auto confirmed users especially not.
    Twinkle is not needed, but is good, and setting it up should be high on a users priority list once they move beyond mainspace editing.
    Subscribe is good, true. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per JBchrch. Remember that not everybody has the permission to create a new page, and subpages make it harder to watchlist things. Processes that use subpages usually do so only because the volume of business is so large that it is otherwise unmanageable. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose this would make things more confusing, and the volume of cases here is far too high to make this feasible. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't understand the opposition. AFD uses subpages, which make it easier, not harder, to watchlist particular disputes. It is true that IP editors and non-autoconfirmed editors will have to ask someone to create their subpages. We should not be expecting that many cases from IP editors, and we should make it difficult for non-autoconfirmed editors to file cases. Most true newbies won't yet know what XRV is, so most non-autoconfirmed editors who want to appeal an admin action will be suckpoppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the pages will pop up like a scarlet letter everytime someone drags an admin here. Spartaz Humbug! 18:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I would support using dated subpages in the style of DRV and MR. It does make watchlisting more difficult, but I think that's the point: comments at DRV and MR flow in at a much more leisurely pace since editors can't just jump on new discussions as soon as something comes up on their watchlists. Part of the problem with ANI is that it's so frenetic, and I think that's partially due to a crowd of watchlisters who immediately appear to comment even when they have nothing useful to say. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Daily lists also ensure that each discussion isn’t closed early and I would support this approach. Spartaz Humbug! 18:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I agree with Spartaz here. I think the more we can take from DRV, the better. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I have suggested DRV and MRV are the right models and since they use daily lists, it makes some sense here. The only con I would see is a lack of volume (multiple appeals daily there, less than 1/day average here). But if this board works that volume is likely to grow so I support this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Empty pages just get archived at DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 19:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
      I was more thinking about the "editor attention" element than the technical element. An editor can go to DRV or MRV once a day and be relatively assured of finding new appeals to consider. If there's one they're interested in they can watchlist that day's page to follow along. With less activity here, we lose the "watchlist" benefit to attracting editor attention when there is an appeal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    DRV is set up that if you visit the main page every day the TOC shows you what is new. I don’t see any reason it can’t be set that way here. Spartaz Humbug! 19:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    And I would expect that we'd do that here too. But we need to have a reasonable chance of attracting qualified editors when there is an appeal. By adding the day subpages, it means someone needs to actively visit XRV in order to see if there is a new appeal as opposed to just watchlisting XRV itself. At DRV and MRV this works because if a person visits once a day there (or less frequently) there are nearly always new appeals to consider. A person visiting once a day at XRV, at least at the moment, will not see this. How much will people be willing to actively (vs the passive nature of a WL) be willing to seek out something if the effort is unrewarded? In writing this all out, I think this could be one reason that DRV and MRV work in ways that ANI doesn't. That is the kind of person willing to go through that extra effort may be different than the type of person who visits because of watchlisting. That said, there needs to be some kind of reasonable "reward" (in the form of new appeals) for editors to want to go through that effort. On the whole I think subpages are a positive, but I do see this as a potential drawback. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per case subpages for now at least, support per day subpages for now as suggested by Barkeep. It may be the case that some classes of issue that come here will benefit from the AfD-like subpage format, but let's wait to see the degree to which XRV decisions get treated like precedent. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • This seems to be too in the weeds until the real scope and purpose of this page are done. Do we really need a subpage for every "Is this isolated rollback (link) action by username supported by policy?" — xaosflux Talk 20:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    Yes. Because if you’re following something important, you don’t want it lost in the weeds of every isolated rollback case. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It looks like no one is support the WP:AN format of everything on the page. Good, this is the worst, can we get started on changing this current format now?
So people like the DRV MRV daily/monthly log page format. OK, this is so much better than all on one page forever.
I really don’t get the aversion to single pages, it is proven to work so well at AfD and MfD. it gives the page a better title and url. It produces a dedicated talk page for meta-discussion. Ok, it’s just my preference over date-log pages. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The first three oppose comments support having one page. Nonetheless, perhaps we can wait for more than one day to allow for more people to weigh in? isaacl (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Isaacl, no. Oppose 1 and 2 speak to the need for the nominator to create a new page being a problem for non auto confirmed users (a dubious concern in my opinion), and this is compatible with the dated log page format of DRV and MRV.
Oppose 3, about confusion and too many cases, is just stupid, it clearly implies that AfD couldn’t possibly work, and so I ignore it and think you should too.
I’ve not yet worked out what Spartaz means, but I guess he is saying that MfD couldn’t possibly work. I watch MfD and do not get bothered by any scarlet pop ups.
On time for consensus to be established, absolutely yes. I suggest that these discussions should go for at least a week or two, and not be closed or archived until at least a week of no new substantive comment. There is no rush require here to justify compromising confidence in having a broad participation and consensus. I bet an awful lot of good editors are still on holidays. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand you disagree with their rationale, but unless they say that they've changed their minds, they've expressed their support for the current format. isaacl (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Were this an RfC, this is how a disinterested closer would have to treat these !votes. But it is not an RfC and I suppose it won't be closed in this way. SmokeyJoe's analysis of the 1st three opposes is spot on. I'll note that adding a subsection to a daily DRV page is far less fuss than creating a new AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    It's not totally spot on—I didn't say anything about autoconfirmed users, I'm more worried about accessibility. JBchrch talk 10:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Dated log page format

The level 2 section title suggests a binary choice. However, a third option has some support. To clarify the discussed options:

  • The current, all in one page, format, as used at AN/ANI
  • Dated log page format, used at DRV and MRV
  • Each on its own subpage, as at AfD and MfD

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm for a dated log format. It feels.. off to not have that here while trying to invoke comparisons to DRV and MRV. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
How about we just wait and see how many cases this board gets and what they look like before making a decision? Is there any urgency or necessity to decide this right now? JBchrch talk 10:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
This page and subpage structure is not something that will make or break the success of XRV, but is a foundational technical decision, which will have a lot of inertia. This XRV process has started on the WP:AN model, and it was needed because WP:AN doesn’t work for what is desired here, it seems a logical oversight, so I think it is a pretty obvious technical design question to put up front. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I see the argument. Personally, I will not support putting as high a barrier as Wikipedia:Deletion review § Steps to list a new deletion review to the filing of an AARV report unless it has proven to be absolutely necessary, due to accessibility and CREEP concerns. JBchrch talk 12:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree and support your accessibility concerns. DRV and MRV listing is complicated, and AfD/MfD would be horrid without twinkle. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I prefer an all on one page format, unless and until the volume of activity makes that unmanageable, as this is the most accessible for the majority of editors. If one page does become busy we should move to the fewest number of subpages that are required to make it workable (e.g. MRV is fine with monthly subpages). Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Many of did hundreds of AFDs/MFDs before Twinkle existed ;) We did it manually. Twinkle is great, but that was back when AFD was arguably busier and more drama filled; more wild west. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

We need to discuss how the challenge of an XRV closure should be reviewed

The instructions at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE currently say: "... In general, deletions are discussed at WP:Deletion review, moves are discussed at WP:Move review, and other closures are discussed at WP:AN." Since we are modeled after DRV and MRV, we should certainly endeavor to develop a corresponding process page at WP:XRV review. Hopefully, someone is proficient at jumping through hoops or else we're likely to be stuck with wp:an for a long time. Any thoughts on going forward?--John Cline (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

