Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrative action review/Archive 1

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

XRV structure/implementation

In the spirit of the RfC, which was found to have consensus, I have done a large overhaul of the instructions for this process. My goal was to provide a structure and otherwise implement wording present from the RfC. Thoughts and comments welcome. Courtesy pings to: @Joe Roe, Ritchie333, and 力:. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

May I suggest adding a step that requires notification to AN when a new review is opened? It would ensure advertisement to a better watched venue, so that there’s more diverse participation, given that XRV regulars aren’t a thing atm and those notified by the user talk message notification may not be representative of the community, for a given disputed action. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, I've just overhauled the instructions before seeing this (post forthcoming), but I'm of two minds on making AN notification a requirement. Just as there's no "regulars" yet, we also don't know how active this venue will become. Spamming AN might not be the best long-term choice. ProcrastinatingReader what do you think of a bot-updated log similar to the ECP log at the top of AN? This keeps the notifications there and prevents spamming if this should get busy. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Nobody reads the ECP log though, I don't even know why it's still there. Perhaps useful when ECP wasn't commonplace, but now it is, so probably that should be removed. Anyway, I'd be ok with such a solution if this gets too busy/spammy, but until it does I'd prefer individual notifications. After all, a single section notification about an admin action is more likely to be of interest to admins & the community than ACN notifications like Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Épine_unblocked ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
If this is going to become the catch-all place to request review of privileged actions, I think it would be redundant to have notifications at the administrators' noticeboard. If there is a paucity of people weighing in, then I think some priming of the pump can be considered, just on an as-needed basis. isaacl (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I strongly oppose notification at AN. The point of XRV is largely to separate simple conduct questions like "was this action okay?" from the derailing dramafest that goes on at AN(I). A generalised message when XRV gets up and running should be posted on many major noticeboards to let people interested watchlist the relevant XRV log page. (Or is it live now? Can we already open cases?) — Bilorv (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. I suppose if Joe's concept works as intended, hopefully this shouldn't matter because people will provide feedback on the action so the discussion doesn't become personalised, just as DRV is focused on the close and not the closer. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
A few suggestions:
  • The XRV template could use examples; it's not obvious to me at first glance how "user", "performer", and "discussion" work. It might be better not to use a generic "((action)) on ((page/user))" phrase, since it could lead to odd grammar (e.g. "block on UserX").
  • "Performer" sounds a bit stilted to me. Maybe something like "editor", and instead of "page" and "user", "subject-of-action"?
  • Perhaps instead of "discussion" being a section header on the editor's talk page, it should be a full page/section wikilink, so it can be used to point to an appropriate discussion in a different place such as article talk pages or project space pages? I appreciate that many think a word on the editor's talk page should come first, but sometimes it would be redundant with an existing conversation.
isaacl (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion parameter comes from WP:MRV in the sense of promoting someone having discussed it with the person whose actions are being reviewed first. Pointing to other discussions seems great but can happen in the reason section, I'd suggest. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Minus a few refinement to the wording, it looks great and exactly what I had in mind. Thanks all. – Joe (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Also edits to the main page; another arena that generates a fair amount of critique. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I would say yes to both, and, by the same token, any edits through full protection. I've just added a "broadly construed"-type statement to the purpose section to try to capture what is meant by "administrative action", "advanced permission" etc. without us having to come up with an exhaustive list: "Administrative actions" is understood broadly to mean any use of a tool not available to all confirmed editors, except those covered by another, more specific review process. – Joe (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
It's what exactly constitutes "another, more specific review process" that is a little sticky; for example, main-page errors deals with main-page editing (but it is wholly pragmatic; disputes over edits are generally rolled off unresolved when the material rolls off the main page) and the main AfC talk page with disputed declines. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: Yeah, that's a good point. I was also thinking about WP:RFPP, which is nowhere explicitly said to "review" protections, but is where you go if you disagree with a page's current protection state – so would protections be out of scope of XRV? But I'd say what makes things like RFPP different from X-, D-, or MRV, is that there's nothing to distinguish the process of asking someone to do something from the process of asking everyone else whether they agree with what someone did. The same goes for WP:ERRORS or, for that matter, AN/I.
Ultimately hopefully we'll get to the stage where a broader consensus emerges on what is an isn't usefully brought here. Until then, I think we should be as broad as possible without overstepping the remit established in the RfC. – Joe (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrative action review abbreviation

This is a minor point in the grand scheme of things, but where did XRV come from? I know that WP:AAR is already taken by WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, but why couldn't we use something like WP:AARV or WP:A/AR (since in the noticeboards navbox, this new board is grouped in with AN and AN/I)? Another idea I have is WP:AN/AR. The "X" in XRV doesn't make much sense to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

