Wikipedia:Requests for review of administrative actions

Wikipedia wants to remain as open as possible, consistent with its primary focus on accuracy and neutrality. But admins are human beings, and as such are fallible. If you think an admin has made a mistake involving their use of admin-specific features, please see information on possible misuses of sysop rights and then mention the matter here if you feel it deserves review. Matters are removed when resolved or when there is no continuing discussion.

Before listing a matter here, please try to resolve it on the article talk page or the user talk page of the admin involved.

This page is for review of actions that are limited to use by administrators only, specifically these actions and their converses:

protection
deletion
blocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves) please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Archive:

This page is not archived. Please see the page history for older reviews.

Morwen

Blocked User:Controlling Us, claiming 'vandalism/trolling'. This is clearly false. The user was trying to discuss Morwn's objections, but Morwen was totally untilling to consider the fact that they he/she might be wrong in her/his assumptions, and, apparently feeling threatened, blocked 'CU'. The user was trying to discuss the situation, that seemed to be the main problem as far as Morwen is concerned. Question our point of view 23:27, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Good.

(I would add for those who prefer verbosity that if you continue to blatantly post non-factual material into articles, talk pages etc., you will be blocked yet again.) - Hephaestos|§ 23:37, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the sentiment (although I would rather that we kept our opinions of users off this page), but does current policy support admins blocking users for that? Mark Richards 23:48, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

For users whose edit history is all (or virtually all) vandalism, yes. Which is the case here, if you look at the user's contributions. - Hephaestos|§ 23:56, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

User:RickK

Wikipedia:Block log (cur; hist) . . RickK (Talk) (blocked "Andrew Zito" with an expiry time of 24 hours: abusive language)

Since when is abusive language grounds for unilateral blocking? Sam Spade 05:20, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The comments in question:

Why don't the WIKIASSHOLE DELETIONISTS ADDED A FULL EXPLANATION OF WIKI VOTING OR ARE THEY TOO BUSY ACTING AS THE OFFICIAL VANDALS?

SO RICKK YOU DELETE DISCUSSION TO YOU FASCIST AHOLE? WHY DON'T YOU DELETE YOURSELF AND DIE?

I think these are reasonable grounds for banning. john 05:38, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Amen, this place would get a lot more pleasant if people thought that they could get summarily cut off for using abusive language. Stan 06:41, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps, but is it current policy? Sam Spade 07:26, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No personal attacks seems pretty clear to me. Stan 00:08, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I for one don't really care very much whether this sort of thing is part of "current policy" in particular or not. RickK did the right thing. UninvitedCompany 19:32, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

But doesn't this just play into the view os admins as unacountable? My understanding is that their role is to carry out the will of the community - it is entirely relevant whether this is part of 'current policy' or not, however strongly we feel about how deserving someone is of sanction. Mark Richards 19:36, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are accountable, but that doesn't mean they need permission first in egregious cases. If you think that Andrew Zito should not have been blocked, make your case, and show how the community supports it. Blocks are quickly reverted in many cases, and if you believe you have community support then another of the 200+ admins should be happy to carry that out for you. UninvitedCompany 19:55, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the Andrew Zito case in particular, or arguing that any user should or should not be banned / block, simply that an admin that bans someone should be prepared to make a brief case explaining why they banned or blocked someone - more in depth than the remarks below. Mark Richards 19:58, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm unclear on the difference between "how strongly we feel about how deserving someone is of sanction" and "the will of the community". - Hephaestos|§ 19:42, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess where I'm going is that the is an important difference between the will of the community as expressed through policy, and what you and I might feel that a user deserves, regardless of whether there is a policy that supports our actions. I think that for the purposes of maintaining accountability, admins should act within established policy, and there should be a process for making new / revising old policy for new situations. A kind of separation of duties. Mark Richards 19:53, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the purpose of this very page is not simply to chastise administrators, but to truly review their actions. I think that, should the community come here and support Rick's action, it functions as a review of his actions, and one that establishes a precedent so that this situation is not "new" in future. I, for one, would support his action, based on the evidence above. Openly hostile and abusive language is completely inappropriate, and (for anons, or brand-new users absent any real history of productive editing) I think a temporary block to allow the user to cool off is appropriate. Hopefully it can be accompanied by some calm and wise words that aid the angry user to see the errors of their ways: I think this would be "admin-like" behavior, at least. Jwrosenzweig 19:59, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially, although I don't believe that lack of opposition on this page can be taken as a mandate for a new policy or extension of existing policy. I agree that abusive language should not be tollerated, but feel that sometimes complaints worded politely get rude or insufficient response, which could lead some to believe that there is no review of actions taking place. The review should be in relation to existing policy, not to some sort of popularity poll (I support admin X in acting against troll Y, even though there is no policy to allow him to do what he did). Mark Richards 20:05, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

