User talk:Tony1/AdminReview/What people say

Q: What is your view of the notion of AdminReview, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached admin policy?
 * Question from Tony1

A: I agree that administrators need to be made more accountable, and that there needs to be some form of recourse for those in disputes, but I'm not sure that this proposal is the right way to go. In my opinion, this sounds a lot like a second ArbCom devoted entirely to admin abuse. As such, it may well replicate all of the problems associated with the ArbCom, but without the "teeth". Second, I'm concerned that this perpetuates a confrontational admin vs. user ethos. I understand the reasons for reserving seats based on adminship/regular status, but what if one of the user members becomes an admin? Must he resign? There's no real difference between the two groups of people other than a few buttons, but this seems to imply that it's us vs. them. Cool3

A: Yes. Wikipedia definitely needs a way of reporting possible admin misdeeds for community review. The way we do it now, mixed in with a hodgepodge of events at ANI, is not necessarily the best way. We have a forum for administrators wanting a review of their own actions at Wikipedia:Administrator review, but they are only initiated by admins themselves. A page which listed both threads of self-initiated reviews by admins, and threads initiated by non-admins who wish to report admins (in different sections) of course would be nice, and would (hopefully) reduce the strain on ANI. However, the methods which you have proposed at the link provided seem overly bureaucratic, and too empowering to non-administrators (e.g. admins cannnot serve as the coordinators). All that's really required is a good, old-fashioned discussion. Patar knight

A: The notion I like; I'm worried about how the notion would translate into practice. In theory, I think having a forum for editors who believe that they've been treated in some way unfairly by an admin is a good idea. It certainly appears that you have good intentions in proposing this method, and it seems to be well-considered. In practice, I wonder about the crossover between this process and RfC Admin. Are they intended to co-exist? Can they? When should an editor avail themself of one versus the other? I wonder about the amount of process and bureaucracy that are built into this to arrive at results that are essentially opinion/advice, without any intent or ability to be binding on either the editor or the admin. Naturally, I worry about the possibility — strike that, the likelihood — that this will be a magnet for drama. In fact, to the extent that I've followed the development of this process at all, the drama is unfortunately the one thing that's stood out, which I think is really unfortunate. I'm not saying that's a reason not to introduce this, but it's certainly something that would need careful management should this eventually become live. Mlaffs

A: My immediate view of the notion is that it is probably a good idea. I haven't had time to review the draft process. Wtmitchell

A- It seems a reasonable process to me at least, and, given that it is non-binding, it is virtually impossible to argue against having. Anything that increases the accountability of administrators to know the consequences of their actions must be a good thing, and if this process helps to narrow the widening gap between admins and everyone else then it has my support. Jarry1250

A: I had noticed the link to this recently and bookmarked the page for future reading, and just now did a quick read through of it. At the newly developed WP:ADREV I stated this, in hopes that something could fill the gap between the AN and AN/I postings, and the WP:RFAR official process. I also glanced through the old proposal at Administrator Review which is now obsolete. I think the WP:RFC/U process may be daunting for many users, and actually I think it likely serves editor concerns rather than administrative ones better. I think it's something the community wants, and I think that it could assist on the occasions where an administrator has gone off track a bit, and deserves some guidance and advice rather than to be hauled before ArbCom. Allow me to read through this in greater detail, and I'll return to answer questions 19 and 20 in a couple hours - I think they deserve more than a rushed through response. Ched Davis

A: It's a good idea in theory, but the problem that I see with it is that people who are in an aggravated conflict with each other are generally not going to be receptive to the process, while people who are in a non-aggravated conflict will generally resolve their differences by other means. Therefore, I think the process would see minimal usage. Matt (Mikaey)

A:' AdminReview, even while in draft form, in my opinion, has a great potential to become a substantial part of Wikipedia. This process, once refined, could easily help to resolve various user-sysop disputes in a definite and succinct manner. I believe this notion would be most beneficial in resolving disputes non-momentous enough for resolution through the Arbitration Committee. However, there are several possible shortcomings to AdminReview - the majority revolving around the fact that decisions made could be more or less biased. As with any processes that deals with complaints/grievances, the neutrality of uninvolved judges may be contested. Despite that, overall, I believe this process could feasibly be integrated into Wikipedia.Fastily

A: I do agree wikipedia should have a process for someone to seek a review of an admin's actions. However, the process needs to be capable of handling someone who swears they have indisputable evidence, but in reality is refusing to take responsibility for their actions. I think an admin review process should have limits, especially if the outcome is binding. First, I'd like to see civility better enforced in this new venue. For example, I would prefer people not be allowed to post notes below people's !votes questioning their motives. In "punishing" an admin, I'd prefer that the outcomes of the reviews carry more weight than the number of accusations. Davemeistermoab
 * Thanks. Quick comment—it explicitly relies on participants' good-faith (see "Nutshell"), and has very strict rules about civility and evidentiary admissibility (unlike ... ... another process I won't name here). Tony (talk)

A:That is a very well written proposal, and the idea of having a majority of non-admins as coordinators is admirable. I am supportive of anything that will dial down the decibel level at the Administrators Noticeboard in relation to admin-related issues, and I believe we need an orderly resolution of this type of problem. My one concern is having an even number of coordinators, due only to the risk of a tie vote that might be seen as inconclusive. I would prefer seven coordinators instead of six, if only to ensure resolution instead of deadlock. Pastor Theo