It's similar to WP:DRV and WP:MRV which are venues for reviewing deletions and moves. This board is for all other adminsitrative actions, so like WP:XFD (Miscellany for deletion) is to WP:AFD, WP:CFD, and WP:RFD, this board for miscellaneous review is WP:XRV — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
But then, wouldn't the XRV name imply that this board is directly related to DRV and MRV? Moves can be done by non-admins, so I feel this creates confusion. In my mind, the term XRV refers collectively to the DRV and MRV processes (as how XfD is a catchall for the various deletion discussion boards such as AfD, MfD, TfD, etc), but this is separate from those. It's possible to have multiple shortcuts for a page, so couldn't we add some of these as well? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what "administrative" means in this context. From the proposal text copied at the top of the talk page the goal of "Administrative action review" is to determine whether an editor's specific use of an advanced permission was proper; administrative actions (like moves) are performed by many people, not just sysops. The RFC closure of the proposal also makes this point: "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". The parallel between DRV and MRV is intentional because just like how those venues can review non-sysop, administrative actions, so can this one. You're right that MRV (Miscellaneous Review) would be more consistent with the XFD process naming scheme, but that's already taken. I recommend reading the October discussion on what to name the venue for further background. Lastly, you can make whatever redirects you think are helpful, I'm just explaining why XRV was chosen since you asked where it came from. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
The original suggestion was PRV (permissions review), but that was quickly sidelined after someone helpfully pointed out that its users would be labelled prverts. (Sigh.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
More substantively, permissions review sounds like the assignment of permissions is being reviewed. Since it's actions being reviewed, perhaps the acronym could be ARV, or AARV as suggested above. (For ARV, the existing ARV redirect would have to be changed, but there are only 33 transclusions.) isaacl (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Speaking of which, we should add this new board to Wikipedia:Deletion process#Deletion venues, under Review venues. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Sure, go for it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
This has now been done, hopefully I did it correctly! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Deletion process#Deletion venues: "For appealing an administrative action, such as a page move or a deletion, that may not have been appropriate." I thought this board was supposed not to cover deletions? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
You might be right about that. I drafted something up because there was nothing. Feel free to change it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure it should be listed there at all? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't follow, just above User:Wugapodes said it would be a good idea to list it there? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Trainsandotherthings and Wugapodes: I think we need to be crystal clear exactly what actions this new board applies to and how it fits with the existing deletion and move review, *before* adding links to it anywhere. The last thing we want is to disrupt the functioning of deletion review &c with disgruntled editors perceiving this as a higher authority. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Espresso Addict; as can be seen in the RfC quote above, this venue is not intended for actions where review venues already exist. isaacl (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Then change or remove what I added as you see fit. I was just trying to help. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts to assist. (Another editor has removed the text already.) isaacl (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
In the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter, as long as people understand what happens here, and you can abbreviate it however you want. The use of administrative where miscellaneous might have been a bit more accurate is because the latter doesn't give you any idea of what is being reviewed; but also in the hope of reclaiming administrat- meaning anything relating to "the process or activity of running a business, organization, etc.", rather than a specific, privileged class of super-Wikipedians. I wouldn't like anything that suggests this venue is subordinate to AN because: technically, it isn't; it shouldn't be seen as only open to, or even preferentially targetted at, administrators; the RfC proposal quite explicitly sought to differentiate XRV from the format and culture of AN/I which, in my view, is a failure. – Joe (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Instructions changes

I made some changes over at Wikipedia:Administrative action review/header that I think could be helpful to note here. I replaced the wikitable with HTML since I think it simplifies the code and using divs and lists has accessibility benefits over tables. I also added a button to create the new review section, rather than the small link that was there before. That link now preloads the {{subst:XRV}} template as well so that users can simply fill it out without needing to copy and paste things. Hopefully the changes are an improvement and let me know if there are any issues with it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their work on this. For the "purpose" section, I'd like to suggest that #2 and #4 overlap a bit and could be combined or removed. I think #5 could also use some examination... what is XRV's relationship to ANI? I think #6 could possibly also be removed, as it may not be ideal to nudge people in the direction of going to ArbCom, which is a venue of last resort. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what viewpoint you are thinking of regarding your question on the relationship with the incidents noticeboard. If you are asking if AN/I can be another court of appeal, well, generally speaking, the community only reviews things like deletion reviews at AN/I if there is some sign of impropriety. This falls under AN/I's role as a catchall for any matters not covered in other venues, and so I don't think it needs to be called out specifically (I don't believe it's mentioned at Wikipedia:Deletion process with respect to any of the deletion review processes). The goal after all is to remove these administrative action review discussions from AN/I. isaacl (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I have merged 2 and 4. I was attempting to build-off the wording already present while creating a structure parallel ot DRV and MRV for the others. I am neutral on what we choose to do there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I think I agree with removing the pointer to arbitration. Those who aren't already aware of their options should be pointed to the incidents noticeboard, for the community to attempt resolution (and provide guidance on the advisability of filing an arbitration request, if suitable). isaacl (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The intro says this is an It is an informal place to resolve specific disputes. I'm not sure this is an apt description, and neither deletion review or move review has this description. I suggest changing the text to It is a process to resolve specific disputes. isaacl (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. The original RfC did not suggest it was intended to be an informal and this played out in both the opposes and the close in the parallel to the formality of RFCU. XRV is a little different than DRV or MRV in that the closer isn't expected to do anything other than find consensus but this doesn't make it an informal venue in my reading. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Ordinarily I'd wait longer for feedback, but since it seems some editors are eager to start using this review process, is there any further comment on my suggested change? isaacl (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
@Isaacl: I've removed it. I agree that "informal" was never proposed or agreed upon in the RfC; if anything, the idea was to create something more formal than existing processes. I assume that Ritchie333 was trying to capture the feeling—which was expressed by many in the RfC—that XRV should be constructive, non-bureaucratic and generally low-stakes. In that regard I hope that the process and, more importantly, practice of discussions here should embody that idea, without us having to spell it out in the instructions. – Joe (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Ready to go live?