XRV closure challenge discussion

  • Comment - Closes of discussions other than those that already have places that such closes are challenged, like DRV, are special actions that in my opinion already are in scope for XRV. I think the status quo is that challenges to XRV closes should happen at XRV. If this becomes problematic, we should farm out these reviews to a new page, say XRVRV. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose (at least temporarily) per WP:CREEP and WP:NOTBURO since there is no demonstrated need for a dedicated process at the moment. JBchrch talk 15:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I can't see needing to create yet another board for review. WP:AN can handle the load easily and its properly watched. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    It just seems a bit odd that a forum that rather outspokenly regards AN/ANI as a suboptimal discussion venue must use it to review it's own challenged closures; but definitely doable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Cline (talk • contribs) 15:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    ANI, perhaps, but AN is a bit more subdued. Even Arb prefers an admin problem be viewed at AN before they see it, unless it is blindingly obvious and urgent. AN has always been the forum of choice for reviewing admin actions, as well as reviewing closes, etc. AN is more than capable of reviewing closes here, and has a long history of similar reviews. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • In practise its impossible to appeal a DRV close, I think that since this is an informal resolution place editors will hqve to consider formal DR if they are unhappy with the outcome and not allow appeals. Spartaz Humbug! 18:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • XRV close can be challenged at AN. It is possible to challenge a DRV and MR close at AN. AN is already a "review of review" venue. It is the topmost review venue. It's perfectly plausible that the closer of a formal review discussion is involved for example. I don't think that anyone will dispute that this fact can be brought up at AN for review. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree that AN is a place where any admin action can be challenged. Do you think XRV closes can also be challenged at XRV? — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Chalst: Yes. /sorry, meant to type:/ No. @Spartaz: The function of a review venue is not merely to receive new appeals, it is to put pressure on everyone involved by setting a certain standard: "if you make a dubious/impulsive close it CAN undergo review". Because DRV/MR are frequented more or less only by policy-aware editors, who are aware of the above-average competency standard, these venues produce hard to challenge results which translates to practical authoritativeness (...ultimately leading individuals at AN, which is a much wider group of people, to scoff at such appeals—because they respect the DRV outcomes). But a DRV/MR challenge is still a possibility. I've seen relevant attempts in the archives, regardless of the outcome. (The easiest to imagine is probably an INVOLVED situation. It can happen to someone unwittingly.) But this only turned out this way because DRV and MR have a very provable record of good practices. They have a microculture of competence. XRV has yet to gain it. Treating XRV analogously to existing review processes by seeing it as subordinate to AN, like DRV and MR have always been will make specific good practices here coagulate more quickly. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
That’s my actual point, unless the issue is straightforward AN is actually not able to properly review a DRV close and I disagree that it will function any better here. Since only uninvolved admins will be closing discussions per the RFC appeals are nit really an issue, Spartaz Humbug! 19:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, basically. In all likelihood, only straightforward issues will be actually taken up at AN. Maybe the AN will never realize it's XRV-review function in actuality, but the mere possibility of review is still a positive influence. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I can't see a circular/self-referrant appeal system ending well. AN seems more appropos. Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Various places. In fact a mistaken XRV close could be reviewed at XRV. It's an admin decision that isn't a deletion, so XRV is its own review forum; but I chose the words "mistaken close" with care. If the problem isn't a mistake then there are two other possibilities:- firstly, that what the XRV participants say doesn't reflect what the community as a whole thinks (in which case the review forum should be one we recognize for determining community consensus, such as RfC), or secondly, that the XRV closer is not in good faith, which I think would be a matter for a venue that deals with conduct, such as AN.—S Marshall T/C 22:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • We should make sure there's a limit, lest we have endless reviews of reviews of reviews for all time. That is my primary concern about allowing XRV closes to be challenged at XRV. There needs to be a final place of appeal and a fixed hierarchy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • XRV is being set up as a highest court. Therefore, it has to have the most stringent rules and culture for closing. An XRV close being overturned by a questionable close at AN would be most unfortunate. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    XRV is not, by my understanding, intended to be the highest court. It's meant to be a new, friendly, step on the ladder between talk pages and AN(I), with Arbcom above that and Jimbo above ArbCom. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    Definitely NOT a court, nor high court. It is simply breaking off a piece of WP:AN and giving it a home of it's own, as WP:AN is where most of this would have been reviewed before. Isolating and structuring it means there is a chance for less drama. A chance, mind you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    If an XRV case results in a consensus close, on what basis could ArbCom overturn it?
    If XRV is to be subservient to WP:AN, then this is a waste of time. XRV needs to be a place to appeal against admin malpractice, and if admins in a thread at WP:AN can agree with themselves to reject an XRV consensus, that is absurd.
    - SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    If an XRV case results in a consensus close, on what basis could ArbCom overturn it? on the same basis they could overturn a consensus anywhere else: if they determine the consensus was not valid for some reason (e.g. socking).
    If XRV is to be subservient to WP:AN, then this is a waste of time. I completely disagree. The goal was not to replace AN but to provide a venue on a par with DRV, MRV, etc for actions that (a) require advanced permissions, and (b) do not have a dedicated review venue already. DRV and MRV decisions can be challenged at AN and consensuses overturned if there is a need (there rarely is), and XRV should be no different. Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I never heard of this "highest court" stuff at the RfC, I don't see the basis of such and idea and I very much disagree. WP:AN is a fine place for a review of a close here. It is a time tested location to get a broad community review of closures. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    WP:AN is a difficult-to-follow, rules-free, disparaged drama board of a biased set of editors. It is good for important urgent matters. Formal reviews are for things that some, the targets of complaints, will deny are important. Review processes should proceed without a sense of urgency, but with consideration and ponderance. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    WP:AN performs RfC close review which is certainly a higher function than DRV/MR/XRV close review. AN can be the way you describe it, but actual endorse/overturn-formatted discussions there haven't been that bad recently, from what I've seen. Actually I know what's needed. A general review process guideline that would apply to all formal review venues (including AN when it's used for review purposes). Process page instructions would be something that extends from the guideline and specifies additional norms as needed for each venue. Edit: the point of which is that this would make it so that review (and only review) at AN isn't rules-free — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Clerking

There should be clear guidance. One of the way we keep the decorum at DRV is we close discussions if a party is acting up, usually this is the OP so they lose their appeal if they can’t behave properly. I’d like to have something similar here but not have formal clerks as it would end up with hat collecting. Spartaz Humbug! 18:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I agree. I think, per my concern above, that non-admin clerking, with a set of users respected by both the non-admin and admin portions of the community, can go a long way to make sure non-admin editors feel their concerns are getting heard, while letting admins rest assured that pile-on torch-and-pitchfork mobs won't be tolerated either. Jclemens (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't have an answer here, but the question is whether we have formal declared clerks or informal clerking. I see lots of problems with both. Formal is tough, because there no "authority" over them, like at SPI and Arb. The potential problems are obvious enough I won't expand. Informal is a problem because it can be a free-for-all. I'm all ears as to a 3rd way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I think we should begin with informal clerking by any interested user, with a possible set of guidelines of what it's expected from them (which I assume is mostly to keep things civil and organized). If that proves to be insufficient or troublesome, move to formal clerks. Isabelle 🔔 20:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The third way I proposed earlier is to limit the frequency at which editors can comment. This would help avoid rapid escalation of contentious arguments, and give time for each person to weigh in, including regarding the appropriateness of other comments. Having a moderator just to ensure each person gets time to respond could help manage this. isaacl (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    It should be rare that anyone comments more than twice in any discussion except to clarify any misinterpretation of their comment or answer a direct question about a previous comment. valereee (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    Well, that's the point: multiple comments is a necessary condition for escalation of contentious arguments. If we want to try to avoid how this happens in other venues, one way is to make it harder for multiple comments to occur, at least in a way that is prone to increasing conflict. (If you didn't see it, I commented on dissuading back-and-forth comments earlier.) isaacl (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, I was agreeing with you. valereee (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Clerking can be useful, but a clerk should be focussing on process. If you want to clerk a discussion, great, but you shouldn't be also providing opinion. And vice versa. valereee (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Reading Wikipedia:Deletion review § Closing reviews I see no need for formal or informal clerkship. JBchrch talk 22:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I propose that we simply adopt WP:DRVPURPOSE, point 8. In practice this would mean adding to the instructions:- XRV should not be used to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias. Such requests may be speedily closed.—S Marshall T/C 00:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with this. Principle-based rules instead of bureaucracy any day. JBchrch talk 00:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    I've added this as it seems uncontroversial. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I think this forum will need clerking less than does RfA, but clerking is a good thing in any formal forum. Clerks should be formally accredited/appointed, and clerks should not themselves be potential closers. Perfect behaviour with perfect clerking means that no one notices the clerks. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    Until clerking is seen to be required, clerking can be left to later. Clerking is not a critical design issue. For those interested in developing a system of good clerking, I think RfA is the place to start. The 'crats tried it once, to be criticised, I think, as I said at the time, because clerks must be distinct to closers. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. Basically the only other areas with formal clerks are ArbCom and SPI. In both cases there is a body that vets and approves applicants.(for arb clerks it is the committee and the current clerks, for SPI it is the functionaries team, it's all done by email to avoid publicly shaming anyone who is not approved) I've seen self-appointed ad hoc clerks in other areas, it isn't great. I would suggest that if this is done, they go through some sort of formal vetting process, and that once an initial group is selected, they will in turn vet future applicants. Perhaps the functionaries would agree to take this on as a one-time obligation. If there is support for this idea I can ask the team. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    I do like the idea of experienced non-admin clerks vetting future applicants. Ditto closers, really. valereee (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • DRV is "clerked", using the term loosely, but only informally and only by sysop regulars (notably Sandstein). Just as how, on AN or AN/I, threads deemed disruptive are speedily closed, that's also done at DRV. If you read what Spartaz says, I think this informal clerking is what he means.—S Marshall T/C 01:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    • That's exactly what I meant. Years ago there was an issue with DRVs getting very bad tempered and there were a couple of regular appealers who kept labelling editors or personalising discussions. I went through a phase of two warnings and then peremptery closing either as moot or whatever the consensus was up to that point. That very quickly cooled things down and if you lost your case because you couldn't behave then editors very quickly learned to simmer down. We need something similar here. With threads open for at least a week its going to be very stressful on the participants and we need to keep the discussion calm and dispassionate. Spartaz Humbug! 08:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Prefer informal clerking. ArbCom clerks, from a public perspective, only seem to handle clerical duties. While their remit includes dealing with PA, I’ve never seen them do this. Crate remit is the same and they don’t clerk RFA. For example, one arb noted ‘nonsense’ that had pervaded the recent RFAR, which I’d note didn’t get actioned by clerks. At AE, admins are the clerks, but again don’t even clerk the word limits which largely go unenforced. PA is (often?) actioned in the form of warnings/sanctions, but not hatting etc. SPI clerks are a completely different role. I do not see formalised clerking being effective. Nothing in precedent supports the idea. Any kind of clerking of nonsense, particularly by established editors, will provoke more response than leaving it up. Informal clerking means there’s still a chance it’s actioned though, and ANI can be sought for conduct issues otherwise. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The only thing I ask of people stepping forward to informally clerk a matter is to please do your homework and spare yourself and everyone else the embarrassment that comes of giving completely wrong information and advice. I can't believe all the flack YB is getting for bringing his self-requested review here. Not only is his doing so founded in policy, we have a talk thread on this very page about self-requests. As pointed out in that thread, our inaugural review was a self-request. A by all means, if ever you see me doing something similar, please let me know so I can tighten up. Thanks --John Cline (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The 'clerking' that was already going on in the few threads that occurred here was one of the chief frustrations of mine when reading the discussion. Individuals trying to restructure discussion, repeatedly saying the same things to multiple editors about appropriateness of venue without adding any further value to the discussion, etc., is (in my opinion) a large part of the friction that has caused us all to be in this mess. Daniel (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Yeah, so far the main ‘disruption’ that has needed to be clerked were comments about whether something is in scope and meta discussions about XRV, all on the main page. If we’re making rules to make the venue more orderly, the tangible evidence suggests procedural objections being redirected to talk for a while should be up there on the list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • My gut says we are going to need to no official clerks, at least at first, and just see how it goes. There are too many problems with the alternative. Once it gets going, then we will have a better idea of what the needs are. That is important to understand, we can't answer all the questions beforehand, we are going to have to make changes as we go along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify what I said above, my preference would also be for no official clerks, and no informal clerks either. The issue with the arguments about scope is that the scope is not clearly defined. The solution is to define the scope better. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Are full protected edits within scope here?

