Wikipedia:Administrative action review/Archive 2

I’m beyond fed up.

 * Action:
 * User: (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]])

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  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&cent; 12:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Gumn
Action: Declining my Draft:Gumn, when it does meet Basic WP:GNG as required in a WP: Notability. User: (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,, 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. grasses me up :) apologies, merely a lighthearted remark vis à vis the IP pinging you six times  :)    ——Serial Number 54129  14:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saqib&diff=prev&oldid=1222868417 — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 14:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I suspect this is the banned user, . 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)
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Nauman335 — 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)
 * 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)
 * Noting the IP is blocked with a note for them to log into their account to edit. S0091 (talk) 16:11, 10 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&cent; 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&cent; 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. Toadette Edit! 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)
 * 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. –&#8239;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, 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  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)
 * |1, This one User:Valereee is from Images Dawn. 182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that the page explicitly states that it is a comment and is thus unreliable. Toadette Edit! 15:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's definitely sigcov, but like Ravensfire I'm questioning the editorial oversight. Valereee (talk) 16:07, 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. –&#8239;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)
 * First, you linked to Subpages and not WP:SOCK. Second, you have been editing in the same areas and often asking assistance from other, in addition to requesting reviews from others. Toadette Edit! 15:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you could strike that comment, . As you know, then there's a place to share suspicions of sockpuppetry. But unless and until it's proven by a CheckUser, repeating the accusation elsewhere is just casting aspersion. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The first AFC reviews didn't really address the main relevant criteria (meeting GNG) and the last one mentioned it but also spoke of presence of non-GNG or lower grade sources. I think article would have passed NPP and AFD as is,  (which is supposed to be the AFC criteria)  but since it's under a magnifying glass and there have been prior declines the GNG compliance bar is inevitably going to get raised a bit.  Suggest that the creator do their best to find the best possible sources with respect to GNG (published independent sources that cover the topic of the article in depth) and then carefully get ready to re-answer the question posed by Valereee above, keeping in mind the other analysis and comments made by Valereee.  Maybe this could get handled here/now or I'd be happy to look at it later if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Assuming there's no socking going on (I have no idea yes or no), I would have thought that the way to get a second opinion, if you honestly believe the previous review was wrong, would be to resubmit for a new review. In this case, Saqib has reviewed all 3 submissions.  If no other reviewer is going to review this, then going to ANI or here or WT:AFC or something is the IP's only chance for a review, so this is not forum shopping.  I'm surprised AFC isn't a little more like unblock requests, where it is poor form for the same admin to reject more than once. Wouldn't the solution here be "Saqib, please leave it for another reviewer"? But I find it a little hard to believe that AARV's purpose is to go into the content weeds and ask for and review 3 sources to determine notability.  Surely that's AFC territory, not AARV territory? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Typically rereviews are by different editors. This one was resubmitted so quickly each time, though. Valereee (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Floq - I'm pretty new to NPP, just started a couple of days back. I've had patrolling rights for a while but I never really got into it until now. So, I'm not sure if it's okay for the same reviewer to keep reviewing the same drafts. I'll definitely be more careful next time if that's a rule. The thing is, there's a big backlog in patrolling pages, so I figured I'd at least pitch in on Pakistan-related pages. That's why I ended up reviewing this one three times, and this too. But like I mentioned earlier today, I'm cool with anyone else giving it a review. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 16:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I worded it the way I did because I really have no idea if it is against a written rule or not. Indeed, I suspect if it was explicitly against a rule, someone would have said so by now. I just think that, rule or not, it seems like wise practice. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright but here's the thing. If you check the draft's history, it's obvious they keep asking for reviews without making any edits, let alone fixing the issues. So, I figured it would be OK to reject it repeatedly. Like I mentioned, we already have a big backlog so why do we keep letting this page sit when it's clearly not ready to be moved to the main NS? And let's be real, the IP isn't innocent either. — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 16:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For two reasons; (1) as a human, you might occasionally be wrong about something, and another reviewer might have a different opinion, or even when you're right, another reviewer might have different suggestions, and (2) because you avoid the kind of drawn-out meta-discussion that is occurring right here, when a content dispute turns into a behavioral dispute to no benefit.
 * Trust your fellow reviewers to notice no changes were made before re-submitting. One person repeatedly declining a submission requires some system to appeal to others.  Two reviewers declining a submission means, if nothing else, there's a kind of consensus against accepting.  And if there is a large backlog, then if you leave re-reviewing to others, it gives you a chance to review a new page. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Points taken, thanks! — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 17:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Unilateral overturning of a close by Seraphimblade