Are we ready to announce that this is live and ready to receive reports? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest stabilising the list of areas that are projected to be covered first. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
We might want to add "must inform the other user" editnotices, similar to ANI. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Neither DRV or MRV has such an edit notice. Those, rather than ANI, should be our points of comparison in my opinion and which I support by the wording of the RfC. Keeping the focus on the action, as with DRV and MRV, rather than the performer, as with ANI, seems crucial to avoiding the concerns about RFCU 2. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
It's in the instructions at DRV, step #3, as here. For a long time, when I was less ridiculously busy, I completed and cleaned up incomplete/malformed DRV nominations; at least half, even from experienced users, did nothing more than edit the current daily log page, and more than half the remainder missed one of the other steps. This despite the commented text right next to where they're editing saying to inform the discussion closer. An edit notice isn't going to be foolproof - you're still going to need someone manually checking each entry to see if the discussant was informed. About all that you can be sure it will do is irritate everyone editing this page. —Cryptic 04:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Be nice if we could get a script to show a form where you put in the name of the other user, and it'll warn you if you try to start a section without doing so. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The XRV template could raise an error if neither page nor user parameter is specified, and if any other mandatory parameters are missing. isaacl (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it will be easier to iron out these kinks when the process is in use. For me the process went "live" when the page was created, and I see Ritchie has already initiated a self-review, but if you would like to announce it somewhere please go ahead. More important, I think, is to make sure it is mentioned in policy and help pages – anywhere someone who wants to contest a decision might look for guidance on what to do next. Then the most natural way to "prime the pump" would be keeping an eye out for threads at AN(I) that might be better handled here and suggesting they be moved. – Joe (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your edit: I don't believe the RfC proposed having discussion for a set period. Given that sections beneath second-level headings are collapsed for mobile users, I think it would be better to try to have each discussion as a second-level heading. (As the page currently stands, the link to create a new section with the preloaded template text will create a new second-level heading section. Last time I looked into it, I wasn't able to find a way to craft an URL that would create a subsection below an existing section.) isaacl (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
@Isaacl: Oh damn, I thought I'd put that it. It's certainly what I had in mind when I said structured discussion format modelled on DRV. – Joe (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Closure challenges?

Should closure challenges (e.g. appealing an RFC closure) be within this page's scope? These have usually been dealt with at AN for lack of a better forum, but it seems XRV might be preferable: although closing a controversial discussion doesn't require any technical permissions, it does involve the sort of discretion that XRV is probably best suited to review. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

As it's outside of the original intent from the RfC, personally I don't think the scope should be extended at this time. Also, I'm uncomfortable with associating closure reviews with reviews of actions that require advanced permissions. It sends an implicit message that closures should be left to those with advanced permissions. isaacl (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
That is kind of the message we already send, though. At least for a lot of types of close. – Joe (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Whether that's so or not, we ought to encourage the community to look for experienced editors with good communications skills to close discussions, regardless if they are administrators. isaacl (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Philosophically I agree with isaac that a culture which demands admin closers is a culture that would weaken our RfC process. I think closing an RfC requires no use of "advanced permissions" and so would be out of scope of this board and such challenges should continue to follow the current process. Of course, over time, if this forum is successful people could look at changing its scope. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

restored nav

As this is already in the nav under "User conduct". — xaosflux Talk 18:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux I would suggest then that the proper thing would be to take it out of that navbox. Neither MRV nor DRV are listed there and this is a parallel process to those. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
@Ritchie333 and Joe Roe: who added it to Template:Noticeboard links. If this isn't a "noticeboard", then yes lets ditch everything - if it is, keep them I guess. — xaosflux Talk 18:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I also think that this isn't a "noticeboard" (cf. the confusion about discussions structure below) and shouldn't be there. Ritchie just added it to the page, so I went with it. – Joe (talk) 07:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@Xaosflux I think having it in both places or neither makes sense. As such I have gone ahead and removed it from the template and from the header. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, sounds fine. — xaosflux Talk 16:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Archiving

Thoughts on how archiving should work? Right now I see someone added the idea of having recently closed remain on, and then an archive. Some sort of offpage archiving might work better. Or we could try to set it up similar to MRV/DRV in terms of subpages that then rotate off. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