Currently template editor is included as a reviewable perm. One would imagine that edits to a fully protected page would also be reviewable, given it's something only able to be undertaken by administrators, but at the same time it isn't a loggable action and some might argue that the best venue is the talk page of the article. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I would say that editing through full protection is an admin decision and should therefore be reviewable here.—S Marshall T/C 12:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with S Marshall that it should be reviewable here, but in almost all cases a discussion on the article talk page should happen first. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Since that requires the admin bit, I can't see how there would be any question. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes. If not, why not? Jclemens (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, as it is expressly mentioned as one of the WP:MOPRIGHTS, which are linked to in header top — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with Thryduulf's perspective. Such edits are certainly an admin action, but we should be strongly encouraging users to try simply talking to the person who made the edit before asking for community review, as we do at basically every other noticeboard. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with S Marshall & Thryduulf in practice as they are unequivocally correct, having said, I theoretically however do share Beeblebrox's sentiments. Celestina007 (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • What Beeblebrox said; editing through full protection should definitely be a reviewable admin action, but, as with all disputes, editors should always discuss the issue with the admin in question first before bringing a question to this board. I might even go so far as to make it mandatory, e.g. "Action reviews opened before discussion with the responsible editor takes place will be closed immediately."-- Aervanath (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    • This suggestion is being discussed above ("Header suggestions").—S Marshall T/C 09:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Format

Part of the problem is that we need STRUCTURE. I'm proposing something like this, which is only semi-formal and not heavily structured, but has enough structure to not be a free-for-all. The filing party creates the report, and only they reply/comment in the head section. THEY are making the claim, they should have a free spot to make the claim, reply to others, etc, where their comments aren't being flooded out by replies.

The discussion area is a bit more wide open, and similar to AN/ANI. The main difference here is that the onus is on the reporting party, so we give them a little room to prove their case.

==Case name==

One to three sentences summarizing the problem.

  • Diff 1 (if appropriate)
  • Diff 2
  • etc

Prose. More detailed explanation. Say what the outcome should be (usually). Then sign. ~~~~ (end of initial report)

  • {{u|somone}} Reply to someone's comment below. ~~~~
  • {{u|someone else}} Reply to someone else. ~~~~
    Reply to that someone else again. ~~~~

(only the filing party talks in this head section)

===Discussion===
Everyone else comments down here, freeform. Only the person making the claims speaks above for clarity. They are the ones that need to demonstrate a problem, and they don't need their claims drown out with other comments. Filing party should never comment down here, only in their section.

===Proposal===
(not usually needed, but optional, anyone can propose)

I'm not saying it must be exactly this, but at a minimum, this much structure. This is a hybrid design, similar to several areas we have. It does put the spotlight on the reporting party, but that is how it should be in claims like this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of format

  • Oppose the general idea that discussions should have a structure , per WP:CREEP. The need for such a high hurdle to file a report has not been demonstrated in my view. JBchrch talk 16:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    XRV will use a structured discussion format as well as A structured discussion format - those were literally IN the RFC. Opposing some kind of structure is kind of against the consensus. The question isn't whether we have structure or not, it is what kind of structure will we have. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    That's correct, point taken. In that case, I would only support as light a structure as possible to begin with, based for instance on WP:AN/3 reports rather than Arbcom discussions. JBchrch talk 17:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    I'm thinking that it might be necessary or useful to re-litigate the requirement of a "structured discussion format", maybe through a second RfC if necessary. On the project page, there's currently an admin who submitted one of their own action for review, which seems like a completely valid use of the board and which can perfectly take place without a structured discussion. JBchrch talk 18:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    Structured discussion is always better. DRV often involves contributions only by administrators and it is still typically formatted. The minimal formatting norms don't seem to prevent anyone from expressing the full range of their opinion. The usual "bolded word advocacy" formatting makes it easier for the closer to follow and close. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Alalch Emis I think your comment highlights a related problem, which is that we disagree on what "structured discussion" means. I don't think that the rules on DRV commenting are what we could call "structured", contrary to what is done at WP:ARBCOM for instance. If we were to consider that the DRV rules are "structured", then I would have no problem with AARV having a similarly "structured" discussion. JBchrch talk 18:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    I am 98% certain that the usage of the syntagm "structured discussion" did not indicate a more advanced level of formatting than seen in DRV (which is essentially just the traditional "bolded word" formatting seen in AfD and RfC). It appears to be a confusing choice of word made by an individual. I would ask the RfC proposer and the closing panel to clarify what is meant by the word structured. I repeat that I am positive that it doesn't mean anything special. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    In that case, I'm abandoning my idea. With respect to a clarification, a long time textualist like myself would argue that the author's intent has no bearing on our discussion anyway 😁. JBchrch talk 19:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The usual and simple bolded !vote formatting (endrose/overturn) has proven adequate for deletion review and move review. It appears to be sufficient here too. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    I'm confused. In the discussion area, that is exactly what can take place. Where in this proposal does it restrict that? The RFC requires SOME kind of structure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, no contest wrt the discussion area. But how the appeal should be formatted seems to stress form over substance too much. I object to the part where the XRV nomination apparently can't (or can it?) be formatted as a single coherent sentence (diffs included inline as appropriate), containing a relevant appeal reason (see my views on appropriate appeal reasons here). I also don't think that the "appellant enters replies not as an indented replies, but below his opener" can realistically be brought to bear. It's a formatting standard that isn't used in DRV and I don't think that anything above that is needed. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    This makes a great deal of sense and if we are to move away from ANI norms the structure must be different. Havung a proposed outcome is great as it allows us to understand what the OP actually wants, too often ANI threads are unfocused whining. I’d like to suggest that we have unthreaded discussion too. That would stop a lot of the petty back and forth and require editors to be clear and concise, Spartaz Humbug! 18:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support the format as proposed. We will undoubtedly tweak it, but this seems a good mashup of other formal review templates currently in use. Jclemens (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Bingo. We have to start with something. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Would the "Proposal" section be created by the OP or by any participant who wants to come up with one? If the latter, I feel like it will only help create a chaos similar to ANI, when a difficult topic arises and each editor wants a different result and multiple proposals are created. Aside from that, I wouldn't oppose this structure. Isabelle 🔔 20:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    Most of the time, a proposal isn't needed except in complicated situations. If they are appealing an action, say a block, then the proposed action is rather evident. That is why I said optional. And I would never suggest that only the filer can propose a solution. Sometimes the best solutions come from the peanut gallery. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for the reply. I think I'd be happy if there was a limit on the amount of proposals, but these minutiae can be ironed out later. Since people are !voting, let me say I support this proposal, but this shouldn't mean this is the only valid one, and would welcome other suggestions on how the format should look like. Isabelle 🔔 01:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as proposed. It's a good place to start. — Ched (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as a starting point --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Sectioned discussion