There is at present a lack of effective policy discussion regarding these matters. Why not share your thoughts at m:Bans and blocks and try to get some discussion going? UninvitedCompany 20:02, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have an opinion on what the policy should be, simply that admins should follow whatever it is, and be prepared to explain why their actions are in compliance with it. Mark Richards 20:05, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I believe common sense shows that certain behavior merits a 24-hour block, which can be easily reversed, without turning handsprings. This hardly seems a judgment call. Support RickK's action -- Cecropia | Talk 20:14, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

When I started writing on this thread, it did not have Rick as a title - I was speaking generally, not about this specific case. Mark Richards 20:17, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The thread originally did have RickK as a title. It was inadvertently removed when an earlier complaint about Rick was moved to a talk page. john 23:15, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be clear, my comments do not relate to any specific user, my point is simply that admins should be bound by community made policy, and accountable to it. Mark Richards 23:21, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Isn't this whole page about holding admins accountable to the community? I have to say, though, that I don't like the "good" comments that seem to litter this page, where someone's complaint is seen more as cause for taunting than for genuine review of the admin's action. john 23:37, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the purpose of this page is to review admin actions and, if necessary, hold them accountable. I think that the "good", "doubleplusgood" etc comments undermine the credability of something that should be taken seriously. We should not let our personal feelings about the complainants spill over onto this page, which should be solely for 'reviewing the actions of admins'. We should restrict ourselves here to discussions of the merits of lack thereof of the complaint or the action. A simple "this is without merit" does not do justice to even the most frivilous complaint. A one sentence explanation of an action does not seem to much to ask, and it does seem reasonale that, instead of simply saying that it is "good" that the questioned action took place, we should either keep our counsel, or contribute something more constructive. Mark Richards 04:55, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I support RickK's action - Tεx τ urε 20:20, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I also support RickK's action. I also had the pleasure of being on the receiving end of Andrew Zito's profanities, and think a temporary ban was appropriate. A summary of the problems with User Zito can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Andrew Zito, which I supported. -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:43, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Rick's actions were completely justifiable. We don't need a policy for every little thing. Admins are supposed to use their judgement, and I believe RickK correctly used his in making the decision to block this user. Angela . 06:33, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

Stevertigo

User:Stevertigo blocked me accusing me falsely of violating the 3-revert rule. --(Wik) 08:40, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Good. - Hephaestos|§ 13:57, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Doubleplusgood. RickK 04:50, 6 May 2004 (UTC) [reply]

Wik's complaint is without merit. UninvitedCompany 16:04, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wik's complaint is spurious. He often makes a revert that is a word or so different simply to avoid the 3-revert rule by what he believes to be a technicality. Stevertigo's action is within the spirit of Wik's probation as I understand it. - Tεx τ urε 16:46, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hephaestos, RickK, UninvitedCompany, Texture

Dismissing valid complaints (see above). --Wik 16:31, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

I see admins disagreeing that there is misconduct. I don't think they have the power to "dismiss" the complaint, so where's the "admin action" to be reviewed? -- Cecropia | Talk 01:28, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say that Hephaestos and especially RickK's comments, at least, are unnecessarily rude. It is one thing to say that Wik's complaint is without merit (and I think Texture does a good job of explaining why). It is another thing to respond to requests for review of admin actions with comments like "Doubleplusgood." In fact, I see no sign that Hephaestos or Rick is actually disagreeing with Wik's description of what happened. Rather, they seem to be claiming that it is good that Wik got blocked unjustly. Now, I haven't examined the specific case here, and I'll assume that Texture is right that Stevertigo's block was a good one. But admin behavior like that shown by Hephaestos and Rick should be unacceptable, as well. john 01:58, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The situation, for anyone who has not been following it closely, is that Wik frayed the nerves of many other editors through excessive reverts, and was eventually placed on "probation" by the arbitration committee, which authorized a block in the event Wik reverts a page more often than thrice a day. Wik has been pushing this to the limit and largely complying with letter of his "probation," while wholly ignoring its intent. While Hephaestos and Rick perhaps could be expected to communicate their frustration in a more effective way than the words they chose above, I can still sympathize with their frustration. Wik has been gaming the system and thus far no one has set any real limits on his behavior. UninvitedCompany 02:25, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Rude yes. Unnecessarily so, I really don't think so. Wik has carried on for almost a year now with behavior that should have resulted in a ban after a short period of time, he is currently in his second arbitration for the same behavior, with no end in sight. Frankly at this point I don't care if a ban of him is done according to procedure, as long as he is gone.

As to the rest, at least 90% of the "complaints" brought to this page are completely frivolous, including some brought by other admins. - Hephaestos|§ 02:38, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

And if you think I or any other admin is being "unreasonable" here, go have a look at Wik's talk page. - Hephaestos|§ 02:39, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Wik has been rude to you, you don't have to be rude to him. And it really makes us look bad when instead of saying "I respectfully disagree, it was a reasonable admin action, here's why" a bunch of admins come here and irreverently state their unconditional support for nearly every action by another admin. moink 02:59, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]