  • My initial thought is just to have conventional numbered archive pages managed by a standard archiving bot. The new ability to subscribe for section notification will help people follow specific discussions as desired (if they are willing to enable this ability). isaacl (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • It would be great if topics were only archived if they are formally closed (similar to how it is done at WP:RFPP).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
    If using a bot, the XRV template can add a do-not-archive template that the closer would remove. isaacl (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Archiving recent discussions at the bottom of the page breaks the easy-to-use "new section" button because new sections appear at the bottom of the page. Creating a new section here should be easy instead of requiring detailed syntax knowledge. ANI-type archiving is perfectly fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
    @ToBeFree: I'm not sure what you mean by "new section" button? The MediaWiki default one doesn't appear in the Wikipedia: namespace unless you have some sort of user script installed. The button just preloads {{XRV}} so this can be adapted to whatever format we like, as it is at WP:DRV (sorry that I forgot to do so yesterday). – Joe (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
    As I mentioned above, I don't know if there's a way to craft an URL for the "Start a new discussion" link that can be used to create a subsection of an existing section. isaacl (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
    No but at DRV the template is just used to preload a section on a dated subpage, which a bot then transcludes into the relevant section on the main page. It makes watchlisting WP:XRV itself less useful, but it does have the advantage of meaning you can selectively watchlist individual discussions you are following. And come to think of it, this may be have the useful side-effect of making it less likely the process will become dominated by a fixed clique of regular XRV-watchers. – Joe (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if daily subpages are appropriate for XRV; I'd hope that XRV discussions are less frequent than once per day. It may be reasonable to create a single "current discussions" subpage, but I don't yet see a real advantage above the current implementation that would justify having subpages and transclusion at all. If the point is to avoid unclosed discussions from being archived, well, don't archive unclosed discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
    ANI uses __NEWSECTIONLINK__ to display the link without any user script. XRV currently has a nice blue button that adds a preload text. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter how they're archived exactly, but it is important that discussions are always closed after a set number of days has elapsed and never archived unclosed. This is what was meant when I proposed a "structured discussion format" modelled on DRV—explicitly not the freeform noticeboard style of ANI—sorry if I did not make that clear. I don't know another way to achieve that than the DRV or AfD model and, AfD being clearly overkill, went with DRVs. Suggestions welcome though; it would be nice to have a page we can easily watchlist. – Joe (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
    If I understand correctly, deletion review is supported by a bot, which allows for a more involved workflow. Bot-driven processes have their advantages, but they also can make the process vulnerable to shortcomings in bot maintenance. Personally I would prefer just relying on one of the standard archiving bots. I'm not concerned too much if discussion is stopped at a precise set time. The closer can decide if there is enough input or if more time is needed (similar to deletion review). isaacl (talk) 08:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
    It's not so much that it's closed at a set time—anything can of course be snow closed—but that if that time does elapse, the discussion is closed consensus or not. This is what happens at AfD, DRV, etc. and it stops things dropping off the page with no resolution, as frequently happens at AN and ANI. If we stick to DRV's way of doing that, we can either use the same bot or fork and tweak it for XRV. I don't see how that's really any different from using a talk page archiving bot. I'm worried that if we adopt a bare noticeboard format, we're just creating ANI with more bold !votes. – Joe (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
    To me, the key is for the structure to minimize multi-branching discussion that becomes increasingly hard to follow and can get dominated by back-and-forth between disputing parties. There are different ways to try to do that: one way is to have each person comment in one place, as with arbitration enforcement; another is to have a separate discussion section, similar to the 2021 RfA review, with a moderator who can create subsections to group discussion as needed. I think most of the problematic incident noticeboard discussions become hard to follow in one or two days, and so a time limit isn't enough to manage them. isaacl (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Letting people here know that Barkeep49 has started a discussion (albeit currently just two comments) about the inclusion of XRV on the noticeboards template. Thanks, Giraffer (talk·contribs) 13:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

XRV duration

I feel that XRVs should last 7 days, like DRVs and MRVs do, and for the same reasons.—S Marshall T/C 13:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

