Wikipedia:Administrator Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should ask for broader input, for instance at the village pump.

Before listing an administrator here, please try or note the following first:

Dialogue with the administrator in question. If it's a misunderstanding, it might be a quick fix.
If the issue is regarding a speedy deleted article that the admin has decided not to restore, read the Speedy Deletion criteria first and then consider whether or not a deletion review is appropriate.

Administrator Review is where Wikipedians discuss specific administrators who they believe have acted in a manner contrary to the policies or interests of the projects. This is a place for getting quick community insight into the actions of an admin. If the consensus is that the admin has acted properly, then the hope is that person requesting the review will accept the community feedback on the subject and choose not to "badger" the person with whom they disagree.

If, however, the community consensus is that the administrator has made an error, this is a perfect opportunity to bring their attention to the matter and offer immediate feedback without animosity. Administrators are people too, and they can make mistakes. The real measure of character is how we learn and change from those experiences. In some extreme cases, the community may decide that further corrective actions are warranted. In those instances, the Request for Comment system may be employed.

What this is

A constructive, non-adversarial method for gauging consensus on administrative actions that may be mistaken.
A place to get a sanity check.

What this is not

A place to try and shame people publicly into reversing their actions.
The first step in the dispute resolution process.
A grudge match.

1 Current Reviews
2 Old Reviews
3 How to request administrator review
4 Before beginning an Administrator Review
5 Administrative Review etiquette
6 See also

[edit] Current Reviews

Add a new entry
2006 December 15
Wikipedia:Administrator Review/Log/2006 December 15
2006 December 14
Wikipedia:Administrator Review/Log/2006 December 14
2006 December 13
Wikipedia:Administrator Review/Log/2006 December 13
2006 December 12
Wikipedia:Administrator Review/Log/2006 December 12
2006 December 11
Wikipedia:Administrator Review/Log/2006 December 11
2006 December 10
Wikipedia:Administrator Review/Log/2006 December 10

[edit] Old Reviews

Saturday, 9 December
Friday, 8 December
Thursday, 7 December

[edit] How to request administrator review

Create a review request.

Insert the {{subst:adminreview1}} tag at the top of the talk page for the administrator in question.

Please do not mark the edit as minor.
Please include the phrase "admin review requested" in the edit summary.
Save the page.

II.

Create the review discussion page.

Click the link saying "this administrator's entry" to open the admin review page.
Insert this text:
{{subst:adminreview2 | user=AdminName | text=Reason}} ~~~~
replacing AdminName with the username of the administrator you're reviewing and Reason with your experience and evidence that the administrator may have mis-acted.
Check "Watch this page" to follow the progress and participate in the discussion.
Please use an edit summary such as "Creating Administrator Review discussion page for [[AdminName]] and providing reason", replacing AdminName with the username of the administrator in question.
Save the page.

III.

Notify users who monitor admin reviews.

Copy the tag below, and then click THIS LINK to open the review log page. At the bottom of the log page, insert:

{{subst:adminreview3 | user=AdminName}}

replacing AdminName appropriately; also include the user's name in your edit summary. Save the page. Your insertion will be automatically expanded to the same form as the preceding lines in the file: {{Wikipedia:Administrator Review/AdminName}}.

Once consensus has been clearly reached or after a reasonable amount of time has elapsed, a review should be closed. There is no beaurocratic or administrative action associated with an admin review, it is a completely informational process only. If consensus is that an admin has acted improperly, another user (ideally the initial accuser) may choose to make use of the RfC process, but any such followup would be completely separate from this.

[edit] Before beginning an Administrator Review

Read and understand the applicable Speedy Deletion criteria if the dispute revolves around a deleted article.
Use the existing Deletion Review process if the above criteria was not met and the dispute revolves around a deleted article.
Talk to the administrator. Leave a message, give them time to respond.
Collect the data you need to make your point clearly. This is not a trial, but the better you present the data, the better chances you have of being understood.

[edit] Administrative Review etiquette

This is not a fight, assume good faith and you will have a much better chance of being heard. Users who come in with an axe to grind and use inflammatory language will probably not get the type of response they want. If you are calm, collected, and rational, it will do wonders for your case.
While getting other parties involved is good, especially other users who you feel may have been affected by the specific action(s) you disagree with, there is no need to "advertise" each Admin Review on AN/I or [[WP:VP|Village Pump). Excessive 'advertisement' may create the appearance of spamming.
Stay involved. This is not a "fire and forget" action, you're engaging the community in discussion about an action. If you disappear after filing the review request, the whole thing will probably peter out and no changes will occur.
If you change your mind, don't blank the conversation. Use <s> and </s> to ~~strikethru~~ your original comment, then add your new thoughts on the matter after that.
If consensus is that the administrator has made a mistake, the admin acknowledges it, and that's enough, then you're done. If, however, if consensus is reached that further actions are required, be prepared to take the next step of creating a Request for Comment and feel free to use the results of this discussion as evidence.
You don't have to participate in every review. If consensus has already been reached and you agree with it, consider not participating to avoid a snowball effect.