 * Action: Reopened a closed RfC while the close was still being discussed at AN, twice
 * User: (prior discussion)

closed a lengthy RfC at the reliable sources noticeboard. S Marshall is a highly experienced closer but not an admin. As inevitably happens with contentious RfCs, a review of his close was requested at WP:AN shortly thereafter. After first attempting to resolve the issue with S Marshall, and  challenged the close on two separate grounds and invited comment from the closer, participants, and uninvolved editors. So far so routine.

initially commented on the request as a "non-participant", arguing that the close should be overturned. A couple of hours later, he indicated to S Marshall that he considered him involved and intended to reverse the close if S Marshall did not do so first. There was a brief discussion in which S Marshall denied being involved and pointed out that he could not justify unilaterally overturning his close on the basis of WP:NACD (as he tried to) because it only applies to deletion. Nevertheless, Seraphimblade reopened the discussion, stating that he expected "pushback or [...] people shouting at me". At that time comments had been given both endorsing and overturning the close. Multiple editors (including me) then objected to Seraphimblade's unilateral action and reverted it on the grounds that the AN discussion was ongoing. Seraphimblade then edit warred to reopen it a second time, using rollback, without an edit summary.

I don't wish to shout at Seraphimblade but I do believe that this is a clearly inappropriate unilateral action while there as an ongoing attempt to achieve consensus. I don't understand why he thinks being "upset by [the close] because of how clearly unacceptable it was" permits him to disregard the opinions of other editors who were trying to engage in discussion. His attempt to justify this by citing WP:NACD is both incorrect and an abuse of the privileged position his admin tools give him.