This was suggested and received some support, but I think it's valuable enough to make sure we've got consensus. I have found sectioned discussions (both commenting in your own section and word limits) to be extremely useful in discouraging certain problematic behaviors (by making them obvious) such as bludgeoning, back-and-forth bickering, and unhelpful clerking, and I think it's something we should at least try here. valereee (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  • In the "format" section above, I proposed a format that would at least get us started. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    I saw that, but it looked like the only section that was for a single person was the OP's section? Then the rest is freeform discussion? (Or am I misunderstanding?) It's the freeform discussion that I feel like causes most of the back and forth bickering, yeah-what-they-saids, clerking silliness, and bludgeoning. Just to take bludgeoning as an example, I see much less repetitive restatement of the exact same argument in sectioned discussion. It makes you feel silly to say the same thing over and over and over again when the responses are all in a row. When they're interspersed with other people's comments, not so much. Also even without word limits, sectioned discussion makes it very obvious who is posting a gazillion times and/or multiple walls of text. valereee (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    I agree that having separate sections for each commenter is one way to help manage back-and-forth escalation of comments so think it would be a reasonable format to try out. isaacl (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not against that at all. The reason I proposed what I proposed was it was a compromise, based on what some are saying, which is they want NO structure (even tho the RFC clearly says "structure"). In the end, I don't think it matters, as the format will change once we start using it, but we have to start somewhere, and my proposal has enough structure to make sense (the OP always and only talks in his area because he is the one making the claim). Individual sections (like Arb) actually make a lot of sense, but I don't think you are going to get consensus on it this week or next. In time, yes. Again, we need to start somewhere, or else it will stay a clone of ANI. It is a practical solution, not "the best" solution, ie: one that might pass. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    It's only been three days since your proposal. With numerous persons asking for more time to discuss how this review process can be implemented, I think it's early enough to be agreeable with multiple proposals. Over time, focus can narrow on the one that proves to have the most support. isaacl (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Editors who post here seeking reviews ought to be allowed to format their threads however they think is most useful, whether it be sectioned discussion like what Dennis proposed, or like val is proposing, or something else. That'll allow us to experiment with different formats for different discussions, and we can all learn what formats are best for what types of threads. It might be helpful if the instructions suggested some possible formats. Levivich 20:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    Oh, that's an interesting idea...at minimum it would let us see whether a particular format works better/worse. And I think letting an admin set it to what they prefer might make some more willing to come in here with a question about one of their own actions. I think it would make me more likely to do so. valereee (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    While I'm open to the idea, I think it might be putting too much onus for newer editors to ask them to choose a format. I'm not as receptive to Valereee's suggestion of allowing the subject of the review request to set the format. It feels like setting up another thing to argue about. isaacl (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    Oh, I was talking about admins bringing themselves in choosing a format, not actors in general. Although I'd actually think that might be a good direction to go in eventually, if we found that generally the sectioned discussions worked well and were less agonizing. valereee (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Before I would support restricting the community's discussions in this way, I would first need to see more evidence that it's needed.—S Marshall T/C 02:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I think this is better approached with advice than with rules. Sometimes at MRV, the defending complainee has written too much, arguing back against every criticism, to the point of dominating the review. Reminding them that a a good closer will act and respond with "decorum" had an unexpectedly strong effect, but it worked. Advice could include:
    If your action is the subject of the review, give a brief explanation, respond to direct questions, but do not respond excessively and badger the participants.
    IF you feel the need to respond separately to many others, instead of posting all over the page, consider writing your directed responses under your own primary !vote dot point.
  • --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    • aka WP:Hold the pepper Levivich 02:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

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,[5] 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[6] 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)

WITHDRAWN
The consensus of those responding to this section is uniformly clear that this should not be codified by instruction criteria and I have come to agree. I am withdrawing the proposal and marking it closed to spare others from allocating time in considering it further.--John Cline (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

Shortening the instructions on the main XRV page

General consensus is that these could be improved but now is not the right time to do it. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Yet another speedy close. And INVOLVED! There’s a very long way to go in changing this culture, isn’t there. So many admins think they have the right to impose ownership by closing things with intimidating wiki markup. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, as the editor who started this section, I "thanked" BK for the close, because my questions ("Does anyone else think it's too long?" and "Worth discussing now?") were answered ("yes" and "no") and there didn't seem to be much point in discussing it further now; but I'm sure no one would mind if you added your thoughts despite the atop template. Levivich 23:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

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.


While I'm dumping my thoughts... does anyone else agree with me that the instructions on the main page (WP:XRV) are too long? Especially on mobile, it's like 10 or 20 screens of scrolling before you'd get to the first thread. It looks to me like XRV's instructions are longer than WP:DRV, WP:MR, and WP:ANI, and strikes me as an example of instruction creep. I think the instructions should be moved to a WP:XRV/Instructions subpage, and replaced on the main XRV page with a shorter summary of instructions (with a link to the subpage), like something that is no more than 1 desktop screen length (about the length of the ANI header). Agree/disagree? Worth discussing now? Levivich 21:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with trying to make it more concise, but I think we should postpone discussion until after there's more agreement on what the procedure should be. isaacl (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Isaac. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
As do I. Any time spent trying to make the procedural instructions all of concise, correct and easy to follow before we know what the procedure is will more than likely be wasted. Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, definitely cart before horse. Levivich 22:08, 15 June 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.

Crystal clear scope

So to be clear, if I am reading the section above correctly, nobody still thinks this is "a process somewhere between ANI and ArbCom" (to quote the RFA RFC close), right? That part of the RFA RFC close was either incorrect, or has been superseded? It's actually a less severe option than AN/ANI? There will be no sanctions or removal of permissions issued here, only endorsing or overturning admin actions? If sanctions or removal of permissions are desired, some other process must be used? If someone tries to get someone else sanctioned or their permissions removed, either the thread will be closed, or that part of the thread will be closed (details TBD)? It is a review of actions that only the holder of the permission could make (so, for example, we're not reviewing actions taken by an admin that they could have taken as just an editor)?

If it really is true that this is just DRV/MRV for other admin actions, it removes about 1/2 of my concerns. But I don't think this is a universal opinion; I think there are people who believe (either instead of, or in addition to, the first paragraph) that this should be a place to deal with "problem" admins (or, apparently, "problem" rollbackers 🙄). If nobody wants it to do that anymore, and everyone agrees on this lighter scope, that's significant progress towards addressing half of my concerns. But I'd want to see it confirmed below, rather than just assume.

