Wikipedia:Administrative action review: Difference between revisions
→Draft:Gumn: Reply |
→Draft:Gumn: Reply |
||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
*::Yes, that's what I said. If you had an account, you could just move it. But it's completely fine that you choose not to make one. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 15:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
*::Yes, that's what I said. If you had an account, you could just move it. But it's completely fine that you choose not to make one. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 15:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
*:::[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nauman335|They used to do that]]. —[[User:Saqib|<span style="color:#005080">Saqib</span>]] ([[User talk:Saqib|<span style="color:#700090">talk</span>]] I [[Special:Contributions/Saqib|<span style="color:#996600">contribs</span>]]) 15:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
*:::[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nauman335|They used to do that]]. —[[User:Saqib|<span style="color:#005080">Saqib</span>]] ([[User talk:Saqib|<span style="color:#700090">talk</span>]] I [[Special:Contributions/Saqib|<span style="color:#996600">contribs</span>]]) 15:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
*::::Who they? Why you're inclined to prove me a [[WP:SP]]. [[Special:Contributions/182.182.97.3|182.182.97.3]] ([[User talk:182.182.97.3|talk]]) 15:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:38, 8 May 2024
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
- 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 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
I’m beyond fed up.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Action:
- User: Several. (talk · contribs · logs) ([[Cooied from a post I deleted. == Why can’t I even as for legit advice without getting in trouble here? ==
I seriously will try to get this account gone for good if I keep getting warnings despite objectively being civil I am fed up with the corrupt admins here and refuse to be here anymore if this keeps up for at least 5 days I am done. Fuck the system and the people enforcing it. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- You've done a good job in any case, as legal threats are a bright line for pretty obvious reasons. Good luck in the next life. Remsense诉 08:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- That’s not what I am doing I am threatening leaving for good if corrupt admins don’t stop bullying me. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- What does "will try to get this account gone for good legally" mean specifically? Remsense诉 08:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t know I am not a lawyer and am too busy getting on work on time to explain. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- So it involves the threat of some sort of legal action? See you in the bardo, then. Remsense诉 08:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)|prior discussion]])
- I don’t know I am not a lawyer and am too busy getting on work on time to explain. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- What does "will try to get this account gone for good legally" mean specifically? Remsense诉 08:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- That’s not what I am doing I am threatening leaving for good if corrupt admins don’t stop bullying me. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Don’t do anything except give me some advice. I am leaving on my own if a corrupt admin nitpicks one more time with a ban threat. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk)< Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- You need to be specific about who and what administrative action you want reviewed, or this is likely to be closed for being malformed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- To add, you were indeffed in 2012 for this same behavior. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's quite late where I live, but after reading through a bit of the background, my best guess is there is some distress that isn't directly related to Wikipedia. Maybe taking to the user talk page instead is a good idea, as I don't see any sanction that will "prevent disruption" as being useful. It may be that Blaze The Movie Fan needs a break away from here, of his own choosing. This place can be stressful, and while I don't want to assume anything, I get the feeling you don't need the extra stress right now. It's easy to blow things out of proportion when you are stressed, to be overly sensitive, and to take things out of perspective. This is true for all of us. But I don't think a discussion at ANI is going to find the solutions you are looking for, so as I said, maybe it's better to close this and the ANI thread and go to your talk page instead, and work it out there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Action: Declining my Draft:Gumn, when it does meet Basic WP:GNG as required in a WP: Notability. User: [[User:User:Saqib|User:Saqib]] ([[User talk:User:Saqib|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/User:Saqib|contribs]] · [[Special:Log/User:Saqib|logs]]) ([[I have discussed the issue on the Draft talk:Gumn, even User:Drmies admitted that draft is in a better condition comparatively with other drafts for WP: Articles for creation.|prior discussion]]) I want to get my draft published and reviewd by an independent reviewer as User:Saqib first declined my Draft and then removed sources citing WP:CRAP. Kindly, look into the matter.182.182.97.3 (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- This does not appear to have been an administrative action. Therefore, there's nothing to be reviewed here. --Yamla (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hey User:Yamla, Where to address the issue? I genuinely wants an independent review of my draft by someone other than User:Saqib. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- WP:FORUMSHOP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- But, Saqib, are you sure you got that ping...? ——Serial Number 54129 12:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Obviously. Why do you need to ask this? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- User:Serial Number 54129, ;) Drmies (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Am I missing something? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Heh. Drmies grasses me up :) apologies Saqib, merely a lighthearted remark vis à vis the IP pinging you six times :) ——Serial Number 54129 14:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- User:Serial Number 54129, ;) Drmies (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Obviously. Why do you need to ask this? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I suspect this is the banned user, Nauman335. I want to be clear, this is based solely on behaviour. I have not used checkuser tools here. --Yamla (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nauman335#01_May_2024 —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- You can have investigation on my IP to confirm the fact. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- So, just to be clear, you are acknowledging you are indeed Nauman335, evading your block. Is that correct? --Yamla (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, because User:Saqib has accused me of the same. When I'm not User:Nauman335, it's frustrating to be tagged with the WP:SP. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- So, just to be clear, you are acknowledging you are indeed Nauman335, evading your block. Is that correct? --Yamla (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yamla, left a comment on the SPI. Maybe WP:MEAT more than WP:SOCK but the pushy nature and focus feels like WP:UPE. And I'm quite certain they've had named accounts in the past, their editing and knowledge of Wikipedia is significant. Ravensfire (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- But, Saqib, are you sure you got that ping...? ——Serial Number 54129 12:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing to review - This isn't an administrative tool use, it is an editorial decision made by a reviewer at WP:AFC. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing to review. I wouldn't close the door to all review here of AfC Reviewer actions, since being a reviewer is essentially an advanced permission. That said, I would think that meaningful review here would have to be focused on procedural matters. We can't open the door to review of every approve/decline. I'd say the same about New Page Patrol actions. If all the OP wants is independent review of the draft, they just need to solicit outside feedback (which they've already done in other fora) and then be patient. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I should have been more clear, but yes, if there is some obvious abuse, but there were two declines with no edits between them. It's like the editor is shaking the Magic 8 Ball and hoping for a different outcome (reviewer) instead of at least trying to address the problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd really appreciate that. Thank you for your attention, Appreciated. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing to review please ip do not stalk Saqib. You've taken this everywhere, in my talk, in two admin's talks, at ANI, thats enough. ToadetteEdit! 14:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- In your talk it was about Draft:Hook (2022 TV series) and Draft:Wonderland (Pakistani TV series). Currently I'm concerned about Draft:Gumn. All of these are declined by Saqib, so he's stalking me, not vice versa. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Reviewers often specialize in particular areas they're familiar with. I specialize in articles in and around food. Saqib may very well specialize in Pakistani entertainment because they're familiar with reliable sourcing in that area. The fact they reviewed all of these doesn't mean they're stalking you. Valereee (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- In your talk it was about Draft:Hook (2022 TV series) and Draft:Wonderland (Pakistani TV series). Currently I'm concerned about Draft:Gumn. All of these are declined by Saqib, so he's stalking me, not vice versa. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree that this is out of scope of XRV. Only people that meet the criteria for the AfCR pseudoright can review AfC submissions, which makes it an "advanced permission" and therefore something that should be subject to community review. Since 182.182.* doesn't have an account, they also can't move the draft themselves. – Joe (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hey User:Joe Roe, I have never moved draft by myself. I just want an independent review of my Draft:Gumn by a trusted reviewer. Thank you! 182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- IP, which three and only three of the sources used best represent significant coverage in independent reliable sources? Asking editors to review this draft, which contains 25 sources, is a big ask. If you'll tell us which three and only three support a claim to notability, someone may be willing to take a look. Again, only the best three sources. Valereee (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, [1], [2] and [3], these 3 I believe meets WP:GNG. Thank you for your interest. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Images.dawn.com comes up 'not found'. Daily Jang appears to be sigcov, barely; is Daily Jang considered reliable/independent for entertainment news? Daily Times doesn't appear to be sigcov re:the show, it's really about the actor. Depending on the reliability of Daily Jang for entertainment, which I can't speak to, that would mean you have possibly one instance of sigcov. Some reviewers would accept two, but I like to see three. Valereee (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Try [4], IP pasted junk characters at the end. Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm, author has 6 article posted, all in the "Comments" section of the site. This has me slightly concerned [5] about the site in general and specifically this source - is this submitted, any editorial review and does this meet WP:RS? Not sure. Ravensfire (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- [6], This one User:Valereee is from Images Dawn. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm, author has 6 article posted, all in the "Comments" section of the site. This has me slightly concerned [5] about the site in general and specifically this source - is this submitted, any editorial review and does this meet WP:RS? Not sure. Ravensfire (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Try [4], IP pasted junk characters at the end. Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Images.dawn.com comes up 'not found'. Daily Jang appears to be sigcov, barely; is Daily Jang considered reliable/independent for entertainment news? Daily Times doesn't appear to be sigcov re:the show, it's really about the actor. Depending on the reliability of Daily Jang for entertainment, which I can't speak to, that would mean you have possibly one instance of sigcov. Some reviewers would accept two, but I like to see three. Valereee (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, [1], [2] and [3], these 3 I believe meets WP:GNG. Thank you for your interest. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I said. If you had an account, you could just move it. But it's completely fine that you choose not to make one. – Joe (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- They used to do that. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Who they? Why you're inclined to prove me a WP:SP. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- They used to do that. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- IP, which three and only three of the sources used best represent significant coverage in independent reliable sources? Asking editors to review this draft, which contains 25 sources, is a big ask. If you'll tell us which three and only three support a claim to notability, someone may be willing to take a look. Again, only the best three sources. Valereee (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hey User:Joe Roe, I have never moved draft by myself. I just want an independent review of my Draft:Gumn by a trusted reviewer. Thank you! 182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)