While there obviously is reasoning for this, I do note that in many cases where ANI review of permissions has taken place, we get clear judgements well before that stage. Quite a few DRVs also don't last 7 days, even where it's not a full-SNOW instance. In some, though obviously not all, of the XRV's cases within its remit, there are also unfortunate negative effects on individuals that it would be best to resolve once we could reasonably be confident of the close. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think ANI is any kind of good model for reasoned, well-thought-out decision-making.
The point of allowing 7 days is firstly, to defend closers against the accusation of motivated closures, where they might choose a moment when the votes swing one way or another; and secondly, to ensure that all those affected by an issue have the opportunity to make a reasoned, well-written case before the decision is made.—S Marshall T/C 13:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps as a "general guidance" but not something that would be needed in cases of snow, or where the original actor agrees with the challenge. — xaosflux Talk 14:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
    Something akin to RfCs could be used, where there is an expected time of duration but that can be closed earlier if discussion dies down or consensus is very clear, or later if discussion is still ongoing. Isabelle 🔔 14:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that seven days is good as a general rule, with the usual caveats for SNOW and speedy closes. More generally, this forum should be taking its cues from DRV (which works) rather than from ANI (which doesn't): the desire to create an alternative to the Great Dismal Swamp is, in short, the reason this proposal passed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
    I agree with EW and SMarshall in terms of us taking cues from XRV and MRV rather than ANI. However, I couldn't decide if there would be situations where leaving something against consensus for 7 days may be undesirable which is why I hadn't put it in as I was doing work on structure. I'm inclined to think it would be OK but given how little we know about how this will be used was reluctant to formalize that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
    That's fair: if you're blocked for a week, being vindicated after the block expires is cold comfort. Perhaps it would be best to add something along the lines of "this process takes up to seven days; if your problem requires immediate action you should go to ANI, which is still the forum designed for 'discussion of urgent incidents'"? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree. Having a set period for discussion has many benefits: it guarantees all discussions are closed and not archived without resolution; it reduces the sense of urgency that hangs over a discussion that could be closed at any time, thereby lowering the stakes and encouraging people to question and consider before they offer an opinion; it allows for the broadest possible participation; it gives involved parties the chance to cool off before participating; it makes it more likely it will be closed by a disinterested person rather than someone worried about being the "first mover"; and so on. On the other hand, it doesn't stop an early close invoking the snowball clause (as in our first review of Ritchie's removal of rollback) or because the matter is urgent. It's also what I intended when I proposed it in the RfC and while I apparently dropped it from the main proposal at some point, I did mention it in the "case study" Ritchie asked me to write, and the consensus was generally for a process modelled on DRV. – Joe (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
    • 100% agree with this list of reasons for why fixed-time-period discussions (e.g. 7 days) are better than discussions that can be closed at any time. There is a strange ethos on Wikipedia that leaving discussions open too long is somehow harmful; I think the opposite is true, for the reasons above. Levivich 16:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
      • It's because these discussion norms are dictated by the most active people, and to the most active people a couple of days is the equivalent of a fairly active person's week. I often miss the major ANI discussions I would like to comment on as they've been closed in under a week. In this case, however, someone wrongly had rollback removed for two days and adding five days to that when consensus was clear is not justified. (Nor is there a need to blow the scale of the issue out of proportion or draw any more attention to Robvanvee, who didn't ask to be used as a test case.) — Bilorv (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Very true. Although I'd hope that an advanced permissions editor would self-revert as soon as it became clear that the action was not endorsed, and that this is how most "not endorsed" threads would be closed. Maybe I'm being naive (I was kind of hoping that's how the test case would close). Levivich 21:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
          • To be fair, if I was in this position I might think it's out-of-process to reverse an action, and gives the appearance of avoiding proper scrutiny. I think to close the discussion yourself would be, at least if you didn't open it yourself (others may be gathering momentum to escalate to ANI to request removal of your permissions, or ArbCom to desysop). — Bilorv (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay, so if we're looking at a default of 7 days, how do we want to phrase the criteria on when either SNOW or Urgent would be allowed to kick in. For the former, I'd say the normal basis, but if it would be SNOW "non-endorse", then perhaps either a (lower) minimum time or the editor in question must have posted/at least demonstrated they've been online? Urgent (but non-SNOW) cases are important to factor in, but trickier to come up with a good balance between enough guidance to be helpful, whilst not being overconstricting. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think we have to specify any criteria. WP:SNOW applies to all discussions and is frequently used at AfD and DRV without any explicit guidance. As for urgent, well... I suspect that almost none of the things we think are "urgent" around here actually are, but if there really is something that needs to be handled now, and it doesn't belong at ANI, that's what WP:IAR is for. – Joe (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
    Agreed. We need to not specify criteria for SNOW to work. Anything that's urgent (e.g. reversing a bad un-revdelling of something that needs suppression) should be immediate and at the discretion of someone with authority to address the situation, bypassing discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Based on this discussion, I updated the closing instructions to state that discussions last 7 days. I also added in a bit about the closer implementing the results. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
    Given that the rationale for this guidance is that there's no need to rush closures, it seems unusual to make this change five hours after it was proposed. Nonetheless, as the change described a minimum period of discussion (rather than a fixed maximum period), I think it's a reasonable approach to give time for more people to provide considered responses. Perhaps we should encourage participants to limit their posting frequency to try to keep any back-and-forth arguments from dominating. Something like a round-robin discussion might help. isaacl (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
    Well I didn't close the discussion![FBDB] This isn't exactly a high volume venue (yet), so the instructions can afford some instability. Given the general agreement, I think it's more efficient to hash out the details in the main document through actual proposed wordings and consensus through editing. Since people were in general agreement, meatball:DocumentMode seemed a better approach than meatball:ThreadMode. The goal was to encourage direct collaboration and keep this thread for things that couldn't get worked out through editing.
    For the round-robin discussion idea, I think throttling discussion in some way could be useful, but the specific idea in that essay seems like a lot of overhead for this process. Perhaps some advice in the participation instructions could be a useful middle ground? Something along the lines of Before replying to other comments, consider how useful the discussion will be to other participants. Long threads can distract from the core issue under discussion and prevent consensus from forming. Tangential discussions or extended debate can take place on the talk page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
    At present, I'm not suggesting to use that specific process (though I think it can be kept in mind as a future possibility); I linked to it to refer to the advantages of the general concept. Participants who swamp incidents noticeboard discussions generally haven't been able to find appropriate balance in responding, even after being given advice. So I'm thinking of more concrete guidance, like To allow everyone to read and respond to your posts, please do not comment again until twelve hours after your last post. This type of throttling would be operationally simpler if commenters had to group their posts together, either in a subsection or under one bulleted item. isaacl (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
    I would be against any specified throttling (even if not truly binding). Discussions can progress quite a lot in 12 hours, sometimes representing dozens of comments, and thus early response can lead to significantly different flow of discussion. Instead, perhaps efforts to keep discussion further pinned to the core topic rather than attempting to resolve a more general issue there and then (e.g. hashing out proposed variant wordings to ROLLBACKUSE)? Nosebagbear (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
    Throttling would slow down the progression of comments for everyone. The idea is to change the flow of discussion from a torrent between a small number (often two) loudly arguing participants to a more steady, even flow amongst a larger set. Giving each person some time to express their view is a key part of mediating disputes in the real world.
    I agree with trying to keep discussion on topic. Unfortunately, English Wikipedia's consensus-based decision-making traditions make it hard, because no one's empowered to unilaterally make decisions. If discussion isn't being throttled, it's hard for a group meta discussion about the discussion to keep up. isaacl (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Marking headers as closed