  • Subject to the other fundamental issues I still have concerns about being addressed, I don't object in principle to a noticeboard with this lighter scope. If people want to expand it to sanction or remove permissions, then I still oppose it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    I am fairly sure that I've seen people commenting in the talk page archives about the purpose being a kind of pre-RFAR too, but (a) I suppose I could be wrong, or have misunderstood, and (b) (more importantly) I'm not willing to dig thru the archives to find them. If that is very clearly not the goal and not going to be the goal, then yay. --Floquenbeam (talk)
  • Agree, but IMO it's main use is even lighter than that, let's call it doubly lighter. (except that "sanctions" is too broad of a word) Where a common finding is the community simply telling the admin to "don't so that" or "stop doing that". North8000 (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    Indeed. I think Ritchie333 set the tone for this really well early on, by bringing one of his own actions here for review. It would be a huge achievement for XRV if users felt comfortable enough to come here to say, "hey, I'm not sure I did the right thing here, can I get a second opinion?" without being scared of repercussions. Because I don't think anybody in their right mind would do that at ANI right now. – Joe (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    It doesn't happen at ANI, but people do ask for second opinions at AN and in fact there is one such thread there now. This isn't to dismiss the idea of XRV as a place where that could also happen but to be accurate about what happens now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • For me the answer to all the questions in your first paragraph is "yes". I hadn't realised that people were interpreting that part of the RfC close as meaning that XRV was to be some sort of higher court than ANI and in that sense yeah, I don't think it's reflective of the consensus at all. I tried to be very clear in the proposal that the only outcome of an XRV is that an action is either endorsed or not endorsed (or no consensus) and that any resulting sanctions would be deferred to existing processes (with the caveat that sometimes that 'process' is just an individual admin doing something like revoking a PERM). XRV is only a venue for dealing with 'problem' admins/rollbackers/etc. in the sense that the hope is that if we address problem actions early, it will help stop such unconstructive labels emerging. I really don't think anyone thinks otherwise—if they do they're badly misreading the original proposal—and this goes a long way to explaining why we've been talking past each other, so really thanks for this Floq. – Joe (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • My understanding has always been what you have just summarised, Floq; this is a board to basically decide on a particular action with respect to improving the encyclopaedia, avoiding anything to do with the person who made it. The problem I've seen with XRV is that it requires both a) a strong agreement and consensus that is the case and b) a general willingness to clamp down on anyone doing otherwise in the same manner as starting an AfD with "This article was created by [person I don't like] who is such a ignorant douchebag!" would. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The middle ground between the incidents noticeboard and arbitration (as mentioned by Joe in his support statement in the RfC) was referring to a process that isn't completely ad hoc as the incidents noticeboard but also not as formal as arbitration. As far as I can tell, all the support statements understood that the proposal wasn't intended to create a process that was a middle ground in terms of severity of sanctions that could be imposed. isaacl (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    Oh crap, I did say that didn't I. Yes, that is what I meant: between ANI and ArbCom in their formality; not their severity. Man, this really is a lesson that if you're proposing something new you should choose your words very carefully. – Joe (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Maybe the "higher than ANI but below below Arbcom" concept came only from an ethereal / collective sense and not in the sense of remedies. With ANI being self review, and self-review avoids handling most of these, and Arbcom being overkill, this could be just one step above the self-review of ANI. In any event, I would not only assent to ruling out any heavy duty sanctions from here, I would strongly advocate ruling those out. The strongest thing coming out of here would be reversal of an action or a "you were wrong, stop doing that" statement. North8000 (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Meatballwiki has a useful page at FairProcess which is helpful to bear in mind as we develop this. My understanding of the principles is:-
    We expect most decisions to be endorsed.
    It's important that a nominator who's unfamiliar with Wikipedia should be able to use the process.
    It's important that the nominator (or person complaining) can see that we've reviewed the decision properly and fairly. They should receive a clear explanation of the decision during the discussion.
    The duration of the discussion should be seven days, in the same way that AfD is a seven-day discussion. This is specifically meant to allow the occasional snowball close and possibly, where necessary, relist, in the same way as AfD.
    Discussions should be archived in a way that's indexed and searchable. We should plan for a volume of discussions comparable to DRV or MRV, which I would see as a likely maximum.
    We should expect it to be rare that an XRV thread would lead to sanctions on the sysop or other advanced rights holder. But that could happen. I can envisage an XRV that leads to the closer revoking someone's NPP rights, for example.
    It's possible that XRV might identify a pattern of problems and refer that elsewhere. A good parallel is RHaworth's arbcom case, which was heavily attended by DRV regulars because DRV was fairly concerned about RHaworth.
    We've agreed that a decision not to use the tools is reviewable. It has to be an active decision. So if I post on %sysop's talk page to say: "Please could you semi-protect my user talk page", but %sysop doesn't respond and the thread gets archived, then there hasn't been a decision and I shouldn't open a thread here. If he does respond but his response is, "Why do you need this?" or "I'm not able to consider what you're asking, so please post that request on AN", then there hasn't been a decision so I shouldn't open a thread here. But if he says "Yes, sure," or "No, I won't", then those are reviewable decisions.
    The drama level needs to be kept as low as possible, but as this board would review blocks and other high-stress outcomes, it's likely to be a higher-drama board than DRV or MRV are.
    There's a basic expectation of decent behaviour, respect and restraint, and mocking complainants with a hilarious image caption or piece of doggerel in burma-shave format should be unacceptable here.
  • I believed that we'd already decided and agreed on most or all of these things.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't have a particularly strong opinion on what this should look like, but there are two points above that I think if put to an RfC would have a majority oppose or at the very least wouldn't gain consensus:
      • The duration of the discussion should be seven days, in the same way that AfD is a seven-day discussion. This is specifically meant to allow the occasional snowball close and possibly, where necessary, relist, in the same way as AfD. A 7 day discussion about an individual action, especially if the action has expired or been reversed, is outside the mainstream of community opinion. We specifically don't do that except in cases where it is about an admin reviewing consensus (i.e. DRV and MRV), because those are generally discussions about people closing discussions (DRV gets some speedies, but the norm is AfDs.)
      • We've agreed that a decision not to use the tools is reviewable. I suspect this would have a supermajority of the community oppose if put to an RfC. It would fundamentally change the relationships administrators or any user of advanced permission has with the tools, because an axiom that has gone back to basically the start of the project is that admins can never be forced to use the tools. That can't be changed by a talk page discussion.
This is what I was talking about when I said the proponents took the consensus for something it was not. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
There are two kinds of decisions not to use the tools. There are cases where I choose, for whatever reason, to do nothing and there are cases where I choose to decline a request for me to use my tools. Someone used PERM as an example above: I can choose whether or not to reply to any given PERM request, but if I decline someone's request for a PERM is that decline a use of my tools or is the only use of tools if I accept it? I agree with you that the community would not support review of a "do nothing" decision. Are you suggesting the community would also oppose this second kind of decision not to use the tools? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually anticipated someone would ask this after I typed it up :-)
I think formally declining something (i.e. an unblock request, RFPP request, or a perm request) is arguably an action, though historically we've just told people to re-apply/re-appeal rather than appealing the decline since its faster, and much more light weight but yeah, its something that taking someone to AN for if it was particularly abusive or involved would be reasonable.
What I don't think the community would support is someone coming to my talk page, me saying "No, I will not protect that page" or "No, I will not make you a pending changes reviewer" and taking it here rather than just going to RfPP, PERM, AIV, etc. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Per Tony, I would absolutely oppose being able to bring someone here for not doing something, except I would be opposed to, but could grudgingly live with, "official" decisions at PERM/RFPP/etc where the admin made a decision and closed the discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
That would indeed by very silly, but I don't think we need to pre-emptively tell people not to do silly things. Looking again to DRV, technically you can bring any disputed reading of consensus there you like, but when someone complains about e.g. a no consensus close they'd prefer to be keep, the community is pretty good at telling them to go away and focus on things that matter. – Joe (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Declining a request (e.g. an unblock request) often IS doing something if it terminates the request. Very different than "doing nothing". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

There are several sorts of declines:
  1. No response. These definitely should not be in scope here. If there is a pattern of evading responsibility then I think everyone agrees that should go to AN or arbcom.
  2. Ask elsewhere. Cases where the person asked cannot do the required action for some reason (e.g. they lack the ability or time, they are WP:INVOLVED, etc.) or simply do not want to get involved. I don't think these should be in scope here, as the best course of action for everyone is for the question to be asked elsewhere. Very occasional exceptions may apply, but I can't think off the top of my head that would be appropriate for this venue (something like RHowarth's "I don't talk to IPs" is something that I think is better suited to AN or Arbcom).
  3. I want more opinions. (see e.g. [7]) This is not so much a "no" as a "maybe" and reasonable time should be allowed for those other opinions to be given before thinking about a review. The final decision, once made, may of course be in scope.
  4. Nobody can do it. This is an active decline, but as the only way that it could be overturned is if policy and/or the software is changed there is nothing anybody here could do about it (I hope we can all agree that this is not a venue to try and change policy). If the admin is wrong and it can be done then the solution is to educate them about their mistake and ask them again or ask someone else.
  5. No, decline and that's final. This is an active decline and should be in scope. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
In your list a decline at PERM (again just to keep using a consistent example) a 5? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@Barkeep49 Yes, unless the request is explicitly left open for others to comment or make the final decision (in which case it would be a 3). Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm assuming you mean on the actual PERM page vs. on a user talk, etc. I'd agree with this on PERM, just not if someone is bugging me on my user talk and I say "I don't think you're qualified, so I'm not granting it" but don't do anything formal at PERM or the like. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
If someone is asking you outside of a formal process and you are the first person they've asked (as far as you are aware), then your "I don't think you're qualified, so I'm not granting it" is basically #2 on my list (they can ask somewhere else if they want). If you are the second person who they've asked, then it's strong advice to leave it there (especially if you explicitly agree with the first person) but not a prohibition on doing so. I'm not opposed to reviewing those, but I don't think they should be encouraged. If you are the third person, then they are forum shopping and your decline would be a #5. That would definitely be reviewable, but in almost all circumstances your decision is going to be resoundingly endorsed. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Key words are and that's final. In my view, the sine qua non of a "decline action" (as differentiated from a "nonaction" or "decline to act") is whether the requestor can ask someone else without running afoul of WP:FORUMSHOP. If the decline is the kind where asking someone/somewhere else would be WP:FORUMSHOPing, then it's a "decline action" and is reviewable (as in #5 on the list above). If the decline is the kind where the person asking is free to ask elsewhere (which is #1-#4 on the list above, as I read it), then it's a "decline to act" and is not reviewable. The reason for this being where to draw the line is that in a "decline action", the editor with the advanced permission is using the advanced permission to limit the actions of another editor, and thereby is taking an action that requires an advanced permission. Whereas, in a "decline to act", the editor with the advanced permission is not limiting the actions of anyone else. Levivich 20:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I generally agree with this; the one thing I would like to point out though like I hinted at in response to Barkeep's initial query, the other side of the question is "If it is in scope, is it a good idea to bring it here?" For many 'decline actions' the answer will be "no." For RfPP you just submit another request at RfPP a few hours later when there's been more disruption. AIV, the same (or take it to ANI if its urgent. PERM, our example here, is a bit of an outlier, but for something like rollback it is probably a better choice for the person being declined just to wait a week an re-apply (i.e. creates less bad feelings and people are less likely to be suspicious of a 2nd request if the appeal here is declined.) For unblocks, it is quicker to file an additional unblock rather than appeal the decline of the appeal.
That's the part of the discussion that I think is missing - even if something is theoretically in scope, is it a good idea to bring it here? The answer for a lot of decline actions is going to be "no". That's a pragmatic judgement, and the answer might be "yes" sometimes, but its something we also need to keep in mind when talking about scope. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree if the purpose is to get the action reversed, there are better ways than to go to XRV, e.g., as you suggest, make another request later. However, if the purpose is to determine if there was community consensus for the action in the first place -- not to get it reversed, but to find out if it was proper, if it is endorsed -- then that's what XRV is for.
I feel you're coming at this from a perspective that the only reason anyone would take anything to XRV is because they want an action to be reversed. This is belied by the very first XRV thread by Ritchie, which was a self-review. There is, indeed, a value in having a place where we can just ask, "Was this action proper? Was this action a good idea?" without asking "Should the action be reversed?" That's what XRV is for, and that's apparent in the #RFC text (which, in multiple places, notes that enforcement is deferred to existing processes), the discussion, and the close.
So I would argue that even if the action was already reversed, there may be value in discussing it at XRV anyway. Because the point is to find out what the community thinks of certain actions; it's not to reverse actions. It may be that a reversed action is nevertheless endorsed; knowing this is valuable to other advanced permission holders, who may be faced with the same dilemma in the future with regards to whether to take a specific action. The purpose of XRV isn't to directly fix mistakes, it's to determine what is and isn't a mistake in the first place, for the sake of everybody's education, so mistakes aren't repeated in the future. Levivich 21:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
The purpose of XRV isn't to directly fix mistakes, it's to determine what is and isn't a mistake in the first place, for the sake of everybody's education, so mistakes aren't repeated in the future.
I agree that's what you and other more vocal proponents want who are active on this page want. I don't agree that view has community support or that the RfC demonstrated a consensus for that. We don't have review forums that review moot issues. We don't have cases with binding precedents, and the desire to use this board to become that is a big part of the reason it failed so quickly. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I've re-read the support statements once again, and it still seems clear to me that they supported the creation of a place to review administrative actions in a place other than the administrators' noticeboard or the incidents' noticeboard with the hope that it would be more effective, and multiple commenters underlined their support for reviewing the action and not the administrator. There were some comments on it being a way to provide feedback. While there was no explicit statement of preventing future problems, I think this is a natural consequence of reviewing actions. I don't feel one-off reviews will serve as binding precedents. As per English Wikipedia tradition, consensus agreements is required to establish guidance. However, just as reviews taking place today in the various venues are points of data that help illuminate consensus views, reviews on this page would contribute towards figuring out community opinion. isaacl (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about reviewing settled issues. There's a saying that you can get a lot more done if you don't worry about who gets credit. On Wikipedia, you can get more done if you don't worry about being proven right. Reviewing an issue that has been resolved in practice can create acrimony. I also wouldn't want review on this page to be a reflexive default action. Take, as an example, a case where a mass message was requested and performed, and then someone feels that the message wasn't of sufficient interest to the targeted audience. Technically, this could be reviewed on this page, but a discussion on the mass messaging talk page would probably be more effective, both from a perspective of reaching editors with experience in the area, and in generating future guidance. An individual discussion might not in itself lead to any definitive guidance; multiple discussions though would help provide more examples to work through and gradually coalesce to a consensus. I think this would be easier to do when the conversations are held on the specific talk page for the relevant area.
There have been occasions, though, where editors who repeatedly make decisions counter to community consensus have defended their actions by narrowing focusing on whether or not their actions were specifically overturned. In this situation, it would be helpful to review the issue in order to provide timely feedback. Under the assumption, though, that this is a minority of editors, I'm not sure how to strike the right balance in figuring out what settled issues warrant a review anyway. isaacl (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • We've got to be able to review settled issues. We as a site have failed horribly at the training and development of sysops. We give them a crap ton of responsibility and an ever-increasing workload, but we offer no structured feedback, no performance reviews, no development at all. Reviewing settled issues is a chance for the community to give them a gentle steer without, if this place works, the usual crowd of axe-grinders and yahoos shouting and swearing at them at AN/I.
    And from the point of view of their targets, a 24-hour block is a bad block, but by the time you've noticed you're blocked, talked to the blocking sysop, jumped through whatever other procedural hoops people invent before you're allowed to use this page, then post asking for review here, and then (apparently) waited for the blocking sysop to pipe up before the discussion is even allowed to begin, your bad block is well and truly in the past. Personally, I've been the victim of a bad block (blocked by a sitting arb, actually), and I would very much have welcomed a venue for calm and rational discussion of that event that didn't finish with hat on it saying "UNBLOCKED". Because of that AN/I-think nonsense where once you're unblocked, your bad block is now a non-issue no longer worth discussing... just sitting there on your block log, indelibly and permanently.
    All this is linked closely to why the community is so reluctant to promote new sysops. We elect them but as soon as we have elected them, we've got no control over them at all, except in the very unusual case where they do something so egregious that Arbcom takes an interest and they then fail to utter the mea culpa of automatic sysop exoneration. We won't fix any of these problems without a community scrutiny venue that reviews settled issues, preferably in a lower-drama way than any of our current options.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
    In the professional world, opportunities for holistic feedback are provided, both positive and negative, and it's not done in public where anyone can toss in a comment and dash off. As a result, in many situations we assume that the events that led to a decision being reversed has served as feedback to the person in question, rather than delving further. Unfortunately sometimes this avoids examining the underlying issues, or the person doesn't perform adequate self-reflection. Thus I agree there are times when further review is desirable. The tricky part for me is trying to avoid an environment where every settled incident is reviewed, as I think this may not provide sufficient benefits for the effort expended, assuming that most editors are able to learn from cases where their actions were reversed. isaacl (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
    I'm sensitive to that concern, but I think there's time to let things shake out here and see whether over-review becomes a reality or not. Procedures and expectations can be adjusted down the road if needed. Retswerb (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Formal RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
An RfC can be time-consuming, and it's clear that part of the community would rather spend that time trying to improve the process and fix raised issues. Let's put a pin here while the discussion in the sections above happens among those interested. (non-admin closure) Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 23:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