Why is this at XRV? Although closing or reopening discussions isn't an admin action, Seraphimblade has explicitly justified this action with the claim that it is "one of the powers the community has granted sysops". He also misused rollback in reverting Serial Number 54129. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Overturn and warn. One editor (admin or not) shouldn't get to decide that an editor who made a good faith, reasoned close, is involved and unilaterally overturn that close. It's particularly egregious that this occurred while a close review, where people could discuss that aspect of the close, is ongoing. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Joe Roe, I think you meant XRV, not XFD. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do not endorse. (disclosure: I am clearly involved with regards the RFC, but not regarding the subsequent discussions) It is completely inappropriate to unilaterally overturn the closure of an RFC that is being actively discussed at AN (or a similar venue). If the AN discussion was heading for a very clear consensus to overturn then someone uninvolved with both discussions could reasonably close the AN discussion per SNOW and then implement that at the RFC page. However there was very clearly no consensus at AN and discussion was still ongoing so that doesn't apply. To then edit war to reinstate your inappropriate action cannot be justified by even a very liberal reading of BRD. The RfC closure should be restored unless and until such time as there is a clear consensus at AN that it should not stand. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment My general feeling is that if an uninvolved administrator believes a non-administrator is involved, then that non-administrator should not be closing the relevant discussion, and if they have already closed it should withdraw their close. BilledMammal (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Admins are not infallible. As is clear from the discussion, not everyone agrees that the closer was involved. And if they did, that would be grounds for an overturn of the close, not unilateral action during a close review. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, but they have been vetted by the community. I support non-admin closures, but the closers need to recognize that they are not admins and in key questions like WP:INVOLVED defer to uninvolved admins, to avoid drama and the discussion being tainted. BilledMammal (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If that happened before the AN thread was opened, sure. But you'd already asked the community to review whether S Marshall was involved, and they were in the middle of trying to do so when Seraphimblade overturned the close. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on other processes, like WP:DRV, it shouldn't matter when in the process the admin decides to step in. BilledMammal (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * When any matter is under active discussion then that discussion should not be unilaterally pre-empted unless there is a very clear consensus in that discussion. This matter was under discussion and did not have any sort of consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm bitterly disappointed and thoroughly unhappy about this, and I've rarely felt so disrespected on Wikipedia. I ask the community to reverse Seraphimblade's decision as well as condemning it.  I thought we'd long since established that sysops don't get to summarily overturn RFC closes on any grounds at all.  These are content decisions.  Sysops have no special authority over those.  We obviously need to write that somewhere unmistakeable in a great big font.I'm appalled that people are criticising Seraphimblade for using rollback without an edit summary.  If you think that's what's wrong with Seraphimblade's actions here, then all I can say is, what the heck?—S Marshall T/C 13:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Using rollback is just something additional to the reckless actions here. It's not the main point and just shows misuse of administrative tools to push their own opinion. Aaron Liu  (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe I'm the only person that's mentioned rollback and I did so only to try and give the full description of the situation. I agree that it's inconsequential. That Seraphimblade apparently thinks that being an admin gives him the right to pre-empt the process of forming consensus is the main issue, and I find it as retrograde as you do. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologise if it seems I overly focussed on one thing at WP:AN. I agree that what's appalling is SB's willingness to ramraid community expectations. I merely intended to provide another, lower league yet "still-same-ballpark" example demonstrating that their bulldozer approach was not necessarily confined to just the re-opening.  ——Serial Number 54129  14:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do not endorse, warn. Per above, this was clear overstepping that has now been reverted. Aaron Liu  (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What does "endorse archiving" mean in this context? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Endorse having the RfC stay archived. You see, voorts said "endorse overturn" above, but that's ambiguous as the very action we're discussing here is the overturning of a close. Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For clarity, my !vote is overturn Seraphimblade's unilateral overturning of the RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Since everyone here seems to be about "endorse or not endorse the administrative action, I'll change it to "not endorse". Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do not endorse, warn: I'm involved but I feel that this is kinda obvious actually. Loki (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment. As a matter of fairness, it would be appropriate to allow Seraphimblade, as the admin whose actions are being reviewed, a resaonable time to respond to this thread before people start taking positions and casting !votes. I know he has made some comments in the AN thread, but that is not a substitute for the opportunity to address the specific assertions made here. (This is a general comment applicable to virtually any discussion on this board.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree with this assessment. Seraphimblade was warned that there would be consequences for such actions, knowing there would be "push back", and did so regardless and irrespective of such concerns. I'm personally reserving judgement before hearing from the user in question, but I don't believe others should do so, and editors can always change their !votes. CNC (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree on entirely different grounds. AFDs are routinely closed without input from the article starter.  SPIs are routinely closed without input from the alleged sockmaster.  People are routinely blocked without the chance to speak in their defence.  I think it's wrong in principle to treat sysops any differently.—S Marshall T/C 15:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair point, even if it's somewhat irrelevant now. We now have the "not sorry, now sorry" replies for re-opening the RfC from Seraphimblade. Someone should probably collapse this conversation as off topic. CNC (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I apologize for using rollback in what Joe has noted. I didn't mean to do that, and that was probably a misclick in reading through everything here. That said, I do think this discussion needed to be reversed, and I don't apologize for that. It was a bad closure, and did need to be reopened. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I didn't mean to do that, and that was probably a misclick in reading through everything here is quite puzzling. While it is possible I have misunderstood, I would have thought that nothing which happened "here" could have had any bearing on a click potentially misclicked before there was a "here" here. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 15:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That part only applied to using the rollback. Aaron Liu  (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get that. But either the use of rollback probably was or probably wasn't an inadvertent misclick before this discussion was opened.--  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 15:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do not endorse There was an active discussion underway to determine community consensus on the appropriateness of the close. As this was not a case of, for example, hiding BLP issues, there was no reason not to let the discussion run. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On a procedural note, as per instructions, please simply consider if the actions in question should be endorsed or not endorsed. isaacl (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do not endorse the reopening I think that Seraphimblade had some valid points in the reopening discussion but that does not change that this was clearly procedurally improper.  And using the admin imprimatur is equally as significant as using admin tools, even when not invoked, plus here it was actually invoked. I can't see where Seraphimblade weigh-in here would change the fundamentals but it could change if anything more than a reversal and a trout is called for. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's clear that the community does not endorse what I did here. Given that, while I think it was the right action, I cannot stand behind my action if the community does not. So, I apologize for my action and withdraw it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do not endorse the re-opening of the RfC while the close review was in progress. The admin was warned that it wasn't a good idea to do so but ignored concerns of other editors and overturned the close regardless. They were upset and appear to have allowed emotion to dictate action rather than reason, made no apology for re-opening the RfC (aside from the use of rollback) while discussion was in progress, and even stand by that decision to disrupt consensus building . Edit: I see the apology above, but only after standing by the decision in the first place, thus remains far from convincing and I still do not believe they are fit for the role of an administrator. CNC (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As a procedural note, this venue cannot determine whether someone is or is not fit for the role of administrator. If you think something stronger than "not endorsed" is appropriate you will need to start a discussion at an appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. It wasn't a proposal, merely an opinion. CNC (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do not endorse the use of rollback. It was obviously not consistent with WP:ROLLBACKUSE, and there's no need to discuss that any further. The only use of administrator tools was the use of rollback. The act of undoing the close as such (the initial edit that was followed by the use of rollback) is important context, but was not an administrative action in the sense of this forum's scope. I think this should be snowclosed as "not endorsed" with respect to the rollback click as such, and the underlying issue should be settled at AN. Per WP:XRVPURPOSE, Administrative action review should not be used to ... review of an action with a dedicated review process, and AN is a dedicated review venue for RfC closes and I would say it is also the dedicated venue to resolve procedural disputes relating to RfCs, both on the side of process and conduct, as AN is also a conduct forum. The start of this review should have limited the review to the use of rollback.—Alalch E. 15:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that closing and reopening RfCs is not normally an admin action, as I said, but Seraphimblade made it one by invoking his admin status when doing it. That is why I thought it would be best addressed here and indeed we seem to have reached a near-unanimous outcome rather quicker than the average AN thread.
 * Is AN described anywhere as the dedicated review venue RfC closes? It gets used for it a lot, to be sure, but I've always assumed that's because of AN's historic "I had nowhere else to put this so I'm putting it here" function. Which is a bit ironic, considering a major point of agreement here is that admins do not have a special role in determining RfC outcomes. Now we have WP:DFD, that might actually be a better place for them. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, AN is the designated place for close reviews. There was no consensus to start a separate venue back in December. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy close, not a deletion-related reopen, there's nothing to suggest the rollback was intentional, and this is not the place to bring WP:ADMINCOND cases. RAN1 (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, to quote the instructions: Before listing a review request, try to resolve the matter by discussing it with the performer of the action. The filer did not wait for a self-revert. RAN1 (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This was actually extensively discussed in the aforementioned AN close review. Aaron Liu  (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There isn't a word in policy that suggests that an RFC close revert is an admin action, and I don't understand why Seraphimblade thought deletion reopens were relevant, and I'm surprised nobody challenged that either. Likewise, it doesn't seem to have occurred to any of the participants to ask Seraphimblade if the rollback was an accident. RAN1 (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Despite the name, this board is not solely for review of admin actions but also "other advanced permissions", but given the action was asserted to be an admin action it is definitely on-topic here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Except nobody disputes that the revert has nothing to do with WP:MOPRIGHTS. RAN1 (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The review asks us to examine the overturning of the close as a whole, which was asserted to be an admin action, not just the use of rollback, and this board is explicitly not limited to reviewing only admin actions. Whether reviewing use of rollback is within the scope of this board has been discussed multiple times without clear consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't that covered by Special:ListGroupRights § sysop? RAN1 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They don't need to ask, he already said it was; I believe it, and maybe I should have done sooner.  ——Serial Number 54129  19:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The unilateral "overturning" should be reversed and Seraphimblade warned. One editor doesn't get to decide that. This RfC is still legitimately closed by S Marshall. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pretty astonished that SB complains that SM is involved, !votes in the discussion, and then (having quite unambiguously made themself involved) goes on to revert the closure -- seems like a striking lack of self-awareness, at a minimum. --JBL (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do not endorse although I don't like the terminology, it feels clumsy but I'm not sure what would be better. Some of this is my own opinion, that we've moved too far in the direction of NACs and have more bad closes and more wasted time on close reviews as a result. Anyway, Seraphimblade makes some good points on the WP:BADNAC problem. Anyone could see that an RFC like this is likely to be controversial, and letting an admin do it would have been easier. I followed the RFC, because I thought it might be another one that goes months without anyone else willing to close it. I do think there are legitimate issues with the close itself as well.However, is known as an experienced editor and closer who has a reputation for making difficult closes. It wasn't an emergency that had to be summarily vacated to prevent imminent harm, like vandalism or bots actively implementing the close result. The right thing to do would be to show S Marshall some respect, discuss the close on its merits, and let the community work it out.The rollback was also inappropriate, though that's a more minor issue. Undo or Twinkle revert with an edit summary would have been better. Seraphimblade says it was a misclick and that's a reasonable explanation; I've done the same and it's an easy mistake when the buttons are next to each other. The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do not endorse the use of rollback, which was out-of-process per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. However, as has already stated here that the use of rollback was wrong and offered an apology for using the rollback, I do think that we should close this discussion as the central item has been resolved. —  Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 19:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with multiple colleagues above that we have gone too far toward NACs; even when permitted by policy, in contentious areas they inevitably draw challenge on the basis of being NACs, and consequently waste more community time than they save. That said, there was nothing about this closure so inappropriate or urgent that it required reversal while a challenge was in progress. The reversal would therefore be inappropriate even if the original closure was found to be a mis-reading of consensus. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I deplore this credentialism. If someone feels there's something wrong with a close, then they can articulate that and we have a reasonable, objective, logical basis for discussion.  If someone feels there's something wrong with the closer, then we what we have is an ad hominem fallacy.—S Marshall T/C 21:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The preference towards admin closures of RFCs has always been because admins tend to be veteran, respected editors. Somehow this has morphed into the idea that BEING an admin somehow qualifies you to close contentious RFCs. This is the cart leading the horse, and further entrenching a strange divide between users and administrators, for seemingly no benefit. S Marshall is is probably more capable of closing discussions like that than a lot of administrators with no experience doing so. The idea that BADNAC applies to editors like him is frankly ridiculous. Parabolist (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)