Wikipedia:Administrative action review: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 2607:FB91:13A1:621B:2F4F:7E59:C081:8FC6 - "→Discussion: " |
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
I completely agree with the last comment by Chalst, as the circumstances comes across as gaslighting and the ban was not only unnecessary but unprofessional. However, I over reacted by a mile, so I apologize. Coming from my background, you'd think I would show more respect towards those that support my family heritage, let alone knowledge itself. I will do further research to provide a better contribution. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:13A1:621B:2F4F:7E59:C081:8FC6|2607:FB91:13A1:621B:2F4F:7E59:C081:8FC6]] ([[User talk:2607:FB91:13A1:621B:2F4F:7E59:C081:8FC6#top|talk]]) 00:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
I completely agree with the last comment by Chalst, as the circumstances comes across as gaslighting and the ban was not only unnecessary but unprofessional. However, I over reacted by a mile, so I apologize. Coming from my background, you'd think I would show more respect towards those that support my family heritage, let alone knowledge itself. I will do further research to provide a better contribution. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:13A1:621B:2F4F:7E59:C081:8FC6|2607:FB91:13A1:621B:2F4F:7E59:C081:8FC6]] ([[User talk:2607:FB91:13A1:621B:2F4F:7E59:C081:8FC6#top|talk]]) 00:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
+ I do not know what you are referring to with the banners, but okay. I didn't see any banners. |
|||
I will not be replying moving forward to this unless required, and will make an account since anonymity creates issues. |
Revision as of 00:12, 28 February 2022
Formal review processes |
---|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
Administrators' noticeboard |
In bot-related matters: |
|
Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Administrative action review (XRV/AARV) determines whether use of the administrator tools or other advanced permissions is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Any action (or set of related actions) involving a tool not available to all confirmed editors—except those covered by another, more specific review process—may be submitted here for community review. The purpose of an administrative review discussion is to reach a consensus on whether a specific action was appropriate, not to assign blame. It is not the place to request comment on an editor's general conduct, to seek retribution or removal of an editor's advanced permissions, or to quibble about technicalities.
To request an administrative action review, please first read the "Purpose" section to make sure that it is in scope. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Administrative action review may be used to request review of:
- an administrator action
- This includes any action that may be deemed functionally equivalent to an administrator action even when it is not technically an administrator action, because it was an action of an administrator asserted by the administrator to have been performed in a capacity exclusive to administrators (usually actions associated with the conventional role of administrators in certain processes, even when they do not require the use of administrative tools).
- an action using an advanced permission
Administrative action review should not be used:
- to request an appeal or review of an action with a dedicated review process
- For review of page deletions or review of deletion discussion closures, use Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV)
- For review of page moves, use Wikipedia:Move review (MRV)
- to ask to remove a user's permissions:
- 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 administrators' noticeboard or incidents noticeboard report, or a request for arbitration, as appropriate.
- to argue technicalities and nuances (about what the optimal action would have been, for example), outside of an argument that the action was inconsistent with policy.
- to ask for a review of arbitration enforcement actions. Such reviews must be done at arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"), at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"), or directly to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment requests page ("ARCA").
- for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioural problems; use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ("ANI") instead
- for serious, entrenched or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking; use Wikipedia:Arbitration ("ArbCom") instead
- for a block marked with any variation of {{CheckUser block}}, {{OversightBlock}}, or {{ArbComBlock}}; Contact the Arbitration Committee instead
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias. Such requests may be speedily closed.
Instructions
Initiating a review
- Before listing a review request, try to resolve the matter by discussing it with the performer of the action.
- Start a new discussion by clicking the button below and filling in the preloaded template.
- Notify the performer of the action of the discussion.
- You must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. You may use {{subst:XRV-notice}} for this purpose.
- Use of the notification system is not sufficient.
Participating in a discussion
Any editor in good standing may request a review or participate in discussing an action being reviewed. Participation is voluntary. The goal of the discussion is to determine whether the action is consistent with Wikipedia's policies. Contributions that are off-topic may be removed by any uninvolved administrator. You may choose to lead your comment with a bold and bulleted endorse or not endorsed/overturn, though any helpful comment is welcome. Please add new comments at the bottom of the discussion.
Closing a review
Reviews can be closed by any uninvolved administrator after there has been sufficient discussion and either a consensus has been reached, or it is clear that no consensus will be reached. Do not rush to close a review: while there is no fixed minimum time, it is expected that most good faith requests for review will remain open for at least a few days.