Should Wikipedia:Administrative action review be revived, or should it be closed and marked historical? 21:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Option 1: Revived

  • Clearly. Clearly, the community wanted it. The community wanted a mechanism of recourse against rogue admins, and that is different to WP:AN. The subsequent abuse of this page by threatened admins is to their shame. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    Revive. As someone who has a few permissions, it is a good idea to see advanced actions held to review. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Amongst the many problems in this RFC is that option 3 is basically option 1. North8000 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@North8000 All three options are different. Option 1 would restart AARV as it was at the time it was paused, option 2 would close the process, mark it as historical and make all the ongoing discussions irrelevant and pointless. Option 3 allows for the discussions to continue and, at some future point, AARV to be either restarted as was, restarted in a revised form, or not restarted - depending on what the outcome of the ongoing discussion is. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
What I meant is that one of the faulty things is that most of the people supporting supporting saying that it IS going / should be kept going are mostly under option #3, and so are also supporters of #1. Also #1 contains 2 false or disputed implied premises in as fact in it with the use of the word "restart" including implying that an action / decision is needed for it to continue. North8000 (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Revived? Option 3 is largely the same, but I'd like to see links restored so this process can actually be tried – basically per everything Nosebagbear said below. If it doesn't go satisfactorily, it can always be changed as we go, or shut down if needed. Ajpolino (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Option 2: Closed and marked historical

  • Support I did not support the creation of this process, which I consider entirely redundant, and how it was supposed to "fix RFA" was magical thinking. However, it was approved at the prior RFC, so I figured we were stuck with it and participated in discussions aimed at clarifying how it would work. While those discussions were underway, the board was in active use, without any clear rules, scope, or authority. I walked away as it seemed to be becoming a total train wreck, and when I checked back on it later I found it was basically closed as a failure. At that point I think it is fair to say that consensus changed and there was no longer broad-based support for having such a process, yet we have conversations ongoing on this page that seem to assume that all that is needed is a few tweaks for clarity of purpose. I do not think that is sufficient, we need a clear consensus that the community still wants this process if it is to go live again. I still have the same objections I did previously, now backed up by the fact that it did indeed fail badly when attempted before. We simply do not need another drama board, this process can't do anything beyond what ANI already does on a daily basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • If this is not closed, I agree with Beebs and land here because I'm fairly convinced this is going to be the eventual outcome. Not going to vote as a procedural close because my true thoughts are that this is never going to take off and more discussion is going to just waste the time of volunteers, but I'm also not really going to oppose a procedural close because if people want to discuss this before it fizzles out, that's on them. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Along the lines of Tony and Beeblebrox – I have no strong opinion on whether this should be procedurally closed, or whether this discussion is necessary in the first place, but now that we're here, I might as well voice my opinion. The fact that the board is unused strikes me as fairly good evidence that it does not actually create an accountability mechanism that goes further than what AN(I) can provide; decentralising the drama isn't helpful, and insufficient accountability mechanisms are insufficient accountability mechanisms regardless of the page title. Frankly, the establishment of XRV strikes me as the result of a desire to have at least some spaghetti on the wall to show as the result of the extensive discussions at WP:RFA2021 – much like the other outcomes of that effort; it seems like these particular noodles just didn't stick. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Blablubbs Wouldn't you agree that "the fact the board is unused" is due to the fact that all inbound links were removed? When we had inbound links, the board had plenty of activity, check the archives. Does that affect your analysis? Levivich 12:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
      @Levivich: Ah, didn't realise that, thanks. It makes that part of my argument less meaningful, but it doesn't really change my opinion: I do not see what this board does that is not feasible at AN(I) – it doesn't have any more "bite" – nor do I see any practical or normative advantage to having two separate boards. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
      Not your fault that you didn't realize it; this RFC omitted that key detail, part of why I am !voting "procedural close". You not seeing what this board does that ANI doesn't was a reason to oppose the RFC; why is it a reason to mark the board historical? Consensus was that there was a difference between this board and ANI (and BK explained those difference in detail in a discussion thread up above a few days ago).
      This board had inbound links for only like <de>two three and a half weeks in December and January. Surely, that is not enough time to evaluate the success of this board and decide whether it should be marked historical? Levivich 13:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per Tony. Like others, I feel that XRV is yet another low-traffic debate page that doesn't really solve anything and whose scope is somewhat ambiguous. --WaltCip-(talk) 15:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • It should become historical. Lindervan48 (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC) blocked sock NebY (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Admittedly I'm not the best informed on this, since I am currently banned from project-space, but I'd just like to ask: why did we deprecate WP:EAR? Because it was rarely used and other boards already accomplish its usage. I was kind of thinking the same thing here. It was a failed experiment, something that people only used a few times. And it has not been used in three months. Meanwhile, while doing my daily read of AN, I have seen several discussions about admins inappropriately removing permissions, and AN seemed to handle it well, meaning that another board already accomplishes its usage. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Doesn't serve any purpose that AN/ANI don't already serve. -FASTILY 03:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - pointless process-wonkery, supposedly conceived as something which would help to "fix RFA" (although how that may be is utterly unclear). Offers nothing that AN/ANI don't, has no clear path to even becoming a workable "thing" and has failed to gain any traction at all. Not worth wasting any more time on. If it's unused after all this time it's not suddenly going to magically become something useful. Perfect example of the futility of the conclusion that: "something must be done - this is a thing - let's do this". Time to admit this didn't work out. Begoon 13:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    • It was started in December, shut down in January, last post in April, and now it's June. We got about a week into discussions and there's an RfC to shut it down. "If it's unused after all this time..." It's never been unused, we just can't get it off the ground because power users won't let it run without trying to shut it down constantly. Levivich[block] 14:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I really don't get how the people in this section aren't embarrassed to be voting this way. It was shut down, inbound links removed, threads closed because "it's not ready yet", and now some want to mark it historical because it unused? Ugh. Levivich[block] 14:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    • From WP:Administrative action review/Archive 1, there have been 10 XRV threads: The first thread was Dec. 14; it was a self-requested review of removal of rollback that was not endorsed. 2nd thread closed as out of scope. 3rd thread was a review of revocation of talk page access, not endorsed. 4th thread, on January 5, was the one about removal of a CSD tag, which is out of scope, and was closed in three hours (closing statement: "Nothing more to be usefully said here."). Inbound links were removed Jan 7, three and a half weeks after the first thread. On the same day, the 5th XRV thread, which was opened on Jan 5, was closed "Bold/IAR close per the emerging consensus on the talk page that this forum is not ready to go live yet." The 6th thread was opened the next day, a self-requested block review, closed as endorsed on Jan 10. The remaining four threads were closed as out of scope (or trolling), with the final thread on March 14. WT:XRV discussions continued until April 10. Then nothing until WT:Administrative action review#Proposal at village pump on June 12, two months later. Levivich[block] 18:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Option 3: Procedural close of this RFC