Now we're going, I suggest that closed discussions are marked as such in the header, to avoid people repetitively clicking on them from the contents list until they are archived. "(Closed)" is used for this purpose at ITN/C, with parentheses not square brackets (for some technical reason that may or may not apply here). Espresso Addict (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

That's sorta noisy - could we just use User:Enterprisey/strike-archived? Enterprisey (talk!) 03:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't that need everyone to load the script? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Since it's already been mentioned at AN in a discussion about a deletion during AfD, shouldn't this be made public?

And added to the appropriate templates. I didn't know it existed. Doug Weller talk 16:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it should. My attempt to do so was reverted last week (see above), so I'm leaving it to more experienced editors to do so. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon this page. Is this an official forum? When did it get approved? Since it acts as a admin review outside of AN, I think this should have more publicity. If someone told me they had filed a review about my use of admin tools on this page, I don't know if I would take it seriously. It looks like something Power created one day. Liz Read! Talk! 17:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
@Liz @Doug Weller it came out of WP:RFA2021/P. It was explicitly designed to be a parallel to DRV and MRV and so I have been opposed to listing it in the noticeboard grouping because those aren't listed there. I do plan, now that the close review has been completed, to send out a "here's what that did" newsletter, and post in appropriate places, soon. Perhaps as soon as today. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Self requested review

Just to be clear, is this forum a place where one can request a good faith review of their own tool usage? I've seen this done at wp:an in the past and wonder if it would be appropriate/more appropriate to bring such matters here. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@John Cline: you may, though the main point is to determine if the action is consistent with policy - not necessarily if it was best action or best way to handle a situation that could have been handled many ways. — xaosflux Talk 16:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Xaosflux, I understand and agree. From that premise, do you believe our blocking policy at WP:WHYBLOCK, where it says "After placing a potentially controversial block, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review." should remain, unchanged, or do you believe the link should be changed to target this venue of review? While I have an opinion in this regard, I am more interested in knowing yours and that of others more knowledgeable than me. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
@John Cline: like most things, "it depends" :D In general, I think it should stay where it is - from what I've seen: the "controversy" about those isn't normally "is this block consistent with the blocking policy?" (in which case this would be a fine venue) - but some other manner of controversy. So it is more about what needs additional review - the action, or the target. — xaosflux Talk 17:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Actually, the first request here was filed by an admin asking for a review of their specific tool usage.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to add this into that: "After placing a potentially controversial block, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard or administrative action review for peer review." —valereee (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Bolded !votes

One rationale for and against this project was avoiding drama (mostly compared to AN/I). I'm not a fan of bolded !votes and, even if I am familiar with some programming languages, "!vote" still has the same (pseudo-Streisand) effect as "vote!!!11!!(1)" or "!!vote!!" to me. Bolded endorse or overturn initials are currently encouraged, with syntax details, in the introduction. I guess bolding can be helpful for closers and for the ones following or !following convoluted discussions, but promotes adversarial communication (guess the proposal also uses these expressions in italics). Discussions at AN/I are sometimes considered suboptimal, yet bolded !votes seem relatively uncommon there, this kind of defeats my argument. The proposal refers to a structured discussion, but I'm not sure if this is to be intended as structured around endorsements and overturns or around related policies, which looks to me like a good way to avoid getting personal. The few already present entries seem to follow two different structures at a first, lazy, bold/not bot biased look, I don't think this is a problem by itself. 109.119.244.41 (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  • The idea behind encouraging bolded endorse/overturn !votes (which was explicitly proposed in the RfC) is not to turn this into a ballot, but to keep it focused on a restricted set of outcomes. One of the problems at ANI (at least in my eyes) is that discussions there spin out into multiple parallel threads, e.g. on whether the original conduct was bad, but at the same time on whether to sanction because of it, and on what the sanction should be, and general comments on our current rollback policy, and comments on comments or conduct in the ANI, boomerangs, and so on and so on. We see the same dynamic across processes: the more options are on the table, the more likely the discussion is to 'trainwreck' and not reach a consensus. So here we're not going to stop anyone commenting on whatever they wish, but if we can establish a convention of bolding the outcome you want, it should help keep things moving towards a resolution. – Joe (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:XRVPURPOSE actual reasons as opposed to mere scope of application

I propose the following addition to the box as the third point the second part (after Administrative action review may be used:):

Administrative action review may be used to appeal actions fitting the above criteria if:

  1. There was an instance of WP:TOOLMISUSE / use inconsistent with a specific policy/guideline dealing with such an action (e.g. WP:ROLLBACKUSE).
  2. The action significantly breaches the care and judgement expectation, and has a specific bad effect, the remedying of which would require overturning.
  3. An action was restrictive when it's reasonable to assume that a significantly less restrictive action, or a non-restrictive alternative, would have achieved the same effect.
  4. Someone believes that an action extending from a specific consensus was done based on an incorrect interpretation of that consensus.
  5. Significant new information has come to light since the action had been taken, that would justify undoing the action, or taking a very different action.
  6. An action was technically mishandled, leading to an unintended result, or in such a way that it's hard to say what exactly was done.
  7. There were substantial procedural errors in the taking of the action.
  8. An action was inappropriately broad in scope. (There was good cause for a specific action, but one or more additional actions were taken in connection, which was not justified.)
  9. An action / set of connected actions were inappropriately narrow in scope. (There was good cause for a set of specific actions, but only one or several of them were taken / the single action failed to address all of the things that it was justifiably expected to.)

When it's fairly clear that none of the above reasons are stated in the review nomination, it can be speedily closed. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to enumerate a list of specific reasons why a filer could contest an action. I think in the vast majority of cases, filers will be able to make an argument regarding why their case fits one of the reasons. Given the sentiment in an earlier thread that parties should not be rushed in expressing their viewpoints, I think it's better to just discuss the situation directly on its merits, rather than trying to squeeze in a second discussion on whether or not the case should be speedily closed. There can always be exceptional situations, of course, where a case is clearly inappropriate and can be dealt with expeditiously. isaacl (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
In a significant number of cases they will not be able to include a relevant argument. We know this from DRV and MR, and elsewhere. The number of such instances is large enough to say that it would not be the "vast majority of cases" which would be a proper use of the venue. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I think in most cases, filers will argue that the decision in question did not follow accepted guidance and had a negative effect. Thus it will be necessary to discuss the matter to evaluate the argument. In which case, I think we should just discuss the matter, rather than discuss if the filing should be speedily closed. isaacl (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
We should not discuss the matter if there is no chance of success (this is how DRV has worked at it's best). For example, editor X says: "Editor Y protected page Z, and I want to edit that page". This appeal has no chance of success. Under the current WP:XRVPURPOSE this would not be transparently liable to speedy closure. Sure, someone could reasonably speedily close that, but there's no transparent cogent reason to do so. That's an undesirable scenario. It would be much better to say: "Speedy close because the appeal contains no WP:XRVPURPOSE-relevant reason".— Alalch Emis (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
It would probably be easier if we just said something similar to what WP:DRV#Speedy closes says, for instance "Discussions may be speedily closed by any administrator if they are obviously frivolous or disruptive." Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Take this hypothetical appeal: "Rollbacker reverted many of my improvements". Rollback is one of the actions within the scope of the venue. Frivolous? Who's to say? But it still makes no sense to debate this in a venue such as this. Not as easy to define frivolous here as it is there. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps we just have different views of what should be speedily closed. I would not speedily close that appeal, since it claims that the rollbacker was reverting "improvements" (i.e. good-faith, non-vandalism edits), which is a problem and worthy of further investigation. (Perhaps I'm being overly generous.) It might be best to defer this discussion for a little while: once we have a few more concrete cases of problematic appeals, it'll be easier to set some guidelines for speedily closing them. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
If there was good cause for the action (rollback), it should not be overturned despite something bad potentially coming from it. Things produce both good and bad effects. The appellant needed to have said that rollback wasn't needed in the first place, as just the last change was actually disputed, for example. Also the apellant could have made a partial restoration of content lost in the WP:MASSR without appealing in this venue. Only if they were reverted and responded to with something like "You have been rollbacked, now go seek consensus", it would be something to debate here, i.e. someone possibly abusing/misusing rollback. Edit: but yes, defer discussion to a later date. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I see that as being the sort of argument that should be made in an XRV, not the sort of argument that should keep an XRV from proceeding in the first place. (I, for one, would probably !vote to overturn almost any use of standard rollback that fell outside of the WP:ROLLBACKUSE criteria, even if the revert itself was otherwise defensible, on the grounds that a revert without an edit summary violates WP:BITE except in cases of clear vandalism, block evasion, etc.) It'll be interesting to see how these discussions play out. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Even with the most recent change I agree with others above that this set of parameters isn't helpful at this time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The instructions for Closing a review seem contradictory

The instructions begin saying: "Discussions are open for 7 days, after which an uninvolved administrator may close them." and conclude saying: "When possible, the closer should implement the outcome. If it is not, the closer should notify a user who can execute as needed." If the closer must be an uninvolved administrator, what kind of outcome would not be possible for them that would be possible for some other user? Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

For example, the administrator could lack the technical ability to implement a change involving templates or modules. Another example is a case where the interface administrator privilege is needed. isaacl (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I could imagine a situation where a user was found to be a sock and based on that finding, a global lock was requested. If the sock finding was voided, not only would the account need to be unblocked but a steward would need to be contacted to undo the lock. I could also imagine a revdel being overturned and you'd need to get a subject matter expert involved to figure out how to properly re-integrate the material into the article. I think the wording is useful; it says that if you can't do everything that's needed to implement your decision, it's your job to find somebody who can. I don't imagine it'll get invoked very often, but it makes sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks RoySmith, you've spoken well and I completely agree. I agree with Isaacl as well and follow how technical inabilities could easily come about (to possibly include modifications to range blocks as well). Nevertheless, I don't see Edit filter manager or Interface administrator listed as advanced permissions within our purview and therefore suggest, if you envision this venue reviewing such actions, that the advanced permissions list should probably be expanded to include those user groups. Thanks again.--John Cline (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The original RfC didn't link to the Wikipedia:Request for permissions page to define "advanced permissions", so personally I think in theory interface changes are within scope. But due to the technical considerations in the decisions, coupled with the lack of contentiousness in the area, it's probably fine to continue to hold such discussions at the technical village pump. (I hadn't raised any examples based on edit filter decisions. I think of those as being highly technical in nature, particularly regarding performance, and so better suited for a specialized venue.) isaacl (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Threads at AN and ANI are regularly closed by non-admins. If an XRV concerns use of the page mover permission, for example, there will be non-admins who have the power to implement any consensus. Admins are meant to have a few extra tools but no special powers for evaluating consensus (though hopefully many have plenty of experience and good judgement), so why do the closure instructions not call for an uninvolved editor? 172.195.96.244 (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

AN and ANI generally aren’t closed by non-admins, except sometimes for off-topic/unproductive/etc or purely clerical reasons. This page is more akin to DRV, which is never closed by non-admins. MRV is, but only because it’s so inactive of a venue that it doesn’t have many admin regulars (in closing) and discussions linger indefinitely otherwise. While I think most discussions anyone experienced should be able to close, conduct ones and ‘action reviews’ are best left to admins, since they’re the only ones who have been vetted by the community. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

checkuser/oversight/arbcom blocks

I propose adding under "Administrative action review should not be used":

  1. for a block marked with any variation of {{CheckUser block}}, {{OversightBlock}}, or {{ArbComBlock}}.

I assume that was always the intent, but it's good to make it explicit. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree.--John Cline (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I wondered if CU/OS actions were under the scope of XRV. What would be the reason for adding this text? That CU/OS blocks are based on non-public information? So too are many administrative actions. — Bilorv (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
They can't be overturned here, per policy (WP:CUBL, WP:OSBL, WP:UNBAN) and ArbCom precedent, so it would be an aimless discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I didn't think XRV had the power to overturn anything. From the original proposal: Acting on [a discussion's] consensus, if necessary, is deferred to existing processes. — Bilorv (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv Consensus at XRV is supposed to be sufficient for actions that are not endorsed to be reversed by any editor or administrator (quoting from the same place). So as I understand it, in a sense XRV does have the power to overturn decisions, but the actual undoing of the action is left to the 'normal' process of undoing an action when consensus is against it - although the instructions do say When possible, the closer should implement the outcome. But to the issue at hand: these types of blocks should be excluded because a consensus at XRV wouldn't be enough for them to be reversed. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 18:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clear explanation, PJvanMill. — Bilorv (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv You said you wondered if they were within the scope. The reason for adding this text is precisely to keep people from wondering that. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
So would the text "Administrative action review can be used ..." — Bilorv (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're going. Are you suggesting that XRV can be used to overturn those kinds of blocks? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
There's clearly some kind of miscommunication overcomplicating things here. The point of my comments is: why do we want to exclude CU/OS actions from the scope of XRV? I've not taken an opinion either way, because I don't understand the arguments for or against. — Bilorv (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Investigation of CU/OS actions is within the purview of ArbCom. ArbCom blocks are appealable only by the blocked user, again to ArbCom. Maxim(talk) 18:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
This should go without saying but seemingly it does need to be said: this board is by definition unable to review CU or OS actions of any kind. Functionary actions in particular are always based on material covered by the foundation-level acess to nonpublic data policy. I support adding some form of Roy's proposed wording to make this explicit. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm somewhat nervous about seeing account creator listed here as well; for creation of accounts by account creators through the WP:ACC process probably also ought not be reviewed here - private data from the ACC tool likely will play a part in anything done which was controversial enough to be brought here, making it impossible to review here. stwalkerster (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
So that makes sense. But if someone is doing this poorly where is the place to review it? As others have pointed out checkuser and oversight both have a review process and are thus, definitionally, ineligible for XRV. What is that for ACC? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, if someone's misusing accountcreator outside the ACC tool, or if the situation doesn't depend on private info from ACC, then here is probably fine. However, if someone's misusing accountcreator with the ACC tool, that's generally handled by the ACC tool admins. I don't have an issue with things being raised here, but I kind-of want to set expectations that things may need to be looked at in a more private context depending on what the issue raised is, and a blanket "ACC issues are reviewed here" isn't going to be accurate. stwalkerster (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I apologise, I'm really not wording this well. Basically, my nervousness is a) private data, b) community expectations that this is unquestionably the right place. I want to nip b) squarely in the bud because a). stwalkerster (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • These type of blocks have an existing review process, XRV didn't take over things that have their own existing review processes (e.g. DRV & DRV for deletions and moves, BOTN for botflag stuff). — xaosflux Talk 19:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The above seems like consensus, so I've gone ahead and made the change. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrative_action_review/Archive_1&oldid=1064991308"