The closer should summarize the consensus reached in the discussion and clearly state whether the action is endorsed, not endorsed, or if there is no consensus.
After a review
Any follow-up outcomes of a review are deferred to existing processes. Individual actions can be reversed by any editor with sufficient permissions. Permissions granted at WP:PERM may be revoked by an administrator.
Closed reviews will be automatically archived after a period of time. Do not archive reviews that have not been formally closed.
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Administrative complaint Fixed
Greetings,
User:C.Fred - Wikipedia
Ignored the sources provided and claimed the edits were dubious. Then stated that the edit made is not what the person listed is most known for, while the link itself also provides information about electrical plating, which is not very known at all, with several other factors involved. This claim is self serving, based on the fallacy of popularity and fallacy of authority, that dictates what he is most known for according to the self governed wikipedia page itself by administrators. It is therefore also the fallacy of ignorance.
This user was reported to the administrative board, which was followed by a message from the user GiantSnowman, stating that the previous message that I posted was a test. Not sure what that meant, so I posted again with a title to minimize any further errors (did not originally add a title, by accident), which I was then blocked with "Your 'complaint' is baseless and is not going to be heard. You don't even mention the article in question! If you post it again I am going to block you for trolling ok? GiantSnowman 21:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)"
The article is provided by the username in their editing history, at the given time that was listed in the complaint. This is obviously an excuse by GiantSnowman, or in other words, playing games, to minimize truthful, honest, and worthy observation of the matter, showing unethical, dishonest, and dubious behavior by this administrator. The administrator also did not claim why the complaint was baseless for it to be solved, and simply blocked the claim with the excuse of "trolling", which is the ad hominem fallacy. Due to these listed fallacies, there is "truth" to be found that demonstrates from this given point, the unethicacy and illegitimacy of both administrators and their ability to fit the necessary role on the site.
2607:FB91:13A1:621B:2F4F:7E59:C081:8FC6 (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
- What is your involvement in this, 2607:FB91:13A1:621B:2F4F:7E59:C081:8FC6? — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- NB. I think this is about Shemitz (surname), per the edits by 72.76.208.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- TNT (talk • she/her) 22:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
*If the edit in question is this, it is a normal undo, not requiring special permissions. You should ask for an explanation on the talk page. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse action of GiantSnowman but recommend halving block length to 24h. This is going to sound harsh, but this is generally how things work on Wikipedia. If you escalate normal editing conflicts to involve admins, your get the sharp end of our editing policy. While a 48h bloc seems kind of long for what I understand is a first administrative action, it's within admin prerogative. I recommend that you wait out the block and then raise your query again on the talk page. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
No problem, I did not notice that factor in the discussion to move upon that understanding in previous discussions (obviously). Thank you for being polite/kind. What steps do you recommend to add the desired content and in what framework where it is appropriate for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:13A1:621B:2F4F:7E59:C081:8FC6 (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ask at Wikipedia:Teahouse if my suggestion about raising the matter on the talk page seems unclear. — Charles Stewart (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy close indecipherable complaint - if the complaining user cannot bother to provide minimal context in the form of diffs or even the title of the article/page where the administrative action occurred, I don't see how it's possible to treat this complaint seriously. We can guess what edits/actions they're talking about, but why bother? This seems to have become the place where anonymous editors extend their trolling session. —ScottyWong— 23:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- While I sympathise with reacting to cases like these with exasperation since they mean more work for our already overworked admin body, it's possible to approach them more constructively. Wikipedia says it welcomes edits from anyone, but actually going ahead and doing that for an anon account is full of risks. Here, while the edit notice for AN/I is full of scary banners, none of them actually explain that raising a complaint on AN/I is potentially dangerous and shouldn't be taken unless you dot your policy 'i's and cross your policy 't's. Perhaps if the new user experience was better here, the behaviour that comes across to you as trolling wouldn't happen. — Charles Stewart (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I completely agree with the last comment by Chalst, as the circumstances comes across as gaslighting and the ban was not only unnecessary but unprofessional. However, I over reacted by a mile, so I apologize. Coming from my background, you'd think I would show more respect towards those that support my family heritage, let alone knowledge itself. I will do further research to provide a better contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:13A1:621B:2F4F:7E59:C081:8FC6 (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
+ I do not know what you are referring to with the banners, but okay. I didn't see any banners.
I will not be replying moving forward to this unless required, and will make an account since anonymity creates issues.