  • Procedural close - we literally just had this at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: Shut down Wikipedia:Administrative action review, which I closed because it was an improper RFC, having a non-neutral RFC statement, and having no WP:RFCBEFORE, was reopened, and Tony re-closed it. This RFC also is not neutral (not even factually accurate in its retelling of history), and also has no RFCBEFORE. In fact, on this page, right now, are editors who are discussing what may become an RFCBEFORE, as a result of the last RFC being closed. Launching this RFC is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:POINTY. As Barkeep says below, posting this now is extremely poor form. Frankly, if an editor who wasn't on arbcom had done this, I'd be thinking about starting an ANI thread about it. Levivich 21:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    I think ANI would be a silly choice no matter who opened it. That said, being an arb conveys no formal special privilege in this kind of discussion. Obviously arbs have social connections that could make an ANI tricky but that's part and parcel of why I don't think it would be a good choice no matter who opened it (including some other IP). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    When it comes to disruptive behavior, I have higher standards for functionaries than regular editors. Levivich 22:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The one strong consensus in the Village Pump proposal was that an RFC about shutting down this review was not the right thing at this time. Given that there are active, potentially productive, discussions ongoing at the moment means this consensus is likely even stronger than it was. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • This RFC is unfortunately timed. People clearly don't want endless RFC's, and I still believe that when/if this is all set up, there should be an RFC confirming that what we have is what the community wanted/wants before it goes live, before links to the process are added back to all the places they were removed from. I suspect people who think such an approval RFC is not necessary might have grudgingly gone along with that, just to get broader buy-in, but probably not if we've just gone thru another RFC to close it. Since there is active discussion on several aspects, and since the previous RFC - malformed as it was - seemed to demonstrate a lack of community desire to shut this down, I'd prefer this be procedurally closed, and an "approval" RFC be held instead when a critical mass of people think it is ready for prime time. I guess that's option 3. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Close RFC Long story short, the RFC should not exist at this time.North8000 (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Obviously I don't agree. We have discussion here of how to restart this thing, without having a recent consensus that it should exist at all. The previous RFC cannot be leaned on as proof that the community actually wants this after what happened last time it was active. If the community does not want this, defining how it works is a waste of time. That a prior malformed RFC was closed early doesn't change any of that. RFCBEFORE is not a policy to be used to stifle discussion, it is just advice. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Hmm let's see, the previous RfC was... last October. A little under eight months ago. How long ago was your RfA? Will you be handing in your bits for lack of "recent consensus"? – Joe (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
      Last October was before the whole thing was tried and failed. I think your arguments are the ones getting increasingly absurd. You seem kinda desperate to not have this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I stopped engaging actively in the process, because what was deliberately intended to be a lightweight process suddenly got bogged down in people wanting a vast amount of rules entirely laid out in advance rather than allowed to evolve from the original basics like most of your pages. Multiple individuals also carried out a degree of goalpost moving which discouraged me from staying engaged. The verbose disputes on the talk page likely also dissuaded people from bringing cases to XRV, which is not especially surprising. That all said, that wouldn't make this a procedural close !vote. That's because having this RfC while a discussion is ongoing seems odd, and while it's obviously nowhere as problematic as the recently closed RfC, it doesn't avoid all the issues raised therein. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I support a procedural close for the reasons I laid out here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I also support a procedural close. The idea that consensus has changed dramatically in eight months is not plausible. If the page is actually reactivated and has problems, those can be dealt with once they have actually happened. -- Visviva (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The administrative action review process was paused by request to allow for further discussions on its implementation. There have been challenges in getting some momentum, but there is no deadline for a process on pause. The current discussion should be allowed to continue. isaacl (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • At the very least, the current collaborative design process should continue; then we could have an RFC per Floq or a trial period. The premise that the board's unused entirely because there's no interest is false. NebY (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • RFCs take a lot of community time and attention, particularly when they're linked from CENT. We shouldn't have an endlessly repeated cycle of RFCs about the same thing, and particularly not when they're started by ambush.—S Marshall T/C 20:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Procedural close: what does "revive" mean? The process is still available for use but has not received a case in a few months, and this is far from unique across the site. Should we mark RfA as historical when we go for several months without a nomination? The RfC is not neutral because it asks a loaded question. — Bilorv (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm not sure I see why the RfC was started. The process had strong community support, and what it needs is to be linked from the other noticeboards again. The argument that this venue duplicates ANI/AN is nonsense: reviewing the use of advanced permissions is far removed from the sort of discussions that occur in either place. – Uanfala (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I was just actually thinking today that I might want to bring a concern to this board, see if it could be useful. valereee (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The recent discussion here has been productive, this should play out before another RfC.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

General discussion

  • This process was approved as part of a multi-part RFC on various ideas to reform WP:RFA. Rules, scope, and authority of the board were never clearly established, and it quickly fell into disuse. An attempt to mark it historical was reverted, and led to discussion to revive the board instead. While there was a consensus to start this board last year, the rapid failure and abandonment of it suggest consensus may have changed on that point, the purpose of this RFC is to establish if there is still a consensus to have this process at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Beeblebrox edited your headers for clarity. Feel free to revert. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what they were but I'm having the wording match the rfc question. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Beeblebrox I think swooping in out of nowhere to start this is poor form. There is, above, useful discussion which you could have joined. Alternatively you could have reverted Tony's admittedly self-involved close if you wanted to establish consensus or not. If this RfC passes it actually doesn't change the need for the discussion above but it seems likely to be derailed by the presence of this RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I thought arbs were elected for their judgment and discretion?—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The process was put on pause by request of various editors who disagreed with it. In the collaborative spirit, links pointing to the page were removed in accordance with the request, to enable more refinement and discussion to take place. This does not indicate that the consensus generated by the original RfC has changed. isaacl (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • ...seriously Beeblebrox, why now? We just had an attempt to start an identical RfC that went down like a lead balloon and the discussions above are by far the most constructive we've had since the MfD nomination. – Joe (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    Why now is pretty simple, because it seems like some folks are acting like there is consensus to re-start this thing,based on the prior RFC. I don't think we can count on that still being the case given what happened when this was last active. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    This is getting absurd. Do you organise a household RfC before you take a shit in the morning? We don't need a second (third? fourth?) consensus to try and restart XRV any more than we needed a second consensus to start it in the first place. There was never any consensus to stop it. – Joe (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    I obviously don't think they violate any rules but I will ask Joe if you think the first two sentences add more heat or more light? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    Barkeep49, I dunno man, maybe we should have an RfC about it. – Joe (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    Hard to get a consensus to stop it when RFCs on the topic are shouted down. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Beeblebrox you might want to at least support option 2 then because right now there are 4 editors formally opposing the existence of this RfC (plus another 3 who have made comments here in GD along those lines) and none who have formally weighed in on the merits. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah, I had to rush off to an appointment yesterday before I had time to do that, I've done so now. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    This RFC was started because we're having the most productive conversations here in months. Beebs is trying to stop that. Thankfully, this RFC can be safely ignored until it's snow closed, and we don't need to wait for that to happen in order to proceed with the productive conversations. Levivich 19:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

There was a consensus (in a widely advertised RFC) to start it. Viewing that we need a consensus to continue on that is simply not correct. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Was being the operative word. There was a consensus to start it, nobody is debating that point. It was started, it was a hot mess, and it was stopped. It is reasonable to ask if at that point, consensus had changed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I see the current discussions as a way to provide a concrete thing that people can make an informed choice to support or oppose, rather than a nebulous cloud of multiple competing ideas of what AARV sort of is or might be or should be. I say that this is the wrong time for an RfC because we haven't currently got a process to stop, we are having discussions about what form a potential process might take. You don't have an RFC to determine whether people should be allowed to continue having discussions about developing ideas that might or might not lead to something. The time for an RfC was either when the old process was active or when there is a concrete proposal for a new process. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
There was a discussion amongst a much smaller number of people than at the original RfC to pause the process. There hasn't been any consensus to permanently stop working on the process. isaacl (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. I think later I'm gonna write a little history with diffs so we can all remind ourselves about what actually happened, which is quite different than what Beebs is recalling. Levivich 20:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to use a slightly wiki-incorrect word to make a point. That's like saying that a supermajority decided that it should exist and then any person can come along and say that it needs a second supermajority to continue exist or else it disappears. North8000 (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not trying to put a number on it, and I certainly won't be the one closing the discussion, I just think the discussion should actually be had before trying to reboot this thing. We tried this, it didn't work out, and we've been fine without it for several months, admin actions are being reviewed at ANI and appropriate actions taken, so I don't see why we need a redundant process to that when it already failed once. I could easily be wrong about that, it sure wouldn't be the first time, it may end up that a majority of users fully support restarting this, I just don't think it should be a small group of supporters that makes that decision. And, Joe, I don't know why we need to discuss this by email, so I'll answer your question here: yes, I do think this is harmful, for the simple reason that we do not need another drama board, an we certainly don't need a board with no teeth that can't even do what ANI already does. I'm sure the supporters of this are all here in good faith and we simply don't agree on this point, but I think you may be wasting your time trying to restart this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I think there's no outcome of this RfC that improves on what was happening before it and it is this RfC that is wasting time. Let's say that Option 1 were to gain consensus. The board would immediately restart. Is that a better outcome than people coming to a consensus that addresses some of the concerns that were raised before? (I would suggest) Let's say that Option 2 were to gain consensus, would that consensus evaporate if the board were put forward in a slightly more refined format? (I would suggest not, though it would save the time of other volunteers that seems to be a concern) Let's say that neither option gets consensus right now, what is the status quo to default to? (I would suggest it would turn into a clusterfuck and probably the largest waste of editor time of the three potential outcomes) You had a superior option to ensure that there was consensus before the board was, to use your word, rebooted. That was for you to find a place to say above that you agree with Floq and Thryduulf that an RfC was necessary before the board is re-linked and then not spending much, or any, time doing the work of addressing concerns. You could have had your chance to say that this board would go away without disrupting the consensus building that was (and fortunately still is) occurring. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
My point was that saying or structuring something that in effect says it needs a consensus is in essence saying that it needs a super-majority to continue to exist. North8000 (talk) 21:11, 15 June 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.

Archiving

If we are not going with dated subpages we need to think about when threads are archived. I suggest that in order to encourage the hoped for decorum and avoiding a culture of rushing that (I think) everybody wants to see here, we agree that threads should only be archived x days after they are closed (7 would be my first suggestion), ideally by bot. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  • I agree with a bot archiving after X days; as for X, 7 seems a reasonable place to start. Levivich 22:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Assuming you are talking about the front page, not the talk page? Yes. Bot-archive closed cases after seven days after they are (properly) closed, and provide a clear link to the archives. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes I was talking about the front page. For the talk page I don't see a reason to do anything other than the standard bot archiving after $period of inactivity. I don't have an opinion at the moment about what that period should be. Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I have a related q re how and when (if) topics are closed as neither endorsed or not endorsed. As I understand it, the uninvolved admin closes in the same way as any other discussion, i.e. by summarizing the input from all participants. I assume then that a well attended, policy centred discussion on an edge case judgement call could legitimately not reach a clear resolution. The translation of this would be that the community had failed to decided whether or not this was the correct thing to do in that situation. How will good faith reports that have discussions that are neither well attended or have constructive inputs be closed? I foresee that this will happen. Am I correct in assuming from the above that discussions can be allowed to be archived inconclusively? Or would the expectation be that an admin closes them before that with a "going nowhere useful, no decision made" style comment? I'd be fine with archiving, and also for non resolution closes but against forcing these types of threads into the endorse / not endorsed/ no consensus buckets because all of these things have specific meanings when they are referred to later. Apologies if this is covered already somewhere. Scribolt (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Sure. Archived 7 days post-close seems a fine place to start. Ajpolino (talk) 00:08, 21 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)
There are two issues here, Floq, that make your position really seem like bad faith even if it isn't. First, when we already have a consensus among many editors to do something, it shouldn't be blocked because one or a small group of editors have objections. Second, the issues you assert we "still don't know" where in fact clearly stated in the original RfC. Levivich has explained this excellently below, but to summarise: XRV is a lightweight process to review one single admin action (or a set of related actions); should be modelled on structured processes like DRV and AE and not from unstructured processes like AN(I); can be used to review any use of any advanced permissions (whether you personally believe that to be "crazy" or not, it's what was agreed). From my perspective, the good faith way to raise concerns like yours is to say, I think these aspects are problems, can we do something about them? Not: if something sounds strange or unclear to me it must be a fundamental flaw, and the entire process must halt until I am satisfied it has been fixed. – Joe (talk) 09:10, 14 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)
        @Barkeep49 you said a key difference is that XRV is structured. However looking at the archived threads, none of them have been in structured format. 2409:4071:4D86:10A1:0:0:4348:380B (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    the proponents of creation mistook the consensus for an additional review board to be consensus for a new bureaucratic system more structured than AN: this is where we're really on different pages, Tony. The addition of structured discussion, a limited scope, and a limited range of outcomes (so in other words yeah, "bureaucracy") were the key elements of the proposal as I saw it. If those in favour of the proposal weren't expressing support for that, then... what were they supporting? And how were we supposed to know that what they said they wanted is not what they wanted? – Joe (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    Joe Roe, I actually agree there was consensus for a structured format and that is what I think the community wanted. Sorry for the unclear wording. If you want my honest view on how to help this page succeed, it would be just to change the AE template to be applicable here so its structured, and see how people use it. That'd probably get a working page fastest.
    But my responses was about stuff like this set of principles by S Marshall which per my reply below, I think has some things in that diff are not what was proposed in the RfC and couldn't gain support if they were put to the community as a whole. I don't particularly think this was a good idea; but I'm fine with an 'implement it and see if it works' approach.' My larger point was that things like the diff I just cited are/were proponents overplaying their hand, and that is at least part of why this didn't take off. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:18, 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)
    @Barkeep49 This board was supposed to somehow make RFA better, and yes it has been stagnant - but this discussion is about reviving it. What I'm saying is that the revival should include success measures about how it will achieve the initial goal of improving RfA - so before we go back to another shutdown discussion its effectiveness can be judged. — xaosflux Talk 09:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    The idea was that XRV would, in the long term, improve the accountability of existing admins and thus reduce the community's reluctance to appoint new admins. It would be great to measure that, though I can't think how and it would be unusual and unreasonable to expect specific metrics before we even try. XRV went stagnant because there was a concerted effort to smother it before it got started that resulted in all incoming links to the page being removed. That's not a measure of its success or failure and, before that happened, we had a surprisingly quick uptake. – Joe (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    It didn't "become stangnant". An example of that happening is Wikipedia:Current events noticeboard. A decision was made that this board was not yet ready to be advertised as more development was necessary. Further development of the board definitely became stagnant after that point but this circles back to my original reply. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 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 (inc. where to discuss whether a thread is in scope)?
    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 that these are the "open" questions and the others are already answered? Levivich 04:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    • This summary is useful. My own opinion on those questions is: (i) I lean to a fixed minimum of 7 days, given how frequently closes before that time passed were complained about, but that's a question we are quite likely to want to revisit, (ii) We should have a preferred template, either the expediency-friendly DRV-like one page per day, or the precedent-friendly AfD-like one page per case, but we shouldn't refuse ill-formatted requests, rather encourage more experienced editors to fix submissions that don't fit, and (iii) No, I regard the page as active already, and both DRV and AfD evolved over time; there seems to be the unreasonable suggestion that if XRV is not born fully formed, like Athena, then it is a failure, but I find the idea silly. — Charles Stewart (talk) 04:44, 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)

It was a mult-faceted proposal which isn't going to be perfect at the detailed level. This came out of an RFA discussion and is titled "Administrative action review" It's almost unthinkable that the intent of the respondents was to exclude review of admin actions as an admin because they didn't involve use of a tool. Clearly all administrative actions should included. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  • XRV was an unmitigated disaster, and entirely redundant to existing processes. I knew when it was proposed that it wouldn't last, its purpose, scope, and authority were unclear at best. We don't need it, it certainly did not "fix" RFA, at all, and never would have. Let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Concurring 100% with Beeblebrox who puts everything into a short, concise nutshell. It relives me of having to launch into a long diatribe about what's wrong with XRV and every RfC/discussion about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrative_action_review/Archive_2&oldid